
Why don't I take military funding? (2004) - altotrees
https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/no-military-funding.html
======
brudgers
Original probably from late 2003 or early 2004. Still on Kuiper's homepage:
[https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/](https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/)

~~~
bgribble
There was an earlier version of this document, without the 9/11 discussion of
course, on Kuipers' homepage when I was a grad student in the early-mid 90's.

------
bgribble
Dr. Kuipers was my grad school advisor at the University of Texas. I found his
adherence to principles of pacifism and nonviolence, rooted in Quakerism, to
be very inspirational.

Certainly, as a graduate student, I would have had an easier time if we could
take DARPA money instead of only applying for grants from civilian
institutions (NSF, NASA, etc). I don't regret it.

Yes, many (most?) of our technological advances have come from military
motivations. But people like Kuipers who take principled positions of
nonviolence help create a vision of a society where that's not true any more.
We may never get there, but that doesn't matter.

There's a definitely similarity between Kuipers and Richard Stallman in that
regard... taking a strong principled position, even if it's not "practical",
can be very important. And both of them came out of the MIT AI lab at about
the same time :)

Kuipers trivia: he implemented the Common LISP "print" facility's ability to
render numbers as Roman numerals, as a joke, and submitted it to Guy Steele,
who was working on "Comon LISP: The Language". Steele included it in the book
and now it's part of LISP forever.

~~~
andremendes
I have never heard of Quakerism before and found it to be very inspirational
too! I also see similarity between Stallman and Kuipers and I think it's
because they both are very coherent to their beliefs. They strongly hold
personal values and apply them in day-to-day living, they are able to
professionally reproduce their core, personal beliefs.

~~~
sitkack
I think of it as the American version of a Christian-Buddhist sect. Look for a
"Society of Friends" meeting in your area.

------
kriro
In Germany (and Japan according to Wikipedia) there's the concept of
"Zivilklausel" which is a pledge by an entire university to only conduct
civilian research. The dual use problem remains and there's some loopholes but
by and large the universities that pledge to it follow it. Here's a link of
participating institutions (in German but mostly a list):
[http://www.zivilklausel.de/index.php/bestehende-
zivilklausel...](http://www.zivilklausel.de/index.php/bestehende-
zivilklauseln)

Notably 6 states have that clause in their university laws. Since I live in
one of them I have only conducted civilian research by default (yay?).

------
maxaf
Depriving the world's militaries of research brains isn't going to prevent or
lessen violence. Those who reach for violence as a commonly used tool will
continue to do so, with or without advanced researchers at their side, albeit
with cruder tools of warfare in case researchers do decide to walk away en
masse.

Perhaps a more impactful approach would be to resist the use of violence per
se, not the tools of war. I can see room for research into non-lethal weaponry
that can be sold to militaries and police forces as a turn-key, easy to use
solution which, on one hand, leaves room for violent yet non-lethal action,
and on the other hand doesn't exact a cost in human lives during conflict
resolution. Tasers are a crude prototype preview of what might be possible.
I'm thinking more along the lines of perfecting a non-lethal weapon that
doesn't electrocute a person while running the risk of stopping their heart
entirely. That doesn't count as non-lethal!

In short, the author's stance is commendable if short sighted. IMHO there are
better ways to resist violence than simply making a one-man stand.

~~~
onion2k
_Depriving the world 's militaries of research brains isn't going to prevent
or lessen violence._

It's not going to increase violence either though, and if nothing else, when
it comes to war and violence, maintaining the status quo is definitely better
than making things worse.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
No one would disagree with: "maintaining the status quo is definitely better
than making things worse".

But more debatable is: "Depriving the world's militaries of research brains
isn't going to prevent or lessen violence".

Examples:

\- smarter bombs that pinpoint their targets more accurately, thus reducing
collateral damage.

\- Better, lighter armor that increases survivability against roadside bombs,
allowing vehicles to safely patrol and keep an area peaceful.

