Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackpirate | Hacker News Reader

The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to ... the people who pull the triggers.

Yes, it most certainly does. I used to be a submarine officer in the Navy, but I was discharged 2 years ago as a conscientious objector [1]. I left because I felt I had a moral responsibility to do so.

If your conscience says "don't kill someone," then you shouldn't kill them. You can't absolve yourself of responsibility just because the president ordered the killing.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?p...

View on HN

Perhaps a better statement would be - The blame for the cost of war doesn't go entirely to the people who pull the triggers?

Surely those who order the killing, those who pay for it, and those who permit it by voting for the war, bear some of the responsibility?

That would be a sane statement.

But what the OP said, and what you "wholeheartedly agreed" with was absolute and complete rubbish.

Sure. They're all responsible. Hooande set up a strawman describing an imaginary situation where grunts are held responsible for the cost of war, which is of course allocated by the mucky-mucks on high (and well far away from the front lines, natch).

However, taking the whole of his post and the one you're replying to, I believe it's an incontrovertible fact that there are citizens in a warmaking country who are not responsible: the ones who didn't want to go to war.

Would you help me understand something?

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is what keeps countries from launching nukes at each other. In order to have that doctrine in place, we need people in the military who are willing to launch nukes, and that military needs to be firmly under the control of the civilian government.

In that context, was your objection to fire any nuke a personal decision, i.e. you personally wouldn't be comfortable with ending so many lives (who would?) or was it a wider objection, i.e. you feel it's immoral for any military personnel to be willing to launch nukes? If it's the former, then I totally understand. But if it's the latter, would you help me understand how to reconcile that belief with the necessity of mutually assured destruction? They seem to be at odds.

It is quite possible to believe in the necessity to have a military without believing in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction or the use of nuclear weapons.

I personally believe that Jesus calls us to "love our enemies" and that this means not killing them for any reason whatsoever. My personal objection to war goes far beyond the whole nuke thing to even self defense.

I fully agree with Jesus on this one, but sometimes I wonder what I would do in a situation where this belief was really challenged. I hope I don't have to find out.

My view is that how we act in these "crisis scenarios" isn't super important. It's how we act in the everyday situations that matters.

So I ask myself, "What am I doing right now to reduce war?" or "What am I doing right now to help the homeless living in my city?" This is how I measure whether or not I'm following Jesus.

> The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is what keeps countries from launching nukes at each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Cri...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLA_Marshall#World_War_II_comb...

We haven't seen a major nation-state conflict between nuclear powers since nuclear weapons were invented. Of course there's no counterfactual, but it does seem given the state of relations with Russia it's likely that sans nuclear weapons we would have had a major conflict with them at some point. Also, try reading this, it's a decent summary of nuclear strategic thinking: http://www.amazon.com/The-Bomb-A-New-History/dp/0061537209

You are assuming I'm less informed because I don't agree with you. Also, the burden of proof doesn't fall on me as I'm just skeptic of your (plural) assertion without clear proof.

You must be exceptionally lucky. In most cases they will ruin your life before they give you conscientious objector status.

Just to elaborate on this, conscientious objector status won't always disqualify one from military service. In past scenarios where people were drafted, conscientious objectors were often given non-combat related jobs. On today's battlefield, a non-combat job doesn't mean much, because there isn't really "enemy" or "friendly" territory.

Yeah. Like SS Totenkopf and the Jews. The enemy might be anywhere and there is no friendly territory.

The war on terror isn't unique because it was the first war that involved an insurgency/guerrilla forces, because it wasn't. What I'm saying is that during this conflict, pretty much the entire thing has been unconventional warfare.

Yep. Exactly like SS Totenkopf. Nothing conventional there too.

You're pretty much ignoring what I said. You are talking about a conflict that represents one of the unconventional parts of the largest conventional war ever. In contrast to this, the entire war on terror is an unconventional war fought against guerillas and insurgents.

Every time you occupy a country there will be guerrillas and insurgents. So, I'm not really sure how this is unconventional in this context. It's absolutely normal, natural and to be expected.

With the regard of the enemy of state a so-called terrorist in the US today I have the same fundamental problems as with the enemy of the state called Jew in the Nazi Germany: 1. No definition of terrorist, hence anyone can be one including 82-old nuns: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/protesting-n... 2. "Terrorists" are devoid of all human and citizen rights. No right to free trial, no right to the attorney, no right to be not tortured, not right to be suspected innocent unless proven guilty, etc.

So now the dirty work of killing these quite often completely innocent people is handed over to those squads. And they just remind me of "special operations" done by SS Totenkopf. Go there kill a boy because his daddy is a suspected terrorist. And then kill their whole family too. All I'm saying there is difference in scale, but the legal ramifications are very similar. What stops the Government from labeling you a terrorist and targeting you? How will you proof your innocence without a trial and attorney?

>So now the dirty work of killing these quite often completely innocent people is handed over to those squads. And they just remind me of "special operations" done by SS Totenkopf. Go there kill a boy because his daddy is a suspected terrorist. And then kill their whole family too. All I'm saying there is difference in scale, but the legal ramifications are very similar. What stops the Government from labeling you a terrorist and targeting you? How will you proof your innocence without a trial and attorney?

There's parts of the government that have been caught doing really ridiculous, illegal things, and other parts of the government that have made costly mistakes, but you make it sound like the entire thing is a big conspiracy to kill innocent people in Afghanistan. That borders on insanity.

Yep, if you can kill American citizens without the right to trial, without the right to the attorney, if you label nuns terrorists, if you kill children of suspects just in case - and it is all lawful - that's insane. Not someone pointing it out.

Once again, that's not even what I said, but oh well, I think this conversation stopped being productive a long time ago.

Why couldn't you just change to a role that didn't involve directly killing someone?

What kind of job could you do after having a background in "press the button when it's time to nuke someone"?

I don't see a moral difference between being the person pulling the trigger and being the person who supplies the person pulling the trigger. Everyone in the military is there because they make the organization more effective at war. I couldn't be a part of that.

I'm a CS grad student right now. I'm not eligible for federal funding so I teach for money.

If supporting is just as bad in your view, where do you draw the line. Did it ever occur to you that your teaching could be enabling people to program weapons for the military?

I draw the line at "loving my enemy." For example, some of my students are in ROTC. I do my best to teach them even though they are my "enemies" on this particular issue. The line is definitely pretty fuzzy though.

Why did you join the Navy in the first place? Or did you come to realize your moral conflict only after you were already in?

After 5 years in the navy I applied for CO discharge. I was quite pro-military when I joined. It was what I wanted to be my whole life growing up.

The military exists on the backs of the young.

[Edit: I was once young too, I don't hold it against anyone. Nothing more heartbreaking than a 19y/o with the 1000 yard stare (which I've personally witnessed.)]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com