There is research and then there is military research.

[Entropy]

Who here thinks NASA should be given more money and the US military a whole lot less?

I know I do seeing how I'm a pacifist and don't believe in war. I know most people would never completely drain the military of funding. But really its got way to much funding, I mean its not like people are waking up in their sleep worring if America is going to be invaded by North Korea. I think people will be suprised by how little trouble there is and how much bad guys will leave you along if you're neutral.

Besides couldn't you save more lives if you spent 100 billion dollars fighting cancer which could save millions than created a new stealth fighter that might save 30 pilolts' lives?

What do you think?

 

[loseyourname]

The technology developed by the military is quite frequently adapted to civilian purposes. As long as the bulk of their funding is devoted to research and development, I have no major problem with it in principle, though I don't approve of the deficit spending necessary to maintain the budget they currently have.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I think we gain more from military research. It isn't just about ICBM missiles.

Besides, wasn't the origin of the whole rocket industry based on military applications? I would bet we gained more in ten years of WWII military research than any other ten year stretch in history.

The success of military research is staggering. War induces progress. It's a sad fact, but it's still a fact.

I know I do seeing how I'm a pacifist and don't believe in war.

What is there to believe? That war doesn't exist? That war wouldn't exist if only we stopped participating?

I think your view is very naive. The United States in 1941 was relatively pacifist, yet we ended up fighting for the next four years regardless.

War is like a disease. You can say "I don't believe in disease" all you want, but the disease is there regardless.

I know most people would never completely drain the military of funding. But really its got way to much funding, I mean its not like people are waking up in their sleep worring if America is going to be invaded by North Korea. I think people will be suprised by how little trouble there is and how much bad guys will leave you along if you're neutral.

The same was said about Japan in the 1930s. In fact, the America First campaign read just like your statement.

In truth, we cannot live in a vacuum. And the world would not want the US to look away when the bad guys begin pillaging.

For one, Serbia would have wiped out the Muslim population in the Balkans. Kuwait would now be a province of Iraq (and the Kuwaitis slaughtered).

By definition, you are an Isolationist. I think we have proven many times over that withdrawing into our own border ultimately bites us in the end.

Besides couldn't you save more lives if you spent 100 billion dollars fighting cancer which could save millions than created a new stealth fighter that might save 30 pilolts' lives?

This assumes that a cure exists and that we could find it. But look at how much money we threw at finding an AIDS cure. Today, no such cure exists.

I don't believe there is a cure for cancer. I think we can stop it once it starts, but cancer will always be a huge killer of the world's population because the disease's origin is based on the very nature of human cells. In this way, cancer is unlike AIDS. You can cure AIDS once people change their behavior.

My motto is to keep the powder dry. Every time we have lapsed on military spending we have paid for it in the end. WWI caught us completely unprepared, as we couldn't envision fighting overseas for foreign countries. After WWI we disarmed, thinking that the Great War ended all wars. Surely countries had learned their lessons. Besides, we had the League of Nations, right? So we got caught with our pants down at Pearl Harbor. After WWII we disarmed once again, and dearly paid for it in South Korea.

 

[Entropy]

That war wouldn't exist if only we stopped participating?

Umm... YEAH! If everyone stopped participating then yes there would be no war. Look don't act smart and I won't give you smart remarks back. Its blindly obvious that's not what I ment. It means I don't believe in particapating in warfare. Not that it doesn't exist.

I think your view is very naive. The United States in 1941 was relatively pacifist, yet we ended up fighting for the next four years regardless.

Really now? Didn't they just get done fighting WWI? I think the word you're looking for is "passive," not "pacifist," there is a difference.

For one, Serbia would have wiped out the Muslim population in the Balkans. Kuwait would now be a province of Iraq (and the Kuwaitis slaughtered).

By definition, you are an Isolationist. I think we have proven many times over that withdrawing into our own border ultimately bites us in the end.

First off it wouldn't have "bitten" us at all seeing how Kuwait and the Balkans aren't in American

Look if they want to slaughter themselves I won't stop them by force. You wonder why these poor defenseless countries sometimes get threatened with slaughter? Because usually they've done something to initate it. The reason Serbia started genocide was because the Muslims fought back with the same violence the Serbs showed to them!

