
Why don't I take military funding? (2004) - LHopital
http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/no-military-funding.html
======
dwheeler
This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other
military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two
centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing.
If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer
world. The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation
of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. Where
possible, militaries should not be used, because violence is a terrible
thing... and that is something most military personnel already know. But
absence of a military often produces means slaughter by another.

In practice, countries only independently exist if (1) they have a military or
(2) they have an ally with a military who is willing to use it on their
behalf. If a country is unwilling to work out its defense, another country
will be happy to take it over.

~~~
orf
> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of
> the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries.

This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're
saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be
overtaken by... Mexico? Canada?

I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are
more complex than that. And perhaps you're missing the other side of the coin:
"more army = more death". The military industrial complex is very real and
this narrative benefits them a whole lot.

There is always a middle ground that doesn't result in the world burning or
the USA spending 50% of it's discretionary budget on weapons.

~~~
manfredo
The US itself is likely safe. Not many militaries are capable of occupying
most of a continent across an ocean. But the absence of strong democratic
militaries could easily put subjugation of much of Eastern Europe by Russia,
or East Asia by China within the realm of possibility. The latter may be more
willing to use gunboat diplomacy in Africa if their loans aren't repaid.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
But the US military could be 25% the size and still be “strong”.

So discussions of size reduction do not mean advocating a weak military. There
obviously must be some point at which additional military spending weakens the
US by crippling our ability to grow. And many have reasonably argued we are
well past that point. We spend 10x the next closest competitor at 750B a year.
We could cut spending by hundreds of billions and leave that money in the
pockets of Americans to better choose how to spend it. That could leave us
much stronger. One may take a look at China’s incredible ability to build
infrastructure as one alternative way to spend our money. We build bombs to
protect oil interests while China builds solar panel factories and bullet
trains.

~~~
manfredo
Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil.
It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe.

Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's
just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the
US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional
rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in no condition to attack
Israel). In theory, all NATO countries are supposed to spend 2%.

~~~
lostlogin
If an allied country is mad keen on military spending and demonstrating their
power while you aren’t, why would you spend on your military?

Could this be a factor in how other countries operate?

~~~
philwelch
It’s not purely a question of spending. There are qualitative differences as
well. No US ally has even an approximation of the US nuclear deterrent or the
US Navy. Partially as a consequence of this, no US ally can match the
quantity, quality, or versatility of American air power.

------
hjek
Theo de Raadt about OpenBSD receiving DARPA funding[0]:

> I actually am fairly uncomfortable about it, even if our firm stipulation
> was that they cannot tell us what to do. We are simply doing what we do
> anyways - securing software - and they have no say in the matter. I try to
> convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get
> built.

[0]: [https://www.smh.com.au/technology/openbsd-loses-funding-
due-...](https://www.smh.com.au/technology/openbsd-loses-funding-due-to-anti-
war-statements-20030421-gdgmy4.html)

------
tommyderami
While I don't come to the same conclusion, I think this is a great example of
presenting a well reasoned argument for a position that is not widely held. I
would love to see more debate over topics like this they doesn't resort to
name calling, straw man arguments and all or nothing conclusions.

~~~
Zanni
Agreed. I wish more political discourse followed this model. I too disagree
with his stance on the military, but I applaud his decision to take an
individual stand without hectoring, hyperbole or bad faith arguments. He
states his position clearly for others to take or leave as they see fit.

------
tommyderami
One thing I thing that is worth considering regarding whether or not to accept
DoD funding is what kind of research/end goal it supports. Many research
projects seek to improve the precision of lethal actions or the quality of
intelligence that informs those actions ie In WWII if the only blunt tool you
had hit the enemy was carpet bombing their cities that contained production
facilities or government officials, then that's what we did, but with the
advent of precision-guided munitions we have the opportunity to limit civilian
collateral when striking targets. Similarly, if there was a technology that
allowed us to see through walls to see if armed bad guys were on the other
side, we could avoid pre-emptively clearing the room with a flash-bang or
grenade when it instead housed a family. Certainly, most weapons can be turned
into tools of malfeasance, so we shouldn't assume that any advancement will
result in lowering the human cost of conflict, but if you accept that violence
will happen whether or participate in it or not, some may choose to add
scientific knowledge that could make that violence more humane/limited.

