Why don't I take military funding? (2004)
web.eecs.umich.eduThis individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. Where possible, militaries should not be used, because violence is a terrible thing... and that is something most military personnel already know. But absence of a military often produces means slaughter by another.
In practice, countries only independently exist if (1) they have a military or (2) they have an ally with a military who is willing to use it on their behalf. If a country is unwilling to work out its defense, another country will be happy to take it over.
> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries.
This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada?
I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than that. And perhaps you're missing the other side of the coin: "more army = more death". The military industrial complex is very real and this narrative benefits them a whole lot.
There is always a middle ground that doesn't result in the world burning or the USA spending 50% of it's discretionary budget on weapons.
The US wouldn’t necessarily be overrun, but Syria already almost certainly will, and a unilateral disarmament and withdrawal by the United States would also put Taiwan, South Korea, and every NATO member immediately bordering Russia at risk. Over the ensuing decades, the free world would gradually be eroded away by autocratic regimes until, at best, the US and Canada are isolated between two oceans and surrounded by a world of despotism.
> Taiwan, South Korea, and every NATO member immediately bordering Russia at risk. Over the ensuing decades, the free world would gradually be eroded away by autocratic regimes until, at best, the US and Canada are isolated between two oceans and surrounded by a world of despotism.
Right, this is all a fight against despotism. Which is why the US helped Kai-Shek in Taiwan, propped up Rhee for South Korea, and included Turkey and Portugal as founders of NATO.
All four of those countries became democracies.
But yes, admittedly, the United States has supported autocratic regimes due to strategic concerns elsewhere. In many of those cases, it was a calculated tradeoff between allying with a single military regime such as Turkey—which would not have turned democratic had they not been included in NATO—in exchange for gaining a crucial advantage over a despotic superpower with a history of aggressive expansion and a stated ideology of world domination.
Of course, the biggest example of this policy going wrong was American support of the Soviet Union during the Second World War, but there are plenty of reasons that doesn't get mentioned. Most people in my position would likely agree it was a mistake for the US to support Stalin as much as we did; if the Soviet Union came out of the Second World War in a much weaker geopolitical position due to a lack of food and industrial aid from the United States, the ensuing half-century would have been considerably better for the rest of the world.
The other reason it doesn't get mentioned is because your argument is a very old and worn-out Soviet propaganda talking point, and not only do Soviet apologists not want to admit that US support was vitally important to the Soviets during WWII, but they also don't want to admit that the Soviets themselves are the single worst autocratic regime that the US has ever allied itself with. Such an admission would underline the crucial importance of curbing Soviet domination over the rest of the world and justify exactly those actions that one seeks to criticize.
The US itself is likely safe. Not many militaries are capable of occupying most of a continent across an ocean. But the absence of strong democratic militaries could easily put subjugation of much of Eastern Europe by Russia, or East Asia by China within the realm of possibility. The latter may be more willing to use gunboat diplomacy in Africa if their loans aren't repaid.
But the US military could be 25% the size and still be “strong”.
So discussions of size reduction do not mean advocating a weak military. There obviously must be some point at which additional military spending weakens the US by crippling our ability to grow. And many have reasonably argued we are well past that point. We spend 10x the next closest competitor at 750B a year. We could cut spending by hundreds of billions and leave that money in the pockets of Americans to better choose how to spend it. That could leave us much stronger. One may take a look at China’s incredible ability to build infrastructure as one alternative way to spend our money. We build bombs to protect oil interests while China builds solar panel factories and bullet trains.
Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil. It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe.
Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in no condition to attack Israel). In theory, all NATO countries are supposed to spend 2%.
If an allied country is mad keen on military spending and demonstrating their power while you aren’t, why would you spend on your military?
Could this be a factor in how other countries operate?
It’s not purely a question of spending. There are qualitative differences as well. No US ally has even an approximation of the US nuclear deterrent or the US Navy. Partially as a consequence of this, no US ally can match the quantity, quality, or versatility of American air power.
It could be, that's part of why Trump flirted with the idea of making NATO's 2% of GDP military spending target a requirement rather than a general guideline.
However, the fact that the US is the main component of NATO gives the US a lot of leverage over those other countries which is valuable in its own right.
Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil.
It would seem natural to think your own soil is the only thing you can ever rightfully defend. USA seems to be doing the defending anywhere but on their own soil.
True, but the US soil really doesn't need much defending. There are large oceans to the East and West. To the North is an allied country, and to the South is a country with close economic and cultural ties. There are no countries that could feasibly carry out a transoceanic invasion of the US, even were they to exert the entirety of their military might.
Countries like Poland and South Korea are within the reach of geopolitical rivals, though. So places like those are where the US is garrisoning much of its combat ready troops. Which makes perfect sense.
I'm also not so sure what you meant by "It would seem natural to think your own soil is the only thing you can ever rightfully defend." Why wouldn't it be rightful to defend the territorial integrity of other countries? In fact, the US is obligated to defend it as per international treaties like NATO.
Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it?
We are less than 250 years old as a nation. How did eastern europe and east asia manage before we arrived?
Pride goeth before a fall. I'm afraid our hubris is going to cost us big one of these days.
> Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it?