Read up on Mahatma Gandhi. He was a pacifist and he liberated India from the British that murdered thousands of Indians.

This assumes that a cure exists and that we could find it. But look at how much money we threw at finding an AIDS cure. Today, no such cure exists.

I don't believe there is a cure for cancer. I think we can stop it once it starts, but cancer will always be a huge killer of the world's population because the disease's origin is based on the very nature of human cells. In this way, cancer is unlike AIDS. You can cure AIDS once people change their behavior.

Noticed I never said "cure" I said "fight." There have been major break throughs in cancer treatment and AIDS treatment in the last 20 years. Are you saying we will never ever in a thousand years find anything that could help some with cancer live a lot longer by fighting/removing cancer through newly invented methods?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Read up on Mahatma Gandhi. He was a pacifist and he liberated India from the British that murdered thousands of Indians.

Gandhi did no such thing. India gained independence because of British losses in Asia during WWII. (The British gave up Burma the same year as India, 1947. I suppose Gandhi liberated Burma as well.)

In fact, the British pretty much gave up all of their colonies after WWII, India included.

Noticed I never said "cure" I said "fight." There have been major break throughs in cancer treatment and AIDS treatment in the last 20 years. Are you saying we will never ever in a thousand years find anything that could help some with cancer live a lot longer by fighting/removing cancer through newly invented methods?

Well, I draw a distinction between saving lives (your quote) and extending lives. If the person dies from cancer and you helped him live five years longer, I don't think you can be credited with saving his life. So that is why I substituted the word "cure," because that is the word we typically associate with saving lives.

 

[Entropy]

So doctors don't save lives? I disagree.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Doctors save lives all the time, just not when they postpone the inevitable.

 

[devil-fire]

there are a lot fewer people dieing of cancer now then there were 50 years ago because of research. people who have had cancer have been rid of it because of research. what's the point in doing any medical research of we only extend life? the point is the extra years a person has to live.

 

[JohnDubYa]

there are a lot fewer people dieing of cancer now then there were 50 years ago because of research. people who have had cancer have been rid of it because of research. what's the point in doing any medical research of we only extend life? the point is the extra years a person has to live.

That wasn't the point of our discussion, which centered around the term "saves." In short, if you find you have cancer and the doctor allows you to live (say) two years longer than you would have normally, then I don't consider that a case where the doctor saved your life.

This thread has grown into a debate over semantics, that's all.

 

[devil-fire]

how many years must a life be extended to be saved? until the person dies of another cause?

military research is good for scientific development but there are better ways to spend money if the issue is making life better for people

 

[russ_watters]

Umm... YEAH! If everyone stopped participating then yes there would be no war. Look don't act smart and I won't give you smart remarks back. Its blindly obvious that's not what I ment. It means I don't believe in particapating in warfare. Not that it doesn't exist.

No offense, but the clarification (he knew what you meant) is just as bad as the blunt statement. Good luck trying to convince everyone to stop participating in war. Sorry, but like it or not, war exists and is going to exist for a long time. We need to be prepared for it. Even Clinton eventually realized he needed the military - and he was one of the most ant-military presidents we have ever had.

I think people will be suprised by how little trouble there is and how much bad guys will leave you along if you're neutral.

The US isn't 1940s Switzerland and no amount of wishful thinking will make us 1940s Switzerland. Neutrality didn't work in 1939 or the US, now that we have international air travel, its not going to get any easier.

Having the biggest economy in the world means we trade with virtually everyone. If we don't like a country, we can certainly choose not to trade with them (Cuba), but since we have so much money, just not trading is considered a hostile act. Also, trading means giving countries money to do the things those countries will do. If those countries massacre civilians while using an American trade surplus to keep their economy from collapsing (China), or make clothes in sweat-shops (pretty much all of SE Asia), that matters to me. But that's not all:

I believe in the Moral Imperative. We have a moral obligation to help countries such as Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda. Why? Because we can. To sit by and watch a genocide, famine, and another genocide when we have the power to stop it is morally wrong.