\- Better battlefield medical tools like high tech "skin" to wrap over wounds
and save soldiers as well as civilians.

\- Take down a group's command and control electronics, forcing them to
retreat without a shot fired.

We can be clever and surgical in taking out insurgencies which are the vast
majority of the conflicts in the world, or just use massive, generalized brute
force as has been done for thousands of years with the obvious ramifications.

There's plenty of great reasons to support military research, don't you think?

~~~
mcguire
All four of those examples have the side effect of making military action more
appealing. I notice you did not include "monitoring communications to
successfully identify target insurgents (Really, insurgencies?)", which might
actually reduce "unnecessary" violence.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
But there are times when you have to take military action. Someone who is a
total pacifist may disagree; that is their right. But the majority does still
support the idea. Do you not agree that if we have to take out some baddies,
at least we should strive for minimum collateral damage?

~~~
Kristine1975
_> collateral damage_

You keep using that euphemism. Why is it so hard to say "killed civilians"?
(or "murdered civilians" if you subscribe to Tucholsky's quote)

~~~
adenadel
To be fair, collateral damage also refers to property damage as well.

~~~
jstnjosepht
"murdered buildings and infrastructure"

------
anonymous950
_(v) Pacifism. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious
sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer
not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of
intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be
hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist
propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other,
but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists,
one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are
directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they
do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence
of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for
defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of
this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that
the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British.
Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean
anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable
to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if
it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by
a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went
over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small
overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts.
Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual
fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as
it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an
admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning
this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered._ \-- Orwell,
Notes on Nationalism, 1945

~~~
Retric
Counter argument; pacifism accepts you don't control other countries. World
still catching on.

~~~
zeveb
> Counter argument; pacifism accepts you don't control other countries. World
> still catching on.

Reality's still catching on … war is, as Clausewitz noted, diplomacy carried
on by other means: just as diplomacy is a way to achieve a condition in which
one's goals are met, so too is war (albeit a spectacularly unpleasant and evil
way). Sometimes the good of one's goals outweighs the evil of war; sometimes
it doesn't.

One certainly _can_ control, or at the very least shape, what others do. If
not, why do we have laws? Why do we have RFCs? Why do we have common
languages?

~~~
Retric
You're confusing a _possible_ future with the present. Wars of aggression can
and often are lost. No country not even the US at the peak of it's power has
been capable of beating every other country out there while surviving.

------
dzdt
I took military funding for graduate school -- a National Defense Science and
Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship. My reasoning was I was studying pure
mathematics, and I knew my work had zero possibility of military applications.
So by taking their money I was diverting it to purely peaceful purposes.

And their funding was a bit higher than the NSF fellowship, so that choice
dovetailed nicely with self-interest.

It would have been a harder choice if my work did have potential military
application. I don't know if I would have had the backbone of the linked
professor. I admire his conviction.

~~~
raziel2701
Did you have to spend summers at DoD working for them? How was it?

~~~
dzdt
No, the NDSEG just pays for your grad school and provides a stipend. No extra
requirements outside of the degree program.

------
avukich
Couldn't a very good argument be made that military research has actually
prevented a LOT of conflicts? Think of what may have happened if the Soviet
Union and US didn't both have large nuclear arsenals. There is a very real
possibility that there would have been a WW3 between NATO and the Soviet Bloc
without M.A.D.

------
riot504
Star Trek provides the setting for an ideal military; we are currently far
from an ideal military as the best and brightest leave due to a variety of
reasons. Yes, weapons research is needed because you often encounter violent
species but research and exploration are above all; a thirst for knowledge is
more important than profit. In general a culture (society) we seek money over
knowledge. Certain individuals seek out knowledge with the goal of gaining
more money. I am not saying all of us are like this but take society as a
whole and a large percentage learn solely to earn more money, not for the
pleasure in learning.

------
jpmattia
> _And as I watched my colleagues dealing with DARPA 's demands for reports,
> PI meetings, bake-offs, delays and reductions in promised funding, and other
> hassles, I began to wonder whether I hadn't gotten the best side of the deal
> after all._

Applies to the startup world as well.

I've done startups in both Silicon Valley and Washington DC, and I have to
say: The time commitment is not as recognized as it should be. Folks that
build their companies around getting govt funding tend to get good at getting
govt funding, which is different from getting good at building product.

------
yodsanklai
I did a postdoc in the US which was funded by a US navy grant. I remember that
my supervisor told me that even if our research doesn't lead to any practical
application, at least it won't help to kill anyone.