I'm not sure I follow. Is it your genuine belief that Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states would prefer Russian hegemony? Or that South Korea prefers Communist hegemony? The reality is that if the US doesn't maintain a strong presence in these regions, then other powers will exploit that power vacuum. Sure, in an ideal world, every country would turns it's swords into plowshares, it's tanks into tractors, etc. But we live in the real world, not the ideal world.
> We are less than 250 years old as a nation. How did eastern europe and east asia manage before we arrived?
Eastern Europe spent most of the last 250 years under monarchies and dictatorships. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most[1] find the 21st century is preferable to domination by the USSR, domination by the Fascists before that, and imperial monarchies before that.
East Asia spent most of the last 250 under either feudalism[2] or domination by an imperial power. Again, I'm going to go out on a limb that they prefer their situation in the 21st century to that.
1. Probably all Eastern European countries other than Russia and maybe Belorussia and Moldova. The latter two are pretty pro-Russian.
2. Some point out the Qing dynasty had an extensive central bureacracy and isn't exactly fudalism. It's some form of monarchic rule, though.
My belief is that they don't prefer any subjugation. Certainly not subjugation from someone on the other side of the world. Also, you talk of the US maintaining a strong presence in these regions as if we are there to protect or help these regions. We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china. You could argue we are worse considering the russians and chinese have cultural, geographical and ethnic ties to these regions and we don't.
And everyone is going to prefer modernity to the past. North koreans would prefer their modern dictatorship to the dictatorship of the past too.
All I'm saying is subjugation is subjugation and empire is empire. Nobody likes being subjugated by an empire in the long run.
The US is hardly doing what most would consider "subjugation". And for the record, many Eastern European countries are actually asking for the US to establish a presence there. Poland is trying so hard that he's willing to name such a base "Fort Trump"[1].
> We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china.
When was the last time the US rounded up religious or ethnic minorities and put them in concentration camps? We did it to the Japanese, over half a century ago and it remembered as a point of national shame. After 9/11, Muslims were subject to "random" searches at airports at a higher rate and it was considered unacceptable by many people. Contrast that with China that has somewhere between 500k and a million Uyghurs in "reeducation camps" and most of the populace doesn't seem to bat an eye.
When was the last time the US forcibly annexed territory from a neighboring country? Unless you count military bases such as the ones on Okinawa (which are still part of the sovereign territory of Japan), it was the Mexican American war over 150 years ago. Russia did the same less than a decade ago. And they invaded Georgia not long before that.
To say that "we are no different than Russia or China" seems to be based more on an a priori decision that all forms of international hegemony is bad, rather than thoughtful comparison between the three countries.
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/polan...
> All I'm saying is subjugation is subjugation and empire is empire. Nobody likes being subjugated by an empire in the long run.
I agree. Most countries agree as well. That's why so many of them have a high opinion of the US, and why many of them are asking for US military presence: to shield them from subjugation of neighboring powers.
If you think what we have done and are doing isn't subjugation, then we have read different histories and different news. Millions of people were killed for us to develop our "strong presence" in these regions. It's called empire building and empire growing.
By many eastern european countries, you really mean one - poland. And by many eastern countries, you also mean a small group of political entities within those countries.
The high opinion of the US stems from our wealth and our cultural domination. Once again, that doesn't translate to a desire for subjugation. For example, if I have high opinion of japan, germany and new zealand, it doesn't mean I want them to militarily and political dominate the US. Certainly I wouldn't want their troops stationed here.
Also, there are protests against US military presence in all these regions as well, but I guess we can ignore those.
I guess our difference ultimately boils down to our view of empire. I don't think they are ever a good thing and they certainly don't exist to serve the subjugated.
> If you think what we have done and are doing isn't subjugation, then we have read different histories and different news. Millions of people were killed for us to develop our "strong presence" in these regions. It's called empire building and empire growing.
And yet, the people on the receiving end of these wars generally have positive views of the US and close economic ties after a couple decades. The US's most destructive wars were against Germany and Japan, with are now close allies. An an interesting type of "Empire" where the subjects of the said empire have a positive view of their purported overlord. Or, maybe, the US's coalition of allies isn't an "empire".
> By many eastern european countries, you really mean one - poland.
And Ukraine. And the Baltic Countries. What Eastern European countries do want US presence to diminish? The only ones I can think of other than Russia are Belorussia and Moldova.
> For example, if I have high opinion of japan, germany and new zealand, it doesn't mean I want them to militarily and political dominate the US. Certainly I wouldn't want their troops stationed here.
Well, I've got bad news for you: Foreign troops from said countries (at least Germany) are regularly based in US to train and practice cooperation.
> Also, there are protests against US military presence in all these regions as well, but I guess we can ignore those.
People also protest when military bases are closed. In fact, the current plan to withdraw troops from Syria is being criticized significantly.
> I guess our difference ultimately boils down to our view of empire. I don't think they are ever a good thing and they certainly don't exist to serve the subjugated.
Again, if the US's sphere of influence is an "Empire" it's one that that most of the subjects seem to be happy to be a part of. In fact, plenty of countries have voluntarily joined this group on their own accord. Spain, Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Romania all joined NATO on their own accord. In fact, these countries had to apply to join NATO. Strange form of "Empire" where countries apply to become a part of it.