I think people will be suprised by how little trouble there is and how much bad guys will leave you along if you're neutral.

And I think that's horribly, horribly naive. Beyond the difficulty in simply being neutral (who are we going to buy oil from if not Kuait?), its not possible to remain neutral when dealing with an enemy who's primary beef with you is that you exist.

 

[JohnDubYa]

how many years must a life be extended to be saved? until the person dies of another cause?

Essentially, yes. Now if the disease relapses, and then later comes back and claims the victim, well... okay.

Suppose you pull a drowning victim out of the pool, but he later dies on the way to the hospital. Did you save his life? No, but your tried to save his life. That alone is noble.

military research is good for scientific development but there are better ways to spend money if the issue is making life better for people

Depends on what you mean by "better."

 

[Atrayo]

Hello Entropy,

Who here thinks NASA should be given more money and the US military a whole lot less? ---Entropy.

Umm, if you didn't realize it those astronuats who fly those missions are the elite of the US Airforce & US Navy. Although the scientists are mostly civilians, besides some of those research labs may be of the military or government likewise. (not all are civilian or academic labs/contractors)

I myself would like to see a government entity like NASA, but for the Oceans. Yes there are numerous smaller research outfits, and oil / natural gas energy companies. But, nothing of a similar magnitude of NASA for the seas.

 

[Entropy]

No offense, but the clarification (he knew what you meant) is just as bad as the blunt statement. Good luck trying to convince everyone to stop participating in war. Sorry, but like it or not, war exists and is going to exist for a long time. We need to be prepared for it. Even Clinton eventually realized he needed the military - and he was one of the most ant-military presidents we have ever had.

I don't expect everyone to stop fighting as I said in my very first post.

Having the biggest economy in the world means we trade with virtually everyone. If we don't like a country, we can certainly choose not to trade with them (Cuba), but since we have so much money, just not trading is considered a hostile act. Also, trading means giving countries money to do the things those countries will do. If those countries massacre civilians while using an American trade surplus to keep their economy from collapsing (China), or make clothes in sweat-shops (pretty much all of SE Asia), that matters to me. But that's not all:

I don't see your point.

I believe in the Moral Imperative. We have a moral obligation to help countries such as Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda. Why? Because we can. To sit by and watch a genocide, famine, and another genocide when we have the power to stop it is morally wrong.

I though I already explained this. Here it is again:

Look if they want to slaughter themselves I won't stop them by force. You wonder why these poor defenseless countries sometimes get threatened with slaughter? Because usually they've done something to initate it. The reason Serbia started genocide was because the Muslims fought back with the same violence the Serbs showed to them!

Look I'd never kill someone else (I mean anyone) even if were to lose trade, luxuries, freedom, money, family and just about anything else. I know I couldn't kill for my family because I know they share the same beliefs as me. Trying to stop people from doing evil things is good and all, but sinking down to their level and killing for what you think is righteous only encourages other people to kill for what they think is righteous.

 

[devil-fire]

Essentially, yes. Now if the disease relapses, and then later comes back and claims the victim, well... okay.

Suppose you pull a drowning victim out of the pool, but he later dies on the way to the hospital. Did you save his life? No, but your tried to save his life. That alone is noble.

this same reasoning could be used for explaining that a person who had a heart transplant durring childhood and died of heart complications at the age of 85 didnt have their life saved at all and that mearly extending life is not good enough. although the nobility of the effort was commendable

 

[loseyourname]

Look I'd never kill someone else (I mean anyone) even if were to lose trade, luxuries, freedom, money, family and just about anything else. I know I couldn't kill for my family because I know they share the same beliefs as me. Trying to stop people from doing evil things is good and all, but sinking down to their level and killing for what you think is righteous only encourages other people to kill for what they think is righteous.

The same level? How can you compare killing a murderer who is in the process of murdering to the mass slaughter of innocents?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Look I'd never kill someone else (I mean anyone) even if were to lose trade, luxuries, freedom, money, family and just about anything else.

