Hacker News Reader

Comment by Roybatty | Hacker News Reader

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