Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

The only video I saw was amateur footage of a jet being shot down.

[Phmcw]

The population hate kadhafi (hence the big revolution thingie), so they won't get mad at even moderate amount of civilian casualties.
There's been thousands of civilian death in France and Belgium from allied bombers and that hasn't shifted public opinion.
They pretend to have shotted down a French Aircraft, too. Wonder if it's true, but I'd guess not.

[inteuniso]

Reuters article about commencement of military action.

Been reading up and apparently the French got the first shot in. Rather Ironic.

[Zrk2]

Yeah, why is France leading the action?

As well Utah just designated an official state handgun.

[Jackrabbit]

France has a pretty large, impressive military and it's quite close.

[inteuniso]

Italy is closer, and they're also participating.

The US isn't sending any ground troops, just lots of Tomahawks and Air support. The participant nations are the US, Canada, Italy, Britain, and France. Germany abstained from the action.

[olemars]

Pretty sure Obama is OK with not taking front seat of this op. For Europe it's important to show they're capable of military actions without the US to hold their hand all the way. If we couldn't pull something like this in a country right next door we might as well just disarm*.


*Not that some countries aren't close to that already, Norway for instance is down to some tanks, some planes, a couple of frigates, and Kagus.

[Zrk2]

And lots of barbed wire.

[Simmura McCrea]

And Norway.

[Jackrabbit]

I'm pretty sure Kagus can't be deployed, though. So they might as well not be involved at all.

[Zrk2]

And here come the shots of Tomahawks launching on CNN.

[SalmonGod]

I don't buy the argument about war being an instigator of progress at all.

1.  Many of the advances people attribute to this are actually applications of previous scientific discoveries or technologies which came about independent of warfare, but war is kind of a big deal and builds stronger associations so that forever afterwards it becomes popular to identify those technologies as an extension of that conflict.

2.  Even if I buy this argument, it's still a really weak one.  If I focus tons of effort on one thing, I'm going to learn a bit about associated things, but not as much as if I had just focused on those associated things in the first place.  Justifying the development of destructive technologies because it will indirectly lead to the development of constructive technologies is like saying we should become economists by studying chemistry because both require math skills.

3.  You may argue that the motivation is what's really key, but this only belies our misallocation of resources.  There are tons of people ready and willing to work on benefitting mankind, but they can't get the resources to pursue those goals unless they can prove themselves useful to powerful people who usually don't end up as such by being interested in helping others.

4.  Tons of knowledge, progress, and potential is lost in conflict as history is re-written by victors, libraries and museums are destroyed, intelligent people and their works are assassinated or kidnapped or caught in crossfire, life in general is severely interrupted, resources are diverted into destruction, and those resources must again be diverted afterwards into rebuilding.

5.  As military science advances, so does dystopian control of the populace.  The military-industrial complex required to wage efficient warfare is also a hungry beast who doesn't just say "Ok I did my thing.  Please return to your peaceful lives now."

[Il Palazzo]

Eh, I was more inclined to argue against the idea on the moral grounds.
One can't really deny that technological progress of some sorts usually followed conflicts, at least in the recent history, and that some of those advances trickled down to the civilian sector.
However this doesn't put too much weight on the scales of moral value of warfare, if one considers that on the other end there's practically unimaginable amount of pain and suffering.
Sure it's nice to have internet and pictures from HST, and radio and all those other things that would probably otherwise get invented decades later, but if somebody says that they'd rather have their broadband than save all those lives, then there's something terribly wrong with that person.

But of course, you're right too - who knows where would the world be now, if all those dead people could live and have children? How many potential geniuses have we killed already?

[SalmonGod]

if somebody says that they'd rather have their broadband than save all those lives, then there's something terribly wrong with that person.

I agree, but that's a difference in values which only leads to a debate about the subjectivity of those values.  Much better to attack an argument on its own premises when you can.

But of course, you're right too - who knows where would the world be now, if all those dead people could live and have children? How many potential geniuses have we killed already?

Oh and this is a simplification that war proponents love to turn into strawmen.  There's more to it than this.  Technologies get sabotaged by opposing sides.  Dissenting intellectuals are targets for assassination or imprisonment.  Large amounts of people are drafted who could have done more constructive things.

[Leafsnail]

Research for war may have unexpected side benefits in the same way as research for anything is quite likely to have unexpected side benefits (think space programme).  You can't really attribute the advances made to war, since similar advances may have been made in other ways if we weren't putting those resources towards said wars.