We would still be British if we followed your example.

 

[JohnDubYa]

this same reasoning could be used for explaining that a person who had a heart transplant durring childhood and died of heart complications at the age of 85 didnt have their life saved at all and that mearly extending life is not good enough. although the nobility of the effort was commendable

When did I say that merely extending life was not good enough? Extending people's lives is very much a good thing.

 

[russ_watters]

We would still be British if we followed your example.

And the French would speak German.

Entropy, it nice that you live in a place and time when that kind of thought works for you, but it hasn't always worked for anyone and won't ever work for everyone.

 

[Moonbear]

I usually stay out of political discussions, but I couldn't resist on this one. Are you aware that the Department of Defense also funds civilian research? Much like NASA, the DOD funds a variety of research programs. I don't think I would say it's an either/or situation between funding military or NASA, and if military funding were cut, I think there are better places to put that money than NASA anyway. If you want to see funding for cancer research, NASA sure isn't where you want the money to go. Get them to increase the NIH budget if that's what you want.

It's my selfish interest to see more spending on research, but my less selfish side recognizes there are other places where I'd rather see money go, such as for secondary education, or just pay down the national debt so we aren't spending so much in interest payments!

 

[Entropy]

We would still be British if we followed your example.

I could live with that. Whats wrong with the British?

The same level? How can you compare killing a murderer who is in the process of murdering to the mass slaughter of innocents?

I cannot weight lives, I believe no man can.

It's my selfish interest to see more spending on research, but my less selfish side recognizes there are other places where I'd rather see money go, such as for secondary education, or just pay down the national debt so we aren't spending so much in interest payments!

That too, I believe, is better than investing in the military.

And the French would speak German.

Nope. Because if they French had not have threatened Germany (by backing up Russia) in WWI then Germany wouldn't have had a reason to invade France, it is very probable that WWII would not have occurred also.

 

[JohnDubYa]

We need to go back to your earlier quote:

Look I'd never kill someone else (I mean anyone) even if were to lose trade, luxuries, freedom, money, family and just about anything else. I know I couldn't kill for my family because I know they share the same beliefs as me. Trying to stop people from doing evil things is good and all, but sinking down to their level and killing for what you think is righteous only encourages other people to kill for what they think is righteous.

So you're French and the Germans invade France. What do you do? Would you advocate that everyone in France adopt your position? If so, what are the ramifications?

What would you have advocated the US do after Pearl Harbor?

It sounds to me like you have a lot of ideals that sound good on a bumper sticker but have no real-world merit.

 

[russ_watters]

I cannot weight lives, I believe no man can.

I can only hope you never get into a situation where you will have to. Most people never do, but not everyone is so lucky. One reason I joined the military was I considered it a duty to put myself in such situations so that guys like you wouldn't have to.

Nope. Because if they French had not have threatened Germany (by backing up Russia) in WWI then Germany wouldn't have had a reason to invade France, it is very probable that WWII would not have occurred also.

You really need to read some history. France (and the rest of the allies) appeased Germany after a good half a dozen annexations. Remember Neville Chaimberlain? "We have peace in our time!"

Entropy, you are simply not living in the real world - and we haven't even addressed the Holocaust yet!

 

[Atrayo]

Hello Entropy,

Look I'd never kill someone else (I mean anyone) even if were to lose trade, luxuries, freedom, money, family and just about anything else. ---Entropy.

I can respect that and even admire it to a point, unfortunately if not by the end of the year or Spring 2005 those ideals will be tested for those 18-26 year olds. Since I'm 90% certain that a military draft is coming down the pipe. Bush can't unveil that during an election year, although his adminstration has been hiring and upgrading enmasse selective service since November 2003. If Kerry gets elected he'll simply have to carry out what Bush put into motion secretly. Making him look like a monster, and another 1 term president if Bush fails to get reelected.

If your 20 yrs old you'll be the first round to be picked, going up to age 26, and then cycling back to the last rounds of the 18 & 19 yr. olds. US Selective Service.

