Comment by dwheeler | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dwheeler | Hacker News Reader

Yes, it's important to understand what you're doing.

However: a country without a military (or an allied country with a military) is very quickly not a country. If the US and Europe stopped having a (working) military, they would be immediately taken over by totalitarian regimes who would be delighted to trample over all the rights and privileges their citizens currently enjoy. South Korea, Taiwan, and many other countries/regions would instantly be destroyed by powerful and dangerous neighbors. Free countries are not free because everyone around the world is nice; they are free because people are willing to die to protect them.

A military must have weapons that can kill people. The real goal of such weapons in a western democracy is not to kill people - it's to be able to kill people so that no one will take over or threaten the country and its allies (at least not without consequences). It is entirely ethical to enable self-defense, and self-defense is the purpose of the Department of Defense (remember, its very name is "Defense"). The ACM code of ethics doesn't forbid this, because it focuses on unintentional harm, not intentional harm from a lawful order to protect a country. The author seems to think it's unethical to enable self-defense, and that's just nonsense. Weapons (and anything else) can be misused, but we need to hold the misusers responsible - not pretend that they aren't needed. It's a good thing that military personnel are willing to risk their lives to protect others, even those who don't appreciate their sacrifices to do so.

A counterexample: Costa Rica (where I'm from). We haven't had an army for the last 70 years and still remain a country. Superpowers (e.g., US, China, Russia) might need armies as means of mutual deterrence. Smaller countries not so much.

This appears to be false.

> So, Who Protects Costa Rica? Costa Rica maintains its military-free status and does not command any military units or house any war weapons. However, the country does maintain alliances with other countries, such as the United States, that can be expected assist in the event of war within Costa Rica. https://qcostarica.com/costa-ricas-military-abolition-histor...

Hm... not exactly sure how your quote stating that Costa Rica maintains a military-free status falsifies the grandparent's comment stating exactly the same.

It doesn't directly falsify the fact that Costa Rica lacks a military, but shows that their solution does not scale in a useful manner.

Edit: It directly contradicts the usage of the claim that small countries do not need a military. Essentially borrowing deterrence from another doesn't result in the world being military free.

it doesn't directly rebut the post, but the poster you are responding to is emphasizing that costa rica is only able to maintain their military-free status by allying with one of the most powerful militaries in the world.

it's probably a good thing that not every country in the world needs to maintain a full-scale military, but this only works if you have a powerful ally whom you can trust to defend you. the fact that costa rica is able to exist without a military doesn't imply that the US could also disband their military.

And the next time there is a large scale conflict, some neighbour country may feel tempted to use that opportunity to send a single division to your country and absorb it.

Then you can say how wonderful it is to save a fraction of a percentage point of your GDP on defence and how it worked so well until the day it was needed.

That argument could be made about pretty much any small country using a superpower as the "neighbor". Take for example Russia annexing Crimea.

At the end of the day, it isn't the presence of a military that makes the difference, but the strength and spread of the country's treaties with other nations.

But at the end of the day, somebody still needs to spend money on a military. Being put under the umbrella of the US/Russia/China/etc just alters where it is based out of, and makes you vulnerable to the demands of those that provide it.

>spread of the country's treaties with other nations.

Ukraine example shows that treaties are worthless. Neither USA nor UK did anything to protect its territorial integrity as they agreed upon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

A memorandum is specifically not a treaty.

Costa Rica is not next to russia or north korea.

I did specifically note that it's okay if your country doesn't have a military, as long as your country has an ally with a military. I guess I should add if there's absolutely no threat then you also don't need a military - but that's a rare situation.

"Countries Without Militaries" by Kathy Gilsinan (Nov 11, 2014) at https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/co... specifically discusses the case of Costa Rica: "After 7,000 U.S. servicemembers deployed to the country in 2010 to assist in counter-narcotics efforts, Bolivian President Evo Morales said Costa Rica did have an army: the United States military." Indeed, that articles notes a lot of the complexities when you dive in. The vast majority of countries have obvious militaries, and of the rest, "Virtually all the countries the CIA lists as having no formal militaries have some form of security service, and the degree to which they focus exclusively on internal threats varies". If there's absolutely no threat then you don't need a military, but for the vast majority of countries, that is not reality.

In real life the DoD does end up killing lots of people that it probably doesn't need to be killing. I would generally agree that countries need weapons or to at least be friendly with countries that have weapons, but you have to look at how those weapons are used.

Self-defence, preemptively, on foreign soil on the other side of the world?

With definitions like that, who needs a lawful order to legitimise anything?

> Department of Defense (remember, its very name is "Defense")

Like the Ministry of Truth (remember, its very name is "Truth").

Preemptive self-defense absolutely is a legitimate thing, if used properly. If a great deal of violence against civilians can be stopped by a smaller amount of violence against combatants, the second part is justified, even if it takes place "preemptively, on foreign soil on the other side of the world." A significant amount of context based on real world cases is necessary however.

When such capabilities have been misused, we look at why they have been misused and fix those. The Department of Defense has a legitimate usage for defense of the United States. Misuses of that should be handled through the appropriate political channels, rather than destroying something with a legitimate purpose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com