Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_duke | Hacker News Reader

You seem to be implying that it's perfectly fine for the US to bomb a family home if a terrorist is in there, accepting civilian casualties, because they might harm the population?

Who gets to make that determination? A random drone pilot? An officer?

Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest.

View on HN

> Who gets to make that determination?

We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction.

> Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest.

This is a pretty childish sentiment. Reasons for war are complex. The world is actually a complicated place, and admits multiple concurrent motivations.

> Reasons for war are complex.

Yes they are. I only said that the motivation always was national self interest not benevolence.

> We do. Because we can.

I think that exhausted my tolerance for further discussion with you.

> Yes they are. I only said that the motivation always was national self interest not benevolence.

I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Nobody has ever fought a war for 'benevolence'. It's a silly concept. If you know anything of history, you'd also know that WWII was not fought for 'benevolence'.

He's a millennial. All us Millennials know that it's 2019, and there isn't a reason for war in 2019, anywhere..

You just claimed that if we don't get them they'll get us, and then called someone childish.

> You just claimed that if we don't get them they'll get us

No I didn't. Read what I said again.

I read this - "If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction" - and I understand that just as GP wrote.

And how exactly does that mean "if we don't get them, they'll get us"? What it means is that not acting is as much an action as doing so.

Not acting is always as much an action as doing so, if you consider actions abstractly. In this case I don't think it deserves stating.

It did in the context of what I was replying to, which is why I stated it.

So we haven't moved an inch past the old lie that "might makes right", then? How utterly depressing.

> So we haven't moved an inch past the old lie that "might makes right", then? How utterly depressing.

Might makes right to decide what is right. That is now and always will be the case.

I guess that depends on how you define "right". Might lets you impose your will on others. Being successful in doing so does not speak to whether or not your will is right.

Indeed. Being successful doesn't mean you were right to do what you did. However, having the ability to impose your will and choosing not to is a moral choice, just as much as choosing to impose it is. If we have the power to stop terrible things from happening in other parts of the world, at some point, it is our duty to. This is complicated and wrapped up in issues of sovereignty, of course.

I agree. I'm not a pacifist, and I certainly think there are situations where violently attacking people is, on the whole, the right thing to do.

I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more.

> I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more

Absolutely. I did not mean to imply that in any way. What I meant was that might gives you the power, and therefore responsibility, to make moral decisions about when and where to impose your will on others when they are acting 'sufficiently immorally', however you choose to define that.

> implies it's always right to use force.

Ever notice that people arguing for war are always anxious that the opportunity will slip away if we don't attack _them_ this instant?

Ever also notice that _them_ look pretty much like a lot of erstwhile allies that we aren't at loggerheads with?

We do. Because we can. That is how the world works

That's all well and good, but I don't want to hear a lot of whining from your corner when the next 9/11 happens.

Indeed. While I understand shock in USA at 9/11, I also understand where opinions that "America deserved it" had their merit.

> any other purpose than serving national interest

Spreading democratic and egalitarian values is in the national interest.

As much as I'm extremely reluctant to endorse the actions of the US government and military, I don't think the right answer in cases of moral uncertainty is "I guess we'll just leave things as they are and hope they turn out for the best".

> You seem to be implying that it's perfectly fine for the US to bomb a family home if a terrorist is in there, accepting civilian casualties, because they might harm the population?

Yes, just like you should throw the switch on the trolley car to kill one person instead of let it kill five.

Other people don't agree.

The US's military engagement in WW2 and prior was also primarily to serve national interest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com