~~~
iso-8859-1
If you had your name in your profile, I could look up your publications...

------
johngalt
Science funding explained [http://www.smbc-
comics.com/?id=1522](http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1522)

------
jtth
I don't understand. The funding sources he does accept can still be funded by
defense groups if they're cruising through proposals. It's ultimately the same
pot of money with the same reporting due to the government who will find out
the same things from the same sources. Just because you didn't get your
funding directly from ONR doesn't mean the DoD isn't funding your research.

------
jonjacky
Also pertinent: Terry Winograd's Thoughts On Military Funding (1984, with a
postscript from 2002):

[http://cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/newsletters/issues/200...](http://cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/newsletters/issues/2001/Summer/tw.html/)

------
mirekrusin
It's an interesting problem. Doesn't it mean that in long run, with this set
of mind, military will be filled in by people who "care less" about killing
people - therefore making the world "worse"?

Maybe having in military people with author's principles is what we need the
most?

~~~
mmagin
Fortunately, ideas and attitudes are contagious between groups of people.

------
mikeash
It's weird how a college professor refusing to take military funding is super
controversial, but if a programmer decides to work at, say, Apple instead of a
defense contractor, nobody bats an eye.

The comments here are full of people criticizing this guy's position and
saying that helping your country's military is better. How many of _you_ are
helping the military? Does this principle apply to everybody, or just college
professors? Or is it simply that he's public about the reasons for his choice,
so people feel a need to argue with it?

~~~
Grishnakh
A programmer works at Apple instead of a defense contractor because:

\- Apple pays _a lot_ better

\- Having Apple on your resume is _far_ more prestigious (in fact, it's
probably one of the most prestigious names to have on there, and I say that as
someone who does not like Apple too much and generally sneers at Apple fans)

\- Defense contractors are infamous for treating employees somewhat lousily
(see: furloughs)

In fact, I would seriously bat an eye at someone who, with offer letters from
both, chose to take a job at a defense contractor rather than Apple.

The main thing the defense contractor job has going for it is the working
hours are likely to be standard 9-5 with little or no overtime (as that gets
billed to a government contract, so you're generally not allowed to work
overtime without special approval). At high-profile places like Apple, unpaid
overtime is generally expected to some degree.

~~~
mikeash
All true, but for many people I know there is _also_ the reason that they
don't want to have anything to do with the military.

~~~
Grishnakh
I'm just pointing out that that's a really lame comparison. It's like asking
why you would choose to go to college and get a high-paying job instead of
just working at the grocery store (that might be exaggerating a bit).

No one is going to come down to a choice of defense contractor vs. Apple. They
aren't even located in the same place: defense contractors have no presence in
Silicon Valley that I've ever heard of. So you can't even make a choice
between the two without considering a cross-country move (military stuff tends
to be concentrated on the east coast), though there's a bunch in Phoenix too.

A better comparison would be defense contractor vs. working at some small
generic commercial company. They can be located near each other, both are
likely to have lousy pay for engineers/programmers, and neither is going to
look that great on a resume (actually, depending on what you work on, the
defense contractor will probably look better).

~~~
dragonwriter
There are plenty of defense contractor jobs on the west coast, including the
SF Bay Area (though, a lot more in SoCal than the Bay Area.)

