Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mz | Hacker News Reader

(if it) were put in a good use

Security is a good use. If you think America would be a better place by completely disarming, think again. In reality, it would cease to exist in short order as hostile nations took it over and parted it out.

Same goes for any other nation.

"A man of peace must be strong."

The truth is that anti-military hippies only ever exist in secure nations that can count on their biggest worry being local crime. There probably aren't any hippies in Aleppo at the moment. They only sprout in secure, walled gardens that are created by the very military forces they decry as some kind of innate evil. Because they are clueless fools.

View on HN

Do we really achieve more security through excessive military spending though?

Arguably, the world's less safe than it was 15 years ago in spite of massively increased defence and security spendings during that time.

Now the usual counter-argument to that of course is that it'd be even a lot worse if we hadn't spent so much on defence.

However, for instance both the war in Iraq and many of the new airport security measures in recent years were quite counterproductive in that they not only failed to make the world a safer place but achieved the exact opposite (the war in Iraq in particular, which gave us ISIS).

That is a totally valid point and one worthy of meaty discussion. It is also unrelated to dismissing military spending wholecloth as nothing but a waste of resources.

> It is also unrelated to dismissing military spending wholecloth as nothing but a waste of resources.

I'm not sure this was the OP's intention.

I see this more as thought experiment in terms of "Mankind doesn't actually lack financial resources.". Ideas and measures that'd improve the quality of life often are bluntly shot down with the argument that we don't have the financial resources for implementing them.

We do have those resources. We just need to use them purposefully.

It may not have been their conscious intent, but it is the implicit assumption behind the question. Otherwise, the question could have been framed differently, such as:

"I think that is excessive and we could readily cut it by 10%, leaving 16 billion (or whatever -- not checking my math here) to put towards other causes. What good could governments do with that amount?"

"We spend X amount on (presumed frivolous expense, such as gold jewelry, haute couture or backyard swimming pools). What might be a better use of those funds if we could convince people to spend it differently?"

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but it sells better without the vitriol.

My father fought in two wars and was awarded a purple heart. Statements that suggest the huge personal price paid by soldiers and their loved ones are a waste of money are hugely insulting and disrespectful. I do not feel my remarks contain any vitriol. If anything, the OP owes the veterans of the world an apology.

I understand and agree with you that the personal price paid by veterans cannot be understated, but I think the OP's thought experiment was free of any slight against the military. He simply asked what such an amount would buy in pursuits not focused on the military.

No. The framing entirely dismisses the military as being of no positive value.

the framing is : what if we can get along, and instead of spending money on the military, spend it elsewhere.

I see that you are the OP. You sound like English is not your first language. So, perhaps you just worded it poorly. But without knowing you well, the only thing I can respond to uis your actual words.

And here is the deeper problem: My remark that you owe veterans an apology has not been responded to by you. In fact, it was downvoted into the negatives and you are like the fifth person to come in here to essentially shoot me down and treat me like I am stupid and do not have a real point.

Meanwhile, you posit "if we could all just get along."

You do not even know how to communicate effectively or engage someone with skin in the game with genuine respect when the only thing at stake is words on a forum. That is your answer as to why military spending is not merely frivolous.

You have a long way to go before you, personally, are in any kind of position to advocate that we all just get along. Perhaps in your journey, you should note that Shaolin priests were fearsome warriors because they believed "A man of peace must be strong."

Look, I believe that the World in which we live now could have been worst without the sacrifices of a lot of great people like your father, a lot of people gived their lives so that next generations would live in a better world,but I think you would agree with me that the military wasn't always used to protect good values, I am from an african country that suffered occupation, and we know this side of it very Well, generaly the military isn't used only to protect the people of a country, it's also used to achieve evil ambitions, and I don't think that america for example spend 600 billions only because they want to secure their country, I don't think that this amount of money is used wisely, if some chunks of that money were moved and used to solve problems that matter I think the american people would be happier.

I am sorry for what you have suffered. As someone who has been to hell and back, I will respectfully suggest you be mindful of not throwing the baby out with the bath water while trying to envision a better world.

Best.

I agree with Mz's reading. The wording "if such amount of money were put in a good use" implies that the current use is not a good use.

Thank you. This discussion has been ironic and maddening with multiple people piling on to attack me while implying I am merely too stupid to see that the point is "we come in peace and desire to all just get along."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com