Otherwise if there really is a draft, due to shortage of volunteer troops and NATO doesn't enter the picture. You can hope for two forms of "conscientious objector" status. There are other loopholes but i won't go into that within the military system.

I cannot weight lives, I believe no man can. ---Entropy.

Men have most with conscience, and less without. Ever since humanity has created armies for thousands of years commanding officers have weighed their lives to secure portions of the battlefield. It continues today, and most certainly continue until humanity no longer finds a need to use warefare as a tool of change.

It also occurs to a lesser extent in hostage negiotation whether by police or counter-terrorism outfits, by playing a numbers game. Pragmatic approaches often have taken a back seat to idealistic motives, but not always or this country wouldn't exist. (USA)

 

[JohnDubYa]

So conscription is Bush's scheme, eh?

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/040615Gregory.html

"Actually, the Selective Service is always getting ready for a draft. Its website boasts that the agency trains “over 11,000 volunteers… so that if a draft is reinstated, they will be able to fulfill their obligations fairly and equitably.” President Bush assured Americans after 9/11 that there is “not a chance” of bringing back conscription. Yet two bills have been introduced in Congress that would reinstate the draft, apply it to women as well as men, and allow no deferments for college students. Legislators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Charles Rangel (D-NY) have spoken favorably about the idea. Presidential hopeful John Kerry has vaguely called for “mandatory service” on his website, though the term “mandatory” was taken off the site after it received unwanted attention."

Heh.

Anyone notice how similar Kerry is to Clinton? He uses a vague description, then removes it when it is deemed unpopular. (It is probably still there, just not visible.)

 

[Njorl]

I actually work as a researcher for the Army. This year I've been working on highly efficient solar cells, automated vision systems and high-speed/high-density communication. I suppose some people do actually do research on weapons, but weapons are cheap, easy and straightforward. The problems have basically been solved - high-speed bits of metal kill people, and blowing things up destroys things. The bulk of what gets money will eventually be in the public sector - robotics, energy and communications. I'm sure it is not the most cost effective way to do things, but it doesn't cause war.

Many small nations around the world have arsenals supplied to them during the cold war. They can use these aggressively against their neighbors. One restraining influence is that they are no match technologically for the most advanced armies of the world. True, those advanced nations usually sit on their butts, but not always. When considering deaths from disease, you should also consider the deaths avoided from wars that have not been fought.

One of the few things I agree with Donald Rumsfeld about was the re-tooling of our military research. We were still preparing for a Soviet armored invasion of western Europe four years ago. That kind of spending has got to stop. People are worried about the Chinese crossing the Pacific when they can't even cross the Straits of Taiwan. I'm sure there is plenty of military research spending that is not useful, but it should be eliminated specifically, not generally.

Njorl

 

[JohnDubYa]

Good words, Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

I can respect that and even admire it to a point, unfortunately if not by the end of the year or Spring 2005 those ideals will be tested for those 18-26 year olds. Since I'm 90% certain that a military draft is coming down the pipe. Bush can't unveil that during an election year, although his adminstration has been hiring and upgrading enmasse selective service since November 2003. If Kerry gets elected he'll simply have to carry out what Bush put into motion secretly. Making him look like a monster, and another 1 term president if Bush fails to get reelected.

Sorry, Atrayo, but you got snookered. The Democrats have been pushing a draft as a ploy to scare people away from support of the president's military actions.

Bush is not planning on instituting a draft - indeed, the only way anyone, Dem or Rep, would ever actually try to implement a draft again is if we had another world war.

 

[Entropy]

So you're French and the Germans invade France. What do you do? Would you advocate that everyone in France adopt your position? If so, what are the ramifications?

I guess I'd turn into a German citizen.

What would you have advocated the US do after Pearl Harbor?

Look I can understand acting in direct self-defence, don't get me wrong I still don't condone killing in self-defence. You make a good point because Japan was killing thousands of Chinese and other Asians and the US cut of their trade, which was the right thing to do.

Okay, let's assume that the US became 100% pacifist right before Pearl Harbor and Japan knew this. Do you think they really would have attack us if they knew we weren't a threat?