We have recent history to demonstrate: WW2 followed by the cold war. Is there a Nazi Germany today? No. Could there be something similar again? Of course.
Hell, there's even a show on Amazon (based on a book) centered around the idea of an alternate history where the Allied forces lost WW2 and the US is occupied territory.
Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?
There are also many fictional shows on Amazon, should we use them to guide us?
I don't think philosophically this helps the case that armed forces are unnecessary. All it argues is that a nation needs a nuclear armed force instead of a conventional one to stay independent.
If a nation has no nuclear weapons and cannot compete conventionally, it could be bullied. Take Ukraine for example - would they really be worse off if they kept some nukes? Perhaps Russia would be deterred from aggression if they did.
I think Ukraine example shows the weakness in the single point of failure NATO model, with the U.S. as the current failure point. Our current leadership is less committed to NATO, and Putin pounces. I think a European alliance, with a strong military force led by England, Germany, & France, needs to think about a more localized force to check Putin's aggression.
I agree, but the key phrase here is strong military force. There's no avoiding the existence of armed forces; we're really debating how those forces should be governed.
> Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?
The majority of the Cold War happened while both sides' superpowers had nukes.
In other words: nukes didn't change this scenario; they helped create it.
> Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?
Guide? No. Inspire and/or remind? Why not.
To be fair, however, the PKD book that spawned that show, contained factual errors due to information that was declassified only after the book was written. Turns out, even if the US had been neutral in WW2, it's fairly certain the remaining Allies would have won regardless; and furthermore, in such a case it is possible the Soviets might've been so thoroughly weakened by the Japanese, that the former wouldn't have emerged as a superpower nor as the other side of the Cold War.
(And while we're on the topic of conjectures about counterfactual US neutrality: it is possible that US neutrality in WW1 would have averted the creation of the Nazi empire and WW2 with it.)
Academia boycotting the military won't destroy the MIC. It will simply move all military research into military sectors, because if you can train a person to kill, you can train them to do science.
Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada?
This is textbook naive. China/Russia, to begin with.
Plus: there doesn't need to be a imminent invasion danger. Without the US protection of commercial sea routes, global economy would suffer a serious blow, which would affect Asian and South American countries way more than the US.
You think Russia or China would launch a ground invasion of a nuclear capable country in a different continent, for no other reason that it looked a bit weak?
I wonder why the Russians are not launching invasions of several resource rich African countries as we speak.
I agree that currently the US protects strategic sea routes that benefit the US, and as a byproduct other countries. That's fine, and the seas have always needed policing, but it's just a small part of military expenditure, and doesn't counter anything I said.
At some point, yes, they would. The whole point of the article is that people with the technical knowledge to maintain and improve the US miltary shouldn't do it. Luckily, reaching a critical mass of scientists and engineers with such attitude, enough for basic defense systems to fail, seems unlikely. But there's such an horizon.
I wonder why the Russians are not launching invasions of several resource rich African countries as we speak.
Because the US is far stronger. And still they grabbed half Ukraine, at the border of NATO, way more important than most African countries. Same with China, the South China Sea, and expansion via artificial islands.
If Russia and China can get away with that, the US being vastly superior from a military standpoint, what world destabilization, or plain open war would happen if the US just a bit weaker?
And, BTW, the war has started already, in the information battleground, with US and Western Europe's being ravaged by Russian and Chinese attacks.
The naivete point stands. We need more computer scientists defending Western democracy values, because today, more than ever, they're under attack.
> If Russia and China can get away with that, the US being vastly superior from a military standpoint, what world destabilization, or plain open war would happen if the US just a bit weaker?
Ok, so if I'm following this logic, which is if you're not the strongest then someone is going to invade you, then the USA is going to start invading everyone because it is the strongest.
Or, if not, could there possibly be other factors that come into play when deciding to invade someone and destabilise the world?
> The naivete point stands. We need more computer scientists defending Western democracy values, because today, more than ever, they're under attack.
I agree. Let's fund this with a reduction in our standing army. Oh wait... the people who make the bombs might not like this.
then the USA is going to start invading everyone because it is the strongest.
That's where the values matter: US ones are better than Russia/China's. And before the barking: not perfect, just better. Good enough not to grab Ukraine or the South China Sea.
Let's fund this with a reduction in our standing army
False dichotomy. It is not the only way to fund it. Besides, OP article wasn't a funding issue, it never is, as you point out, with military spending. It's a moral one, and the author decided in 2004 that virtue signaling was more important that defending the aforementioned values against internal and external enemies. 14 years later we (the West) seem to be behind in information warfare.
> You think Russia or China would launch a ground invasion of a nuclear capable country in a different continent, for no other reason that it looked a bit weak?
A nuclear arsenal is nothing without trained and loyal personnel to secure it and to operate and maintain it correctly. If your army is weak enough or makes bad enough decisions, enemy troops can blow the nukes up, kill the nukes' operators, or even sabotage them in a variety of ways.
I read it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have.
Choice quote:
"""Do you try to keep others from taking military funding?
No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."""
I think there's something to Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative:
Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
Edit: to address a common confusion: this has nothing to do with imposing a rule on others. This formulation only says that you ought to act in conformance with rules that you would want all others to act by as well.