------
jasode
_> , after completing my PhD thesis on cognitive maps, I found that the only
funding agency that was interested in supporting my research wanted to build
smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets. This was not
what I wanted my life's work to support._

But if the military really really wanted to, couldn't it just "launder" their
funding via "worthy humanitarian" causes?

The government could find a more socially palatable institution (or possibly
create one from scratch) and funnels the research money through that. The
unknowing scientist then thinks his cognitive maps is fighting cancer cells or
detecting crime but in reality, it's going to ultimately end up in a cruise
missile. Like a lot of _basic research_ , the knowledge can be _legitimately_
applied to humanitarian purposes so those laundering schemes are not a total
fiction in terms of _beneficial results for society_. It's impossible to
disentangle good-vs-evil uses of knowledge or technology.

I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from abandoning their principles but I think
the government can invent clever ways of disguising their goals. E.g. A
mechanical engineer that wouldn't work on exoskeletons for Army soldiers to
help kill people but would feel ethically ok with funding from a charity[0] to
help paraplegics gain freedom of movement. Since the scientist can't know the
provenance of all funds, maybe he's still helping the Army after all.

[0] e.g.: [https://www.unitedspinal.org/](https://www.unitedspinal.org/)

~~~
peterlk
I think this is too cynical; to the point of being harmful. This argument
resonates with me like the argument to not vote because your individual vote
doesn't matter. You say that you're not trying to dissuade people from their
principles, but the implication of your argument is that Dr. Kuipers' approach
is too naive. We do what we can with the knowledge and resources we have. And
if people are inspired to action (or inaction in this case, perhaps), then the
world changes, even if slowly.

If the military is creating organizations to "launder" money to make it look
like it's not going to the military, then it seems to me that Dr. Kuipers has
been successful in shifting the culture around military research. And that is
no small feat. It may also bring about constructive conversations about the
balance between hard power and soft power in international (and human)
relationships.

~~~
jasode
_> You say that you're not trying to dissuade people from their principles,
but the implication of your argument is that Dr. Kuipers' approach is too
naive._

No, you misunderstand. I don't think his _approach_ is naive. My response was
about _consequences_ that take on a life of its own regardless of principled
intentions. We have to separate the intentions vs consequences. Let me
emphasize:

1) if one's moral principle is to not help the military, then one can stick
with that principle

2) if one feels morally consistent by not accept funding from the military
even if it causes some financial hardship or sacrifices, that's fine too

People have to do (or not do) things that keep them from losing sleep at
night. If one has good _intentions_ , then personal actions have to be
consistent with that to maintain a clear conscience.

My entire comment has to do with _consequences_ highlighted in this statement:
_" This was not what I wanted my life's work to support."_

My point is that if the work has _wide ranging applications_ , it _will_
support agendas you disagree with even if you don't take funding from the
groups you oppose.

I was sensitive to that _" life's work support"_ sentence because I'm working
on a tool to let people anonymously match private data with others that have
the same private data. The original motivation was letting people like-minded
people discover each other without having public knowledge of it be used
against them in denying future employment or denying health insurance.

However, one of my dilemmas was that it could also by used by the government
and terrorist organizations. _Even if I don 't accept a check directly from
the Department of Defense_, it is inevitable they will (mis)-use the
technology for purposes I don't agree with.