~~~
Grishnakh
Apple's in Cupertino. How many defense contractors are near there? SoCal is
not commutable from Cupertino, any more than Seattle is.

~~~
dragonwriter
Quite a few; the aerospace/defense section of the Wikipedia page on Bay Area
companies listed several, for instance.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_based_in_t...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_based_in_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area)

------
banku_brougham
The right way to excercise your conscience and be an example for others. Thank
you for sharing this, I hadn't seen it.

------
george_ciobanu
Tell Iran about nonviolent methods. To have an overwhelmingly powerful
military in the right hands (Bush Jr. was not the right hands) is a big
safeguard against most crazy nations.

------
leecarraher
non-violence or pacifism aside, military grants are loaded with mountains of
mind numbing paperwork and bureaucracy ...pass.

------
Kenji
Wasn't the internet a direct result of government funded military research?
I'm all for boycotting war but I think there is some value in that research.

EDIT: Okay, he addressed that point in his article. However, I'd like to
double down on that objection. In this fantastic video (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WK_7lkrVg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WK_7lkrVg)
), Physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson argues how great projects come into being. He
names 3 main drivers: 1. Religion and serving deities (mostly irrelevant in
the western world, how the pyramids got built), 2. through economic incentives
and 3. as a survival instinct (war). Historically, it's always been one of the
three. I think military research is essential for progress and we need other
paths to make sure that our nation does not go to war. The solution to war is
not scientific ignorance, it's a pacifist population.

~~~
jt2190
There's a weird phenomenon in U.S. political system where it's much easier to
get spending approved by congress/voters if it's classified as "military".
Thus many things that could be civilian projects end up as military.

~~~
Kristine1975
That phenomenon is called "Military-Industrial Complex" ;-|

~~~
tosseraccount
Dwight Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" speech noted: "Only an alert
and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Furthermore, he warned "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in
respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger
that public policy could itself become the captive of a
scientifictechnological elite."

------
sillysaurus3
"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral --
doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the
ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate
it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more
issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is
wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forgot this basic truth have always
paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

\- Robert Heinlein

This quote stuck with me, possibly due to the force of its presentation rather
than its merits.

I thought it would be interesting to present the other side of the debate to
HN and open it up to comment. I'm undecided.

Heinlein's viewpoint and the author's viewpoint are polar opposites. Perhaps
the truth is somewhere in the middle.

~~~
qntty
But the OP never says that violence never settles anything, his position is
more nuanced than that (emphasis mine):

"In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide
the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face
_in the long run_. Military action, with its inevitable consequences to
civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore
_increases the danger that our country faces_."

~~~
ufmace
I honestly find his position kind of vague and impractical. He does recognize
that the perpetrators of 9/11 and other such attacks should be brought to
justice, but suggests that it be done through non-violent means. I would very
much like to know exactly what non-violent means he thinks might have been
effective at apprehending the Al-Quada bigwigs from a Taliban-controlled
Afghanistan.

When the people who need to be brought to justice are in a nation that is
friendly to them and entirely unconcerned about world opinion, economic
sanctions, and other such tools of international diplomacy, I fail to see what
realistic options there are besides violence. I may sound snarky at times, but
seriously, if anyone has any realistic and practical ideas, please say so.

That's more what bothers me about Pacifism - being totally unconcerned with
the realities of the world. They just say "find a non-violent way to do it"
and then leave somebody else to figure out how to do that. I think it only
applies in a few limited situations, and in general, pure Pacifism means you
will be dominated by anybody who is willing to use violence to achieve their
goals.

------
avukich
Too bad the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, Paris attacks, Brussels
attacks, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc don't follow the same belief system. Good
luck negotiating with them.

~~~
dragonbonheur
The terrorists (who were only hypocritically Islamic) who did 9/11 were
Saudis. America attacked Iraq in retaliation using massive military force.

What was your argument again? Don't bother, I'm not interested.