Given that the author or me does not have power to force everyone act the same, it is more reasonable to act with assumption that other people do their thing.
So, if there is already more support for military that I find optimal, it makes sense not to support it altrough in different situation I might decide differently.
On the other hand, if everyone were not accepting military funding....
>Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
That seems entirely too tyrannical, imperialistic, and egotistical to be practical.
Where does having freedom, humility, and an open mind fit into that maxim? I.e. being willing to accept that all humans (including ourselves) can be misguided, or that someone else could know what is better for them than me?
If all humans can be misguided, any principle which accounts for it will be universal. If someone else could know better than you, you can also account for that in a way that other people could be equally well served by.
So there isn't anything contradictory or inhibitory there. Perhaps you are not seeing the generality implied by the term "universal?" The contrapositive here is to not act in a way that assumes other people are incapable of, unworthy of, or disadvantaged by following your example. There is nothing here that implies one can't be humble or liberal. To put it in less gentle terms, the point is that if you don't intend for other people to emulate you, then there is no point to your life in human society.
What is the point of sharing the article then?
If I choose to behave in a certain manner but don't care how you behave, why would I tell you how I choose to behave?
The title is "Why don't I take military funding?" not "Why you shouldn't take military funding".
>This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers.
Based on the below passage, I do not believe they are advocating for military abolition at all. Your comment implies they want to rid the US of any and all military force but his argument is against the violence that stems from militarization.
He wants more peaceful solutions while maintaining military security.
>A true defense of our country would require both resources and research into non-violent conflict resolution methods. Both of these exist, but are starved compared with the technologies of warfare.
I don't think the author is against the military, but rather against violence. Quoting from the article:
"There are even signs that the professional military is reaching a clearer understanding than civilian policy-makers of the weaknesses of violence, and the strengths of non-violent approaches to conflict resolution. We may be moving toward the day when trained, disciplined soldiers will be able to move into a situation of conflict and restore civility and peace without loss of life.
That's a day worth working for.
[..]
However, violent actions taken in the name of defense against terrorism are very likely to increase the likelihood and magnitude of future terrorist attacks. We need a combination of short-term vigilance and protection, and long-term efforts to reduce the problems that breed terrorism, both in non-violent ways."
Furthermore, I don't think the author argues for "all Americans to not take military funding":
"No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."
Which is fair enough.
I think the article is considerably more nuanced than your response makes it seem.
This could be true, but I don't think it is.
There's a lot of money to be made in making weapons if there's a war. And the US is constantly waging wars, rarely with victory-conditions thought out in advance.
As long as the money-makers continue to find excuses rather than reasons for waging war, I think there's solid grounds for not wanting to participate.
I read most of the piece and the statement:
Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work.
does not translate to "recommends that society do nothing".
So your extrapolation doesn't work, nor does it address the thrust of the piece.
Theo de Raadt about OpenBSD receiving DARPA funding[0]:
> I actually am fairly uncomfortable about it, even if our firm stipulation was that they cannot tell us what to do. We are simply doing what we do anyways - securing software - and they have no say in the matter. I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built.
[0]: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/openbsd-loses-funding-due-...
While I don't come to the same conclusion, I think this is a great example of presenting a well reasoned argument for a position that is not widely held. I would love to see more debate over topics like this they doesn't resort to name calling, straw man arguments and all or nothing conclusions.
Agreed. I wish more political discourse followed this model. I too disagree with his stance on the military, but I applaud his decision to take an individual stand without hectoring, hyperbole or bad faith arguments. He states his position clearly for others to take or leave as they see fit.
One thing I thing that is worth considering regarding whether or not to accept DoD funding is what kind of research/end goal it supports. Many research projects seek to improve the precision of lethal actions or the quality of intelligence that informs those actions ie In WWII if the only blunt tool you had hit the enemy was carpet bombing their cities that contained production facilities or government officials, then that's what we did, but with the advent of precision-guided munitions we have the opportunity to limit civilian collateral when striking targets. Similarly, if there was a technology that allowed us to see through walls to see if armed bad guys were on the other side, we could avoid pre-emptively clearing the room with a flash-bang or grenade when it instead housed a family. Certainly, most weapons can be turned into tools of malfeasance, so we shouldn't assume that any advancement will result in lowering the human cost of conflict, but if you accept that violence will happen whether or participate in it or not, some may choose to add scientific knowledge that could make that violence more humane/limited.
>, after completing my PhD thesis on cognitive maps, I found that the only funding agency that was interested in supporting my research wanted to build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets. This was not what I wanted my life's work to support.
But if the military really really wanted to, couldn't it just "launder" their funding via "worthy humanitarian" causes?
The government could find a more socially palatable institution (or possibly create one from scratch) and funnels the research money through that. The unknowing scientist then thinks his cognitive maps is fighting cancer cells or detecting crime but in reality, it's going to ultimately end up in a cruise missile. Like a lot of basic research, the knowledge can be legitimately applied to humanitarian purposes so those laundering schemes are not a total fiction in terms of beneficial results for society. It's impossible to disentangle good-vs-evil uses of knowledge or technology.