I think it's _responsible_ for people to know that not accepting money from a
group you oppose may not accomplish what you hope. If you think it's better to
not know that, please explain why.

~~~
bwood
The author addressed this from a slightly different perspective under the
question "The military can use your research anyway, from the open literature.
Why not have them pay for it?".

His thoughts basically boil down to a combination of not working on overtly
militaristic applications, not approaching the research from the angle of how
it can help the military, and certainly not accepting military money even if
it seems unrelated.

He acknowledges that his work may be beneficial to the military:

> Do work that makes the world a better place. The fact that the military
> becomes better too is not a problem.

By my reading, he is satisfied that he is not responsible for the
militarization of his research. His research may indeed be misused, but that's
an unavoidable in virtually every field and the buck stops at whoever
weaponizes it.

------
writepub
I'd like to propose a counter to the "military==evil" argument. Specifically

> "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. "

Western free society is a hierarchical entity, much like a tech stack. While
in tech, the lowest foundation layer is hardware, it is "security" for civil
society. The fact is that the rest of society completely collapses if people,
companies, and civil structure cease to be secure. History, statistics & a
scientific analysis of conflict provides strong evidence for the reliance on
military might for building layers of civilization over it.

It is disingenuous to state, as the author has, that this is fully and
completely achievable without a military, or use of force. It is also
appalling, that while the author's day job is rooted in evidence, science &
peer-review, those principles have been ignored in deriving his "truths" about
civil society.

What we _should_ be concerned about is the misuse of military power. The way
the US is setup, military/executive branch are a lot more accountable to it's
citizens than other structures of governance. It allows law-makers (who
represent the electorate) to tweak or check abuse and while this may NOT be
perfect, it certainly forms the foundation for betterment.

------
kazinator
I suspect you have to read between the lines here.

Kuipers says that "the goal of the military is to settle international
conflict through violence", but of course, as someone of far above average
intelligence, he understands that if you have no military, then (1) a hostile,
belligerent foreign power has no incentive to use the tools of peaceful
conflict resolution with you no matter how available they are and (2) your
sovereignty may well succumb to violence.

Rather, I suspect, what he really means here is that the goal of the
_American_ military is to settle _other countries '_ international conflicts
through violence, participating in conflicts in which the USA is not even
remotely under attack.

If you believe such a thing, then you have a rationally founded reason to
refuse military funding _of USA origin_.

~~~
randcraw
Kuipers states directly that he believes solving disagreements through
violence is ineffective and wrong. He is not talking about _other_ countries,
only about the possible sources of funding for his research, namely the US
military (and possibly their intelligence agencies).

As someone committed to nonviolence, and keenly aware that America has a long
history of exporting violence to supposedly solve problems on foreign soil
(but never seems todo so), I think he sees his duty as extending to the
practicality of violent solutions, not just the philosophical bases, as you
suggest.

I'd agree with him on this point. I can't think of a conflict since Korea that
was _solved_ (thoroughly and lastingly and without major loss of civilian
life) using the US military to invade.

~~~
philwelch
> I can't think of a conflict since Korea that was solved (thoroughly and
> lastingly and without major loss of civilian life) using the US military to
> invade.

Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Panama, and Grenada.

------
davebryand
Suspending judgement on this individual's stance, it's refreshing to see
someone that is basing their actions on clearly articulated principles.

------
aratno
Many of the reasons he stated can also be applied to VC funding:

> One thing that makes the slope so slippery is that you have accumulated
> responsibility for a lab full of graduate students, and the consequences of
> a major drop in funding will be even more painful for them than it is for
> you.

~~~
astura
Or any funding of any sort from any source, public or private, for that
matter. It's a total garbage argument; anyone can require something you
disagree with as a condition for continuation of funding, the military is not
special in this regard.

It's basically akin to saying "don't get a job because if you do then your
boss might eventually ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree
with."

Ridiculous.

~~~
aratno
I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I think it simply says that people with
stringent ethics cannot serve others and cede control. They may bootstrap
their own businesses, become their own bosses, or find another way to operate
independently.

For some, control is relinquished to VCs. For others, it is the funders of
their research, or their bosses.

Most people are not as picky about their ethics as they are about their diets.

