Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonknee | Hacker News Reader

You can certainly decide to go to flight school yourself. As mentioned in the article though, it's not cheap. The armed forces may or may not be worth it--having to kill people is a deal breaker for a lot of people.

View on HN

Wow, between you & Trufa, one would think that joining the military necessarily means killing people. Yes, it happens. But let's not pretend that's the only thing that happens. Maybe air-dropping food to refugees & people in distress[1]. Airlifting people out of bad situations[2]. There are plenty of examples.

Most of the people I've known and worked with in the military never had to kill anyone.

[1] http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/4678...

[2] http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/4667...

You may never kill anyone, but you have to sign up swearing that you will kill someone if asked to. It's the entire point of the armed forces. That is a deal breaker for many people (myself included). Similarly, I would never work for a military contractor or on a weapons project. My work product isn't going to kill or injure anyone.

Your friends may never have killed anyone directly, but they have certainly assisted in it. For every supply trip to Haiti, there are thousands of supply trips moving weapons and soldiers around the world.

Your first point is true, and that's a fair criticism. If that is a 100% deal-breaker, then it's probably best not to join the military.

But if you don't want to contribute to anything that could be used to kill people, you are severely limited. Anything from open-source code (Linux comes to mind) to chip design can be used to kill people. Remote control airplane hobbyist? If you have a breakthrough on your hobby, it can presumably be used in drone technology.

"For every supply trip to Haiti, there are thousands of supply trips moving weapons and soldiers around the world." What's wrong with that? We have soldiers on the ground in lots of places. In a lot of ways, that's probably a good thing. The 2011 involvement in Libya, for instance, is generally viewed as a responsible intervention of US military.

I don't think we're arguing "good" vs "bad", but if you're have no interest in supporting military operations, then you have no interest in supporting military operations. I don't want my work being used by active duty military and their contractors, and that includes supplying them with food, weapons, water, more people, etc. Me saying "OK, I'm against this war but as long as you hold the gun I'm ethically fine with giving you all the housing, healthcare, food, logistics, weapons, and entertainment you need" is somewhat hypocritical.

> Your friends may never have killed anyone directly, but they have certainly assisted in it.

I personally don't see joining the military as fundamentally more supportive of its actions (conceptually) than being a normal (US?) citizen who isn't politically involved in reduced military action. Sitting back and just working in our economy also indirectly supports the military, and doesn't make you any more moral (or less culpable in our military's actions) than someone who joins the marines. Likewise, what if you do join the military but vote against (and otherwise support) any and all people involved in reducing foreign military action?

I appreciate how this sounds, but think its a point worth discussing given the moral implications (blame) of your statements.

The point though, is that if you are vehemently opposed to taking the life of another human being, there is absolutely zero way that any branch of the military could ensure that would never happen as a part of service.

Yes, a lot, maybe even most people that enroll in the military eventually leave without ever having seen combat, action, or any situation in which they were asked to kill another person, but there is no way to enroll in the military with the assurance that you'll never be asked to perform that duty.

There used to be the Coast Guard, but even that has been re-purposed into the failed narco war.

Agreed. There's a somewhat tangible concern these days with the militarization of the Coast Guard, and their restructuring to exist under DHS, that they're specifically being positioned as the 'go-to' agency should Posse Comitatus need to be enforced.

Coast Guard, at this point, is not only not guaranteeable to avoid action, but should they see action, it's not unforeseeable that it would be against American citizens.

Your second example actually involves killing people, even if it was in an attempt to help US ground forces.

lets not pretend the military is not about killing people now, dont even try to sugar coat it with air dropping food for children in distress because lets get real here if that was the case they'd be developing drones to shoot dinners on tables not missiles on villages.

The military is more about the ability to kill people than it is actually killing people, I'd argue.

sure in a fantasy world where the weapsons arent used.

If you do go into the military to learn to fly, you'll have to take a plane that is compatible to what Delta has. If you're a fighter pilot, you're not as needed by Delta. You need to be cargo. They are two totally different beasts even being fixed wing.

But in general, military service needs to be more than just pragmatic. You are going to be called into areas to either kill or help people being killed. Either way that's a lot more psychologically speaking than going to pilot school.

That's a narrow view of the military. Most flying is cargo, support, simple taxi service. Most is done in peacetime or in peaceful venues.

"having to kill people is a deal breaker for a lot of people..."

And having people trying to kill you is probably a deal breaker for even more people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com