6 ms·

>Nobody reasonable would. Russia started a war of choice. That's the opposite of pacifism. Yes, that was my point. The person I replied to stated a nation taki

• s1artibartfast 6d ago
  Maybe I'm slow , but how is that relevant to the point? Can you expand? Am I understand is that defense is important because sooner or later someone else may choose aggression. You might put your life savings on the street in front of your house for a day or two without someone stealing it, but sooner or later someone unscrupulous is likely to come along based on the evidence we have
  • slg 6d ago
    The person I replied to stated that a country refusing to develop military tech for moral reasons was destined to fall to a country that ignores morals and develops that tech. I pointed to an example of an aggressor nation that is refusing to use all the military tech at its disposal. Modern society has decided that ethics don't go completely out the window in war and by and large nation states at least pretend they agree.
    • s1artibartfast 6d ago
      I got that far. Does the 2nd point contradict the first (setting aside the question of if other deterrents are at play in Russia?)
      • slg 6d ago
        I'll be as straightforward as possible. Ukraine does not have a nuclear deterrent and yet Russia is deterred from using nuclear weapons ergo Ukraine didn't need its own nuclear weapons as a deterrent to prevent Russia from using nuclear weapons. And when even the "despotic regimes" like Russia are refusing to use a weapon, it no longer becomes a credible threat for the ostensibly good guys to threaten to use. Weapons can only act as a deterrent if your opponent believes you're willing to use them and there are some weapons that no one is willing to use. And if no one is willing to use them, it's probably a waste to develop them in the first place.
        • s1artibartfast 6d ago
          How is that an argument that demilitarized pacifism is a tenable national policy. This was the point you started arguing against. Russia hasent nuked Ukraine so nobody needs defenses or arms?
          • slg 6d ago
            >How is that an argument that demilitarized pacifism is a tenable national policy. I never made that argument. My original comment was refuting the idea that taking a singular option off the table is equivalent to pacifism. Ukraine didn't feel the need to develop a nuclear program, that doesn't make them pacifists.
            • s1artibartfast 6d ago
              That explains the confusion. I dont think anyone in the chain made that equivalency.
              • slg 5d ago
                Here is what I responded to: > It's more like "if I don't do it then I better hope somebody else will, otherwise my whole country will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime". Basically, the question is whether strict pacifism is a tenable national policy in the real world. This person equates not "do[ing] it" with "strict pacifism".
                • s1artibartfast 5d ago
                  "It" is having some level of military capability. I agree with Ajedi32 that not doing it is strict pacifism. beloch and jump- advocated for some level of national defense as a practical necessity sophacles- stupidly thought this was an "If I dont, someone will" argument Ajedi32- clarifies "the question is whether strict pacifism is a tenable national policy in the real world" The point is some level of defense is required. This point is completely compatible with not taking a maximalist approach to military. It is also compatible with the fact that even Russia doesn't take a maximalist approach to military. The whole point of the chain is that citizens should not fixate on if companies or people participate in the military-industrial complex because it is good an necessary, but rather what those actors actually doing.
• Ajedi32 5d ago
  This isn't about the nations taking actions off the table, it's about: > Serious question: should companies not participate in contracts from their country's defense department? I contend that unless you want your government to be toppled by a foreign invader, companies contributing to your nation's military capabilities is something you should generally be in favor of.
  • slg 5d ago
    This is from the comment you replied to: >As for "someone else will do it if i don't".... (aka your argument). That's true of a lot of things, and I sleep great at night choosing not to steal from people even though I know others will choose to steal. It turns out I don't have the ability to choose their actions for them, only my own. This is from your response: >It's more like "if I don't do it then I better hope somebody else will, otherwise my whole country will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime". Are you now claiming that all those "I"s are really "companies"? You think you were having a conversation about how "[companies] sleep great at night"?
    • Ajedi32 5d ago
      The "I" a person. If a company has no employees, it ceases to exist in any meaningful sense, so if you refuse to work for such companies you better hope somebody else will do so in your place. Just to be clear, the conversation so far: > beloch: It's also completely fine to say, "I don't want to deal with moral grey zones" and refuse to work for companies that do military work. > JumpCrisscross: Idk, there's something unethical in outsourcing ethical grey areas [working for defense contractors] to other people while reaping the benefits of the peace (or war far from your home) it brings. > sophacles: "someone else will do it if i don't".... (aka your argument) > me: That's not the argument. It's more like "if I don't [work for defense contractors] then I better hope somebody else will. [Because strict pacifism isn't tenable.] You then somehow interpreted this comment as me saying "a nation taking actions off the table "will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime"", which wasn't at all what I said, so I jumped back in correct that. Then the whole conversation went off the rails.