~~~
astura
By his logic you shouldn't do that either just replace "your boss" with "your
customers."

"don't start a business because if you do then your customers might eventually
ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree with."

Except his argument is even sillier, because he's actually arguing that "might
eventually" is actually "inevitably." That it's just inevitable that DARPA
funded cancer research naturally turns into building cruise missiles.

~~~
watwut
You can refuse customer. You can not breach already written contract.

~~~
astura
If nobody's buying what you're selling, then you have no business.

~~~
watwut
That still allows you to refuse fair amount of customers. Because here, the
condition is "most or all potential customers want exclusively things you
don't want to do" which may happen, but is significantly less likely.

------
chrissnell
"The goal of the military is to settle international conflict through
violence."

That is misleading. The _purpose_ of the military is to safeguard the
interests of our country through its presence and--if necessary--decisive
violence. No US military leader _wants_ to fight a war; that notion is absurd.

Don't confuse the desires of the military with the occasional desires of its
civilian leadership.

~~~
arka2147483647
With respect, that amount to much of the same with different words.

Not that I disagree with you or him, just pointing out that to me you two
differ in you points of view, not in substance.

~~~
ThenAsNow
> With respect, that amount to much of the same with different words.

They are describing two different intents; one is to seek to settle conflict
through the _use_ of violence, and the other is to accomplish the same end
through the _ability to inflict_ violence. The latter does not presume an
innate desire to use the instruments of violence, only the will and ability to
do so if so instructed.

Deterrence is a real thing and not the same thing as being bloodthirsty.

------
nec4b
In my mind he is similar to anti-vaxxers. He can afford his position, only
because actions of a large majority of other people are keeping him safe.

~~~
bb611
The large majority of Americans work for the military industrial complex?

~~~
nec4b
I think you are asking me the wrong question here. If we keep things in
context, the right question is: Does the large majority of people who get the
chance to be funded by the military accept its offer? The answer is yes.

------
fouric
The United States could certainly be less war-happy, in my opinion, but what
happens if some group decides to declare war on another, or commit atrocities,
and absolutely refuses to negotiate? Or what if negotiations take months or
years, and more human lives are lost in that time than would be through war?

I'm not saying that most or even a significant fraction of the US's wars up
until this point have been justified, but professor Kuipers seems to be of the
opinion that violence should _never_ be used to settle international
conflicts.

~~~
DenisM
>what happens if some group decides to declare war on another, or commit
atrocities,

We don't have to guess - Ygoslavian war in the 90s was exactly that.
Atrocities continued until US&UK dropped on the theater. OTOH there is no
shortage of situations where US involvement _was_ the atrocity.

So maybe it's not the military per se, it's how you use it.

------
_emacsomancer_
Or one could do the Chomsky thing and take military funding and use it for
research that doesn't actually have clear military applications but looks like
it might.

~~~
gaius
This was Chomsky's approach to all research.

------
mcguire
Ben Kuipers
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kuipers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kuipers),
[http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/](http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/)) is
an incredibly nice man and good professor, and while I was at UT Austin he was
the department chairman at least once. I never took a class from him and I
don't even have any funny or embarrassing stories about him. In person, he's
sounds very much like he writes here.