I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from abandoning their principles but I think the government can invent clever ways of disguising their goals. E.g. A mechanical engineer that wouldn't work on exoskeletons for Army soldiers to help kill people but would feel ethically ok with funding from a charity[0] to help paraplegics gain freedom of movement. Since the scientist can't know the provenance of all funds, maybe he's still helping the Army after all.
[0] e.g.: https://www.unitedspinal.org/
Military and intelligence agencies have a stake (and funding) in plenty of humanitarian causes -- weather prediction, food security, space exploration, etc. But as a way of bypassing researchers' beliefs, it simply isn't necessary: plenty of smart people will take military or intelligence money directly. I remember being told that Carnegie Mellon's school of computer science had over 70% of its total funding from military and intelligence contracts.
I don't think most pacifists believe their convictions will directly prevent war, or even make it significantly harder to prosecute. But demonstrating convictions can force people to hold a mirror up to their own, and can change what people accept in ways that add up to big implications. I'm not a pacifist, but I'm grateful to Dr. Kulpers for demonstrating that it is possible to make a CS career outside of the military industrial complex. Anyone who participates in the business of war should at the very least consider their rationale beyond "how else am I supposed to find work?"
>> Since the scientist can't know the provenance of all funds, maybe he's still helping the Army after all.
But that's entirely speculative and it's not really something you can know, or control. What you can know, what you can control, is whether you follow your principles or not. So it's really of no consequence what the government "might" do, or what they "can" do, etc. What is important is what you do.
They've done that before. It usually results in some blow-back, when the researchers discover the game.
https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/70/chapter-abstract/1...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/07/19/book-revi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Camelot
(I had a sociology class in the late 80s whose professor was a bit bitter about Project Camelot, judging by her comments.) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41303322?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co...
If they go to that lengths then they're laundering responsibility away from the researcher, which seems to be his main thrust - the affirmative decision to do research for the military puts the responsibility on the researcher; doing it for a worthy cause and acknowledging the potential for good or bad puts that ball in the "worthy cause"'s court.
And the civilian world can do the same, fund research with a presumably benign purpose, turn around and sell it to the military.
I think this is too cynical; to the point of being harmful. This argument resonates with me like the argument to not vote because your individual vote doesn't matter. You say that you're not trying to dissuade people from their principles, but the implication of your argument is that Dr. Kuipers' approach is too naive. We do what we can with the knowledge and resources we have. And if people are inspired to action (or inaction in this case, perhaps), then the world changes, even if slowly.
If the military is creating organizations to "launder" money to make it look like it's not going to the military, then it seems to me that Dr. Kuipers has been successful in shifting the culture around military research. And that is no small feat. It may also bring about constructive conversations about the balance between hard power and soft power in international (and human) relationships.
>You say that you're not trying to dissuade people from their principles, but the implication of your argument is that Dr. Kuipers' approach is too naive.
No, you misunderstand. I don't think his approach is naive. My response was about consequences that take on a life of its own regardless of principled intentions. We have to separate the intentions vs consequences. Let me emphasize:
1) if one's moral principle is to not help the military, then one can stick with that principle
2) if one feels morally consistent by not accept funding from the military even if it causes some financial hardship or sacrifices, that's fine too
People have to do (or not do) things that keep them from losing sleep at night. If one has good intentions, then personal actions have to be consistent with that to maintain a clear conscience.
My entire comment has to do with consequences highlighted in this statement: "This was not what I wanted my life's work to support."
My point is that if the work has wide ranging applications, it _will_ support agendas you disagree with even if you don't take funding from the groups you oppose.
I was sensitive to that "life's work support" sentence because I'm working on a tool to let people anonymously match private data with others that have the same private data. The original motivation was letting people like-minded people discover each other without having public knowledge of it be used against them in denying future employment or denying health insurance.
However, one of my dilemmas was that it could also by used by the government and terrorist organizations. Even if I don't accept a check directly from the Department of Defense, it is inevitable they will (mis)-use the technology for purposes I don't agree with.
I think it's responsible for people to know that not accepting money from a group you oppose may not accomplish what you hope. If you think it's better to not know that, please explain why.
The author addressed this from a slightly different perspective under the question "The military can use your research anyway, from the open literature. Why not have them pay for it?".
His thoughts basically boil down to a combination of not working on overtly militaristic applications, not approaching the research from the angle of how it can help the military, and certainly not accepting military money even if it seems unrelated.
He acknowledges that his work may be beneficial to the military:
> Do work that makes the world a better place. The fact that the military becomes better too is not a problem.
By my reading, he is satisfied that he is not responsible for the militarization of his research. His research may indeed be misused, but that's an unavoidable in virtually every field and the buck stops at whoever weaponizes it.
Isn’t that what the space program was? “We’re going reach for the heavens and put a man on the moon [necessitating technology that can also drop a nuke anywhere on earth]!”
It was really the other way around. Early manned spaceflight programs were mainly based on military missile technology. Later civilian developments of heavy lift liquid fueled rockets were useless for delivering nuclear weapons.
They already do that for black programs with cover stories and front organizations for spy agencies. So, there's certainly precedent.