Entropy, you are simply not living in the real world - and we haven't even addressed the Holocaust yet!

I'm very glad you brought this up. Many thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses (I myself am a Jehovah's Witnesses) were put in death camps like the Jews were and eventually killed. Although not nearly as many were killed because there weren't as many Jews as Jehovah's Witnesses the is a certain difference in why they where put to death. Many Witnesses acutally had a choice wheather or not to be put into death camps and eventually killed. The choice was simple: if you fought in the German army you would live or you could refuse to fight and die. Since Witnesses do not take sides in wars they refused to fight and therefore were murdered. I'm sure all of them would do the same if they had to do it over and I know I and nearly all Witnesses today would do the same.

 

[Atrayo]

Hello Russ_watters,

Bush is not planning on instituting a draft - indeed, the only way anyone, Dem or Rep, would ever actually try to implement a draft again is if we had another world war. ---Russ_watters.

*Cough*, we are in "World War III", but not against a single nation but the scourge of global terrorism. Although the Bush Admin seems to be getting more like "Macarthism" everyday, which scares me. They're starting to use that same rhetoric against Iran now, that terrorists are there.

I say we're in WWIII, because: Europe, Middle East, Australia, North & South America are pretty much up to their necks in terrorist activity. Asia, I'm not so sure about yet at this point.

------------

Hello Njorl,

I guess you must work at the http://www.aro.ncren.net/ then?

This year I've been working on highly efficient solar cells, automated vision systems and high-speed/high-density communication. ---Njorl.

I hope those are unclassifed projects, or you just committed a "No-No". :tongue2:

 

[loseyourname]

I cannot weight lives, I believe no man can.

So you think the Americans and Russians racing to kill Hitler were no better than Hitler himself? Or for a more personal example, if a man is raping my sister at knifepoint and I shoot him in the head, is that no better than shooting my sister in the head? How can you honestly make no distinction here?

 

[amp]

I think in some civilized societies that would have been the result, loseyourname, as the dis-honor of the rape required it. But to the subject the US spends a lot on bio and chemo weapons. From some books I've read(lab-257), some of the recent outbreaks of unusual diseases could have come from a few 'accidental' breechs of containment.

 

[Entropy]

So you think the Americans and Russians racing to kill Hitler were no better than Hitler himself?

Its the principal of the matter. It starts with the killing of someone who tried commited genocide, then maybe its okay to kill someone who killed a few people, then maybe its okay to kill someone who killed someone else, then maybe its okay if someone is right about to kill someone, then maybe its okay to kill someone who you think might kill someone in the future, then maybe its okay to kill some who is hurting someone else? You see where I'm going? The line is not definent. Even if a reasonably good man is deciding who dies many people won't see things like him and will want to take things into their own hands. More than likely one of those people who take it into their own will be evil, and guess what? You end up right back where you started with another man trying to commit genocide.

Or for a more personal example, if a man is raping my sister at knifepoint and I shoot him in the head, is that no better than shooting my sister in the head? How can you honestly make no distinction here?

It is true that some people truly don't deserve to live. The problem with your scenario here is that no real life situation is that simple.

What if your sister was also a rapist or a murder? But of course you know your sister isn't a rapist or a murder, but is she really completely innocient? What if she only acted good around you and then stole or harrast people when you weren't around you? All people do a certain amount of sins in their lives, how can you count them all and then weight them? What if that man was really a very nice person all his life but had been stepped on and humilated all his life too, and now just had a break down and really just needs some therapy?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Its the principal of the matter. It starts with the killing of someone who tried commited genocide, then maybe its okay to kill someone who killed a few people, then maybe its okay to kill someone who killed someone else, then maybe its okay if someone is right about to kill someone, then maybe its okay to kill someone who you think might kill someone in the future, then maybe its okay to kill some who is hurting someone else? You see where I'm going?

Yeah, the deep end.

You lock up someone for killing. You then lock up someone for committing robbery. You then lock up somone for jaywalking. You then lock up someone for looking at you funny. So locking up people is bad.

What the **** kind of logic is that?