~~~
avukich
Why would you be interested? Why debate anything? Just jump in and make a
comment and then leave because that is the way it should be. I mean that is
how all things accomplished right?

The point is that believing that all problems can be solved in non-violent
ways is unrealistic. The terrorists who will gladly murder any man, woman, or
child to further whatever the hell it is that they are trying to further have
never and will never just stop being violent to negotiate. The only way to
deal with people who are that radical is through violent means.

Oh and maybe you should get your facts straight. America did not attack Iraq
in retaliation for 9/11\. America attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in
retaliation. America attacked Iraq because in theory there were WMDs there (I
will not argue the legitimacy of that because clearly that wasn't the case and
in hindsight that was an awful move).

~~~
dragonbonheur
Your argument falls apart precisely because of the violent and boneheaded
nature of American governments. America unleashes its military without
thinking of the consequences and there is no excuse for it.

~~~
avukich
So do tell, how would you have dealt with the terrorists that were responsible
for 9/11? Just like every good liberal you have said I am wrong without
offering an alternative.

~~~
dragonbonheur
Do you even remember that Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were funded by the CIA to
fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, among other things? America's disastrous
history of foreign intervention IS THE CAUSE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS TO DATE.
Don't put your noses where they don't belong and try to learn from your many
mistakes. That's all it takes.

~~~
avukich
Who gets to decide where the US's nose belongs? I am with you that we should
never support these knuckleheads like Bin Laden (which we are doing
a-freaking-gain with the Syrian resistance), but it certainly has felt a lot
like damned if you do, damned if you don't with the US. We get involved in
some way and everyone yells that we shouldn't be and if we don't get involved
everyone yells that we aren't helping.

Saying that "America's disastrous history of foreign intervention IS THE CAUSE
OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS TO DATE" is pretty silly. I bet most of Asia and Europe
are pretty darn happy that we intervened during WWI and WWII and I'd be
willing to bet that most South Koreans are pretty happy that we intervened
during the Korean War lest they be subjects of that little, fat megalomanic
Kim Jong Un. Do you disagree with those interventions? If so well then I guess
we are done here because we will never agree on anything. If not, then what is
the deciding factor on when to get involved and when not to get involved?

The fact of the matter is that we rely on oil from the middle east and we are
always going to get involved there because it is in our national interests.
Until we have zero reliance on foreign oil that isn't going to change. It
would certainly be wonderful if everyone just kept to themselves and we didn't
get involved with anything, but that isn't practical. The problems in that
area of the world really have very little to do with the US. They have been
fighting in the middle east for all of recorded history. Certainly longer than
the US has been a nation. Our involvement hasn't helped anything, but I am
increasingly of the opinion that nothing will help things over there.

~~~
dragonbonheur
US involvement in regime change:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change)

35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists:

[http://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_bac...](http://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_backed_international_crime_partner/)

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor :
[http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930](http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930)

A timeline of CIA atrocities:

[http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-
atrocities/53...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-
atrocities/5348804)

>The fact of the matter is that we rely on oil from the middle east and we are
always going to get involved there because it is in our national interests.

Are you so proud of your governments being greedy thieves? Go on then.
Continue being arrogant dicks to the planet. It is fair game then that you
reap what you sow.

As for WW2, Russia won Berlin. The Eastern Front was orders of magnitude more
violent and more destructive to human lives than what Western allies fought
for.

As for Asia, if the US had left Korea alone Koreans would have gotten rid of
the Kim dynasty by 1980. You fail to remember that South Korea was a
dictatorship as well until the eighties.

You also fail to remember that unlike the divided Korean peninsula, Vietnam
remained whole because the Communists that you were so scared of won that war.
Against the USA. And now the Vietnamese government are also your trade
partners.

As for the Middle East, their problems have everything to do with you. From
your unconditional support of the blatant theft of territory and resources and
the atrocities committed by Israel in Palestine, to the overthrowing of the
democratically elected government of Iran which led to extremists taking power
there, to the Iran Iraq war where you sold weapons to both sides, to the war
against Iraq which gave rise to ISIS, to the war against the Syrian government
which strengthened ISIS, you are responsible for EVERYTHING. Every dead body,
every lost opportunity for millions of children, that's all on you.

I'm done. Monsters.