I'd like to propose a counter to the "military==evil" argument. Specifically
> "I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. "
Western free society is a hierarchical entity, much like a tech stack. While in tech, the lowest foundation layer is hardware, it is "security" for civil society. The fact is that the rest of society completely collapses if people, companies, and civil structure cease to be secure. History, statistics & a scientific analysis of conflict provides strong evidence for the reliance on military might for building layers of civilization over it.
It is disingenuous to state, as the author has, that this is fully and completely achievable without a military, or use of force. It is also appalling, that while the author's day job is rooted in evidence, science & peer-review, those principles have been ignored in deriving his "truths" about civil society.
What we should be concerned about is the misuse of military power. The way the US is setup, military/executive branch are a lot more accountable to it's citizens than other structures of governance. It allows law-makers (who represent the electorate) to tweak or check abuse and while this may NOT be perfect, it certainly forms the foundation for betterment.
I suspect you have to read between the lines here.
Kuipers says that "the goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence", but of course, as someone of far above average intelligence, he understands that if you have no military, then (1) a hostile, belligerent foreign power has no incentive to use the tools of peaceful conflict resolution with you no matter how available they are and (2) your sovereignty may well succumb to violence.
Rather, I suspect, what he really means here is that the goal of the American military is to settle other countries' international conflicts through violence, participating in conflicts in which the USA is not even remotely under attack.
If you believe such a thing, then you have a rationally founded reason to refuse military funding of USA origin.
Kuipers states directly that he believes solving disagreements through violence is ineffective and wrong. He is not talking about other countries, only about the possible sources of funding for his research, namely the US military (and possibly their intelligence agencies).
As someone committed to nonviolence, and keenly aware that America has a long history of exporting violence to supposedly solve problems on foreign soil (but never seems todo so), I think he sees his duty as extending to the practicality of violent solutions, not just the philosophical bases, as you suggest.
I'd agree with him on this point. I can't think of a conflict since Korea that was solved (thoroughly and lastingly and without major loss of civilian life) using the US military to invade.
> I can't think of a conflict since Korea that was solved (thoroughly and lastingly and without major loss of civilian life) using the US military to invade.
Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Panama, and Grenada.
Suspending judgement on this individual's stance, it's refreshing to see someone that is basing their actions on clearly articulated principles.
Many of the reasons he stated can also be applied to VC funding:
> One thing that makes the slope so slippery is that you have accumulated responsibility for a lab full of graduate students, and the consequences of a major drop in funding will be even more painful for them than it is for you.
Or any funding of any sort from any source, public or private, for that matter. It's a total garbage argument; anyone can require something you disagree with as a condition for continuation of funding, the military is not special in this regard.
It's basically akin to saying "don't get a job because if you do then your boss might eventually ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree with."
Ridiculous.
I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I think it simply says that people with stringent ethics cannot serve others and cede control. They may bootstrap their own businesses, become their own bosses, or find another way to operate independently.
For some, control is relinquished to VCs. For others, it is the funders of their research, or their bosses.
Most people are not as picky about their ethics as they are about their diets.
By his logic you shouldn't do that either just replace "your boss" with "your customers."
"don't start a business because if you do then your customers might eventually ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree with."
Except his argument is even sillier, because he's actually arguing that "might eventually" is actually "inevitably." That it's just inevitable that DARPA funded cancer research naturally turns into building cruise missiles.
You can refuse customer. You can not breach already written contract.
If nobody's buying what you're selling, then you have no business.
That still allows you to refuse fair amount of customers. Because here, the condition is "most or all potential customers want exclusively things you don't want to do" which may happen, but is significantly less likely.
But then you're trading money for morality directly. For most businesses, customers are to some extent fungible, so you can afford to be a little picky if you're careful about the health of your company.
But he knows the military funds research to efficiently kill people, which he doesn't want any part of. So it's more like saying, "don't get a job at a company if you know they might require you to do morally uncomfortable things."
That sounds reasonable.
But he would probably be able to support more grad students, that may not otherwise be able to be in grad school, if he took the military funding.
But do you think that the total number of grad students is a measure of good? If so, it makes sense to get funding for them by any means necessary.
But if not, there is an amount of unethical, unacceptable funding which trumps the good of the grad students it provides for.
Couldn’t some other professor take the available funding, and support those additional students?
"The goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence."
That is misleading. The purpose of the military is to safeguard the interests of our country through its presence and--if necessary--decisive violence. No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd.
Don't confuse the desires of the military with the occasional desires of its civilian leadership.
The vast majority of soldiers I know, whom have been blooded in war, do not wish military conflict to occur.
"War is politics by other means", paraphrasing von Clausewitz. Its fundamentally backing up one's political positions by force of arms, to impose upon one's adversary.
While there are some jingoistic people who relish conflict, they tend not to be the ones making decisions. This isn't always the case, but militaries know what happens when adventurism runs amok.
That is, wise generals would prefer (imperfect) political solutions to problems, as compared to imposition of will by force. But simultaneously, they know they may be called upon to impose that force.
>No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd.
It may be absurd but it's not unrealistic; there is historical precedent.
Don't underestimate the power of ideology to override rationality.
Operation Northwoods...didn't happen.
