Hacker News Reader

Comment by buster | Hacker News Reader

I must say i don't understand why so many people here are so sad that a weapon is destroyed. In my book that's fucking great! I'm even somewhat disgusted.

But when i read the title i was sad as well... until i came across "The aircraft carrier".

View on HN

I agree entirely with the idea of rejoicing at a weapon destroyed.

However, something like this represents world history, as well as personal history. Life is more complex and nuanced than "weapons bad," because we live in that world as it is.

I served on the Enterprise in the late seventies, and while I can't say I'm sad, I'm definitely experiencing a nostalgic episode. (I never went to sea on the Enterprise, overhaul in the shipyard only, so I can't tell you anything more interesting than how to lay tile on a metal deck or how to use a needle gun to strip paint.)

That would explain it for you, but i doubt all those commenters are your ex colleagues ;) I'm aware that life is complex. But comments like "hey, let's give it to Israel they can re-arm it and have a nice weapon there" make me sick, sorry.

You don't have to have been somewhere to have nostalgia for it and its associations.

Edit: I agree, better not to give it to anyone.

Ah well, they should put it in a museum i guess, not scraping it.

edit: Or make a museum out of it, with the size of the ship :P edit2: I see, and according to another link, the ship basically will be destroyed by removing the reactor, so there is no way around it...

I grew up in a pacifist family, and still attend a Mennonite church.

But I also have what I think is a realistic view of history and geopolitics. I recognize the Enterprise, and more generally the U.S. carrier fleet, played a significant role in the relative peace we've had in the world since WWII.

Sure, there have been wars since then. But the total loss of lives, and total destruction from those wars, has been relatively minor in comparison to wars of the past. Nations only go to war, and only continue fighting, as long as they think they can gain from it somehow -- land, resources, safety, ideological spread, whatever. Having a carrier group parked off your coast ready to unleash fury tends to cut into those possible gains, and therefore deters nations from entering into hostilities. The value proposition of "negotiating" becomes higher than that of "fighting" in a lot of marginal cases. Strategic weapons (like carriers and nukes) in essence win wars by causing them not to be fought.

From where I stand, that's a win -- not just for "my side", but for humanity as a whole.

Or you can look at it as a weapon that protected free people.

No, weapons kill free people. Please look at how many innocent people die in your so called war for your own freedom. And then look where the Enterprise was deployed. Vietnam.. Iraq... yes.. the ship protected your home from the other side of the planet... how?

The US carrier fleet ensured that the US and its allies would have total naval and air supremacy throughout the Cold War. This is one of the reasons that various potential enemies never even considered attacking us.

A weapon doesn't have to be used in anger in order to protect. It need only be ready.

This is already achieved by atomic bombs and the means to get them as far as Moscow or Beijing or wherever your enemy of the month is today.

No need for guns, tanks, aircraft carriers and all that other stuff that is used to _actually kill people_. Especially if you are living one your own continent with no enemy around for thousands of miles. If you didn't get it now: The weapons i talk about kill people. Many innocent. The ship we talk about was actually used in multiple wars to kill. I only hear "defend freedom" and "deterrence" but in reality it's neither of them. Only indoctrinated stuff that people have been told all their life and actually believe..

> Especially if you are living one your own continent with no enemy around for thousands of miles.

How would they get here? Oh, right, the ocean. Better control the ocean, then.

Or the air. Or space. You can even shoot rockets from the other side of the planet. Better invade all countries then! Just to be sure (and safe) :P

Aircraft carriers take out the air threat as well. As for space and rockets, well that was the point of SDI.

That's a bizarre comment. No need for conventional weapons, because you can just nuke people?

Well, that's basically the idea of deterrence, "We have nuclear weapons, don't touch us". But the comment pointed out that the Enterprise didn't protect someone. It was just plainly used to kill. That's what weapons do. They don't "protect". A shield protects. A sword kills. Enterprise = sword. Not shield. Is it so hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand, it's just oversimplified. For instance, even in your original analogy, a sword can be used to parry just as much as to thrust, so it protects as well. Likewise, shields can be used to physically push an enemy--this was a common application of shields in formation warfare.

Doesn't change the fact that the ship was used in offensive wars against other countries, ffs. Surely you can't deny that. And that's what this is all about. This "but blabla, sword can parry, blabla"... jesus...

All I'm saying is that it isn't an indictment on the ship's entire existence, and that it served a noble purpose when it wasn't being used in those operations. Don't be petulant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com