~~~
avukich
You are clearly filled to the brim with hate and vitriol.

Am I proud that my government has done everything it has done in all of our
history? No. Am I proud of the vast majority of our actions around the world?
You're damn right I am. We have done a hell of a lot more good around the
world in our relatively short history than bad.

Regarding Japan in WW2, your little article fails to mention the reason that
the US was conducting economic warfare against Japan. Those sanctions were in
response to the atrocities and naked aggressions being committed by the
Japanese in China since the begin of the second Sino-Japanese War in 1937.
They aren't much different than the sanctions that the world is imposing on
North Korea, Iran, etc. for their flaunting of international treaties. I am
sure the Chinese who were being slaughtered wholesale by the Japanese are
pretty happy we put a stop to their little empire building experiment.

As for Europe in WW2, yes the USSR (not Russia) did take Berlin, but they
alone didn't beat Germany. Could they have done it if the US had never gotten
involved? Maybe. If so it certainly would have been a hell of a lot more
costly in human lives among other things for them. I suspect if the US had
just stayed out of Europe completely and let the Germans and USSR beat the
hell out of each other we would have never had the cold war because there
would have only been one world power at that point, the USA. I have a sneaking
suspicion that the VAST majority of Western Europeans are very happy that the
US did get involved. You don't hear very many stories of people trying to
escape West Germany for the utopia of East Germany and the Soviet Bloc for a
reason.

As for Korea, I'd love to know what leads you to believe that the Kim Dynasty
would be gone had the US not stopped the North. Maybe you've been to the North
Korean unicorn lair ([http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/30/unicorn-
lair-di...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/30/unicorn-lair-
discovered-north-korea)) for your source?

As for the Middle East, you are forgetting the fact that there has been almost
non-stop conflict there since biblical times and the US didn't exist then. It
wasn't the US that started the Israel/Palestine conflict either
([http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Middle%20East%20The%20...](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Middle%20East%20The%20Origins%20of%20Arab-
Israeli%20Wars.html)). Palestine was a British territory and the British
decided that the Jews displaced by all the hate they received in Europe (by
way more entities than just the Nazis) before and during WW2 should have a
nation in Palestine. It never fails to amaze me how everyone always talks
about the "atrocities" committed by Israel against the Palestinians. I find it
appalling that what they have done to protect themselves from their Arab
neighbors who have attacked them multiple times and from Palestinian
terrorists are "atrocities" while the things done against them are not called
the same thing. Strapping a bomb to yourself, walking into a cafe and blowing
up a bunch of innocent women and children is not and never will be equivalent
to using a missile to kill a known terrorist and killing a few innocent
civilians accidentally in the process. The intent of the first case is to
target innocents whereas the intent of the second is to target a killer.

You are correct. We are all monsters here in the US. Horrible, heartless
monsters and all the world's woes are our fault. We clearly are "arrogant
dicks to the planet:"
[http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/u...](http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/united-
states) [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-23341189](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23341189)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_disc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_discoveries)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_United_States)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_inve...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_inventions)

I don't even know why I bothered to respond to this ridiculous, hate filled
post of yours because one can't have a calm, rational, productive discussion
with someone as blinded by hate and anger as you are. I have never nor will I
ever claim that America is a perfect place free from flaw, but I am damn proud
to be an American and I am proud of all the good that we have brought to the
world. If you are too blinded by your hate to see the good that comes out of
America, well, I'm sorry for you.

~~~
dragonbonheur
Am I really the one full of hatred, now? Am I really the hateful one who has
been wishing the death of others?
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11067470](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11067470)

~~~
avukich
Yes, yes you are the hateful one. You are claiming that Americans are monsters
and responsible for all the problems in the middle east and most of the world.
I claimed that a man that hacked into the FBI to expose all the personal
details of employees of the FBI should be captured and killed. To clarify, I
meant killed by being sentenced to death for treason. The VAST majority of the
FBI works to do things such as stop the spread of child pornography,
kidnapping, and other criminal behaviors and posting all the personal
information on those people so that the criminals that they helped put away
can potentially seek retribution against them and/or their families is a very
serious crime in my opinion. I found it (and still do) quite disgusting that
so many people were applauding such reckless and criminal behavior.