I'd agree, although I don't think the author is being deliberately misleading, it's probably more an issue of public perception due to Hollywood and anecdotal conversations. DoD members swear to "support and defend the constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Sometimes that means brandishing a stick, sometimes that means swinging it, but we're pretty agnostic about the means to achieve that defense.
With respect, that amount to much of the same with different words.
Not that I disagree with you or him, just pointing out that to me you two differ in you points of view, not in substance.
> With respect, that amount to much of the same with different words.
They are describing two different intents; one is to seek to settle conflict through the use of violence, and the other is to accomplish the same end through the ability to inflict violence. The latter does not presume an innate desire to use the instruments of violence, only the will and ability to do so if so instructed.
Deterrence is a real thing and not the same thing as being bloodthirsty.
They are definitely not “much the same”. One implies that violence is the goal, the other that the capacity to be violent is necessary even when actual violence is undesirable. These are absolutely different in meaning.
To settle international conflict through violence and the threat of violence.
Well, regardless of what it wants, it’s primary means of achieving those ends is through violence or the threat of violence.
The military is not particularly well suited to nation building and other peaceful tasks, as we’ve repeatedly seen.
> No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd.
I think your general point is good, but there are people, including people in government, who see war as a low-cost, acceptable means of achieving ends, including rallying domestic political support.
For example, at one point I noticed that over a short time hawkish Republican leaders in the U.S., including John McCain, favored increasing involvement in Afghanistan, attacking Iran (rather than negotiating), increasing involvement in Iraq, intervening in Syria, intervening in Egypt (IIRC), intervening in Sudan (in Darfur, though that might not have been contemporaneous), and intervening in Libya. If you look at a map, that's war in most countries from central Asia to near the middle of Africa's Mediterranean coast.
The GOP, starting before Trump, often vocally disdains the alternative to war, diplomacy. The Trump administration has taken it to a policy level worked to undermine the United States' relations with other countries and openly advocated, including in written op-eds from administration members, 'a return to geopolitical competition' - i.e., the state of things before WWII, which led to centuries of wars. They've abandoned treaty after treaty, and damaged the U.S.'s reputation so that they can't be trusted to adhere to future agreements (which I think is intentional, an attempt make the move away from diplomacy irreversible). The Trump administration openly works against the rule-based international order and openly opposes international law; the alternative to law and order is anarchy; the alternative to those mechanisms is war.
The Trump administration also has gutted State Department; they've attempted to gut its budget (Congress hasn't always agreed), they've cut and obstructed many programs, forced out a large proportion of talent (my vague memory is that they forced or urged out over a third of the most senior officers, who are, as I understand it, irreplaceable), and disrupted hiring.
Why would you destroy the means of diplomacy if you don't seek war?
Our?
I don't recall you speaking for me. And you are presuming you know where the visitors of HN hail from. Guess what, they're all over the world.
It's not incorrect to use "our" in this context even though the speaker's audience is international, "our" doesn't always mean "mine and yours" is can also mean "mine and someone else's," that use isn't event uncommon. We talk about "our family" to people outside of the speaker's family and we talk about "our country" to people outside of the speaker's country. It's natural.
our /ˈou(ə)r,är/ determiner possesive pronoun: our
1. belonging to or associated with the speaker and one or more other people previously mentioned or easily identified. "Jo and I had our hair cut"
belonging to or associated with people in general. "when we hear a sound, our brains identify the source quickly"
2. used by a writer, editor, or monarch to refer to something belonging to or associated with himself or herself. "we want to know what you, our readers, think"
Even then it is still incorrect because it presumes a shared viewpoint with other US citizens. Who might disagree.
No its not and no it doesn't; it's extremely clear what the speaker meant, you just wanted to get outraged for no reason.
In my mind he is similar to anti-vaxxers. He can afford his position, only because actions of a large majority of other people are keeping him safe.
The large majority of Americans work for the military industrial complex?
I think you are asking me the wrong question here. If we keep things in context, the right question is: Does the large majority of people who get the chance to be funded by the military accept its offer? The answer is yes.
The United States could certainly be less war-happy, in my opinion, but what happens if some group decides to declare war on another, or commit atrocities, and absolutely refuses to negotiate? Or what if negotiations take months or years, and more human lives are lost in that time than would be through war?
I'm not saying that most or even a significant fraction of the US's wars up until this point have been justified, but professor Kuipers seems to be of the opinion that violence should never be used to settle international conflicts.
>what happens if some group decides to declare war on another, or commit atrocities,
We don't have to guess - Ygoslavian war in the 90s was exactly that. Atrocities continued until US&UK dropped on the theater. OTOH there is no shortage of situations where US involvement was the atrocity.
So maybe it's not the military per se, it's how you use it.
Exactly! I don't quite get the sentiment that military is nothing but evil, either. Hasn't history taught us enough? How many peace-loving civilization got destroyed by those who had no interests in producing but looting? Look at Song Dynasty. Look at Ming Dynasty. Look at European cities when Mongolian invaded. Hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered. Hundreds of cities were looted, burnt down, and destroyed. Millions of people were slaved for generations. Trade were banned. Civilization was set back by hundreds of years.