~~~
themattmans
I read this piece before taking a class of his at UM and very much respected
him for the thoughtfulness of his position in this post. From what I recall I
never remember him bringing this up during class. He made for one of the most
intellectually stimulating foundational CS courses I took in college. This
post still resonates with me to this day.

~~~
mcguire
He doesn't talk about himself much. I didn't know he was a Quaker until
someone else mentioned it.

------
sneak
Also relevant:

[https://slashdot.org/story/12/04/03/1656224/mitch-altman-
par...](https://slashdot.org/story/12/04/03/1656224/mitch-altman-parts-ways-
with-maker-fair-over-darpa-grant)

This is a principled stance, and one I vehemently agree with. I wish more in
our line of work would so actively reject associating with those who deal in
violence (whether “justified” or not).

------
mkhattab
Perhaps we need to distinguish, if at all possible these days, between the
military and the military industrial complex. I don't believe the military is
inherently evil but think it's necessary to the defense of the country. The
military industrial complex, on the other hand, is in the business of warfare
and perhaps not as necessary as we might think.

------
tech101_2
It's just a matter of time before technology is used to the worst and best of
it's capabilities... Someone will always be there to take the money, but I
applaud you, sir.

------
dang
A good discussion from 2016:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11478951](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11478951)

------
selimthegrim
I think Phil Rogaway at UC Davis has a similar page.

~~~
tanderson92
You're probably thinking of this:
[http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral.html](http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral.html)

------
gaius
I am genuinely curious as to the author’s proposed non-violent means of
settling with Al Queda et al, but he doesn’t go into any details. If you
listened to OBL’s speech after 9/11 what he was most upset about was the
downfall of the Caliphate in Turkey some 80 years previous. Similarly ISIS
mission was to provoke a war with “Rome” to fulfill the prophecy of the 13th
Imam (I may be hazy on the details). There’s literally no peaceful solution
that any Western government could offer them.

~~~
lostlogin
Where does this argument factor in a century of the civilised west bombing the
region and arming some of the worst governments in the modern world.

~~~
gaius
Umm, because there is no such thing as a time machine? Any serious proposals
have to start with the state of the world as it presently is.

~~~
lostlogin
A century of fighting would suggest that most violent methods have been tried.

What is your serious suggestion?

~~~
gaius
Spend say 10% of the war money on development of alternatives to oil. Then cut
off the money supply to Saudi Arabia et al, confiscating financial assets in
the West, and cordon off the region. There would still be some force required
to enforce the blockade but that’s all.

~~~
lostlogin
Staking everything on the ‘oil alternative’ shifts solving the problem into
the future by an unspecified amount. This time machine of ours is going to be
busy.

------
ryanmarsh
Refusing to take military funding does not prevent war, or even make it
significantly harder to prosecute such that there will be fewer wars. You
cannot induce some sort safe stalemate by not accepting military funding. This
no-military-funding meme prevalent in tech circles is virtue signaling writ
large.

War happens when leaders choose to go to war. Technology does not _directly_
lead to new wars.

------
i_am_proteus
There will always be actors willing to take, by force, whatever they can from
those who are unable to defend themselves. History did not "end" when the USSR
collapsed.

------
fjjdkek7
Good for him.

Disclaimer: I'm a recent PhD grad from MIT doing computer vision for military
satellite imaging

~~~
ohithereyou
I did two undergraduate research projects with DARPA funding, and that
experience alone made me realize that I did not want military funding, and
that I was not the kind of person that would be happy making munitions.

------
rrggrr
> Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations,
> creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that
> our country faces.

Wrong. The United States is inexorably in conflict nations whose domestic
policy failures cause them to act in often violent ways that threaten US
interests. If academia adopted Kuipers' position we would be no closer to
peace, and much closer to living under another country's tyranny. Ask the
people of Tibet as just one example.

~~~
forapurpose
I think simplifying the issue distracts us from the real issues, which are
complex. The U.S. uses its military for good purposes and for bad. Sometimes
war is due to other country's actions, sometimes due to the U.S.'s (e.g.,
Iraq), and probably usually due to both.

For example, the immediate causes of many U.S. wars later turn out to be
false, such as the destruction of the Maine which precipitated the Spanish-
American War, the Gulf of Tonkin which began full-scale intervention in
Vietnam, and the WMD in Iraq.

But even wars that are justified lead to bad outcomes, as the author states:
What war hasn't had the consequences you quoted? Unfortunately, sometimes,
those are the best outcomes available, but it's quite a moral decision to
inflict that on others.