In the effort of full disclosure, I also wish the death on anyone who thinks
it is fine to murder innocent people through acts of terrorism such as 9/11,
San Bernadino, Paris, Brussels, etc. Note that I didn't say every Muslim or
everyone from the Middle East or any other broad stroke like you used.

------
nxzero
Taken to an extreme, everything is unhealthy.

If you're going to say no to funding, you might as well say no to knowledge,
tech, etc. - that has been gained from such funding.

Are you prepared to stop washing your hands? It's theorized that the modern
practice of washing hands came from battle field surgery.

~~~
throwanem
I don't disagree with you, exactly, but whoever theorizes that needs to study
recent history; Lister was never a battlefield surgeon.

~~~
nxzero
It is my understanding that Lister used the Franco-Prussian War as the proving
grounds for his research.

------
wtbob
> My position has its roots in the Vietnam War, when I was a conscientious
> objector

Ah yes, the Vietnam War, a last-ditch attempt to preserve some freedom and
democracy (albeit imperfect) from a bloodthirsty regime which killed tens or
hundreds of thousands of people, not in war but in post-war executions. Truly,
a fine thing to conscientiously object to.

> In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide
> the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we
> face in the long run.

That is a detachment from reality so extreme that it's difficult to imagine
that he is able to tie his shoes in the morning. Some folks say that violence
is the last refuge of the incompetent; that's true, but only because the
competent turn to it before it's their last choice.

Yes, violence is wrong and evil; yes, it is brutal and merciless. It is
horrible to see violence, and more horrible still to engage in it. But — and
this is the key point — violence is often unavoidable: the choice is not
between violence and nonviolence (that choice is easy!) but between violence
now and violence later. Which is worse? That's hard to say.

The only thing which enables pacifists to survive is non-pacifists who protect
them. Calmly reasoning with (or emotionally pleading with) someone intent on
stealing from, raping or killing one does not succeed with anywhere near the
reliability of of stopping him with violent force. It's the police and the
military which dissuade one's fellow citizens and external powers,
respectively, from exercising violence upon one. 'I won't take up arms myself,
but I will enjoy the peace and security provided by those who do' makes as
much moral sense as 'I won't kill animals, but I'll eat meat.'

It's a free country; he's free to free-load on the sacrifice and hard work of
his fellow-citizens, and we're free to think that behaviour fundamentally
irresponsible.

~~~
mikeash
What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too.

You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making
that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for
unnecessary wars, and for good reason.

~~~
wtbob
> What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too.

It was less bad, and had potential to be more good. As I noted, it was
imperfect.

> You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making
> that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for
> unnecessary wars, and for good reason.

Thanks for your credit; I really appreciate it.

I completely disagree that Vietnam was an unnecessary war, but it's perhaps
indicative of the extent to which its supposed lack of need has become common
wisdom that folks have taken issue not with my broader points about violence &
pacifists but with the narrow point of Vietnam.

~~~
mikeash
A less bad ruthless dictatorship is a pretty long way from "freedom and
democracy," even softened with imperfection. And if that's what you're using
to justify years of war, enslaving young men and forcing them to fight, and
killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, you're going to have a really
tough road to travel.

I don't think it's a surprise that disagreement with you is focused on
Vietnam. True pacifism is pretty rare. Most people will agree with the broader
point that war is sometimes necessary.