Americans and Europeans may have been in peace and prosperity for so long and got so comfortable that they started to hate everything their forbears have built and fought for. I'm not sure about you guys, but I certainly cherish the literature, the math, the science, then engineering, the philosophy, the political systems (not that they are flawless, but it took us a long time to get where we are), and more.
What a shame.
Or one could do the Chomsky thing and take military funding and use it for research that doesn't actually have clear military applications but looks like it might.
This was Chomsky's approach to all research.
Ben Kuipers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kuipers, http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/) is an incredibly nice man and good professor, and while I was at UT Austin he was the department chairman at least once. I never took a class from him and I don't even have any funny or embarrassing stories about him. In person, he's sounds very much like he writes here.
I read this piece before taking a class of his at UM and very much respected him for the thoughtfulness of his position in this post. From what I recall I never remember him bringing this up during class. He made for one of the most intellectually stimulating foundational CS courses I took in college. This post still resonates with me to this day.
He doesn't talk about himself much. I didn't know he was a Quaker until someone else mentioned it.
Also relevant:
https://slashdot.org/story/12/04/03/1656224/mitch-altman-par...
This is a principled stance, and one I vehemently agree with. I wish more in our line of work would so actively reject associating with those who deal in violence (whether “justified” or not).
Perhaps we need to distinguish, if at all possible these days, between the military and the military industrial complex. I don't believe the military is inherently evil but think it's necessary to the defense of the country. The military industrial complex, on the other hand, is in the business of warfare and perhaps not as necessary as we might think.
It's just a matter of time before technology is used to the worst and best of it's capabilities... Someone will always be there to take the money, but I applaud you, sir.
A good discussion from 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11478951
I think Phil Rogaway at UC Davis has a similar page.
You're probably thinking of this: http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral.html
I am genuinely curious as to the author’s proposed non-violent means of settling with Al Queda et al, but he doesn’t go into any details. If you listened to OBL’s speech after 9/11 what he was most upset about was the downfall of the Caliphate in Turkey some 80 years previous. Similarly ISIS mission was to provoke a war with “Rome” to fulfill the prophecy of the 13th Imam (I may be hazy on the details). There’s literally no peaceful solution that any Western government could offer them.
The problem is that Al Queda and Osama bin Laden are the fruits of American military funding as well. The "chickens coming home to roost" as Obama's former pastor put it.
The US desired to overthrow Afghanistan's secular government in the 1970s and 1980s so it funded and armed Osama bin Laden and various jihadists to launch a terrorist campaign against the Saur government. Bin Laden had the same principles in the 1970s as he did to the end - when the Pakistani high command handed him over to the Americans (read Seymour Hersh or the Urdu Pakistani press on the handover, the US press printed fictious news on his death ).
What angered the Arabs who flew a plane into the Pentagon was imperial acts such as the US military occupation of Arabia. Propping up the Saud dictatorship which is currently supporting massacres in Yemen and slicing up Washington Post journalists in their embassies.
Bin Laden is a creation of US military funding, he does not make a good Boogeyman for more US military funding.
Where does this argument factor in a century of the civilised west bombing the region and arming some of the worst governments in the modern world.
Umm, because there is no such thing as a time machine? Any serious proposals have to start with the state of the world as it presently is.
A century of fighting would suggest that most violent methods have been tried.
What is your serious suggestion?
Spend say 10% of the war money on development of alternatives to oil. Then cut off the money supply to Saudi Arabia et al, confiscating financial assets in the West, and cordon off the region. There would still be some force required to enforce the blockade but that’s all.
Staking everything on the ‘oil alternative’ shifts solving the problem into the future by an unspecified amount. This time machine of ours is going to be busy.
Refusing to take military funding does not prevent war, or even make it significantly harder to prosecute such that there will be fewer wars. You cannot induce some sort safe stalemate by not accepting military funding. This no-military-funding meme prevalent in tech circles is virtue signaling writ large.
War happens when leaders choose to go to war. Technology does not directly lead to new wars.
There will always be actors willing to take, by force, whatever they can from those who are unable to defend themselves. History did not "end" when the USSR collapsed.
Good for him.
Disclaimer: I'm a recent PhD grad from MIT doing computer vision for military satellite imaging
I did two undergraduate research projects with DARPA funding, and that experience alone made me realize that I did not want military funding, and that I was not the kind of person that would be happy making munitions.
> Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that our country faces.
Wrong. The United States is inexorably in conflict nations whose domestic policy failures cause them to act in often violent ways that threaten US interests. If academia adopted Kuipers' position we would be no closer to peace, and much closer to living under another country's tyranny. Ask the people of Tibet as just one example.
I think simplifying the issue distracts us from the real issues, which are complex. The U.S. uses its military for good purposes and for bad. Sometimes war is due to other country's actions, sometimes due to the U.S.'s (e.g., Iraq), and probably usually due to both.
For example, the immediate causes of many U.S. wars later turn out to be false, such as the destruction of the Maine which precipitated the Spanish-American War, the Gulf of Tonkin which began full-scale intervention in Vietnam, and the WMD in Iraq.
But even wars that are justified lead to bad outcomes, as the author states: What war hasn't had the consequences you quoted? Unfortunately, sometimes, those are the best outcomes available, but it's quite a moral decision to inflict that on others.