Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethbr0 | Hacker News Reader

+1. Part of being part of a national military is subordinating your desires to the chain of command, which in a democracy usually flows to the highest elected official.

If one wants to pick and choose "right" conflicts, one shouldn't serve.

And ultimately... while I know HN has a pretty anti-authority bend... if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for?

Which isn't saying that uses of military power in reality are always right or justified, but is saying that effectively every other government power rests on top of its having the authority to use force to enforce compliance. And a military is a major component of that.

View on HN

I'd consider deploying the military to be a much higher bar of trust than building and maintaining roads and tax policies, providing healthcare and education, etc.

I don't trust the government to use force responsibly, especially on people who are not part of a social contract with it. The government's authority comes from the consent of the governed, not by force

> I'd consider deploying the military to be a much higher bar of trust than building and maintaining roads and tax policies, providing healthcare and education, etc.

What happens when roads are destroyed or barricaded for tolls, taxes aren't paid, or healthcare and education are withheld from anyone who isn't a white man? (to offer a few hypotheticals)

I am more ok with destroyed roads then with expansive war or atrocities and so on. Those cause way more harm. I not ok with racist education. By I am even more not ok with army being used for racist project - and that one causes more harm.

Also, by current legal standards, soldiers are supposed to refuse orders if those lead to genocide and such. It is so after Nuremberg after WWII.

I am very fine with the rare Russian soldier refusing to fight Ukraine. The one following orders when "filtering" or killing civilians should be prosecuted.

When push comes to shove, it's about power. F.ex. the desegregation of Arkansas schools [0]. If don't have force to command, you don't have authority.

My point that the very existence of laws (any laws!) is predicated on access to force.

Without force, you can only have those rules to which everyone voluntarily agrees, and continues doing so.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine#National_Gu...

> When push comes to shove, it's about power. F.ex. the desegregation of Arkansas schools [0]. If don't have force to command, you don't have authority.

I would point out that segregation itself was hold by forces. The particular unit went there, because local ones were onthe other side.

Please read the entire entry. What happened after that?

Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg "I was following orders" crowd, which makes me doubt your assertion.

> if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for?

Do you have to trust them for anything? It's not like it's a viable option to decide that you don't want to designate any government as "yours". Good luck surviving in no man's land if you do. What makes government "theirs" for lots of people is just the threat of organized violence or exclusion.

Hard to tell if you're just trolling or being serious.

* Nuremberg and "just following orders" was about actual orders to specific individuals to do things that were literal war crimes, and those individuals carrying those orders out. One country designating another country an enemy is not, in fact, a war crime.

>> Do you have to trust them for anything?

I mean, yes? Even when you live in a libertarian fantasy land it turns out you need to have some level of trust in a government. You trust the road you're driving on won't collapse and that the folks at fire department know which end of the hose the water comes out of. You trust that because you trust that the gov that pays for that made the right choices. You can pretend you can have a society without relying on an organized collective of people who live in that society but I cannot logically see how that would work.

> One country designating another country an enemy is not, in fact, a war crime.

But an illegal war of aggression is a crime against humanity, right?

Starting an illegal war of aggression is a crime for which some people were convicted in Nuremberg Tribunals.

However, all the soldiers fighting in such an illegal war of aggression are not considered responsible for that crime. For "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers "I was just following orders" actually is a legitimate excuse, and should not result in any convictions (of e.g. murder) unless they commit some explicit war crimes, e.g. murdering captured civilians.

> For "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers

But, that is not how those wars happen. Like, literally none of those wars was limited to killing uniformed enemy soldiers. That might be Hollywood idea of war. But pretty much all of real ones involved units killing/torturing locals. Sometimes more and as a strategy, other times less so. But it happens literally every time. It is not that all armies are the same, they are not. Some are much much better then others.

But, in general, worldwide, "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers is not what war is.

While none of the wars was limited to killing uniformed enemy soldiers, for the vast majority of soldiers fighting those wars (even if illegal wars of aggression) their personal actions were limited to killing uniformed soldiers and they are not responsible or liable for any war crimes, as they did not perform them.

> Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg

It didn't work for those convicted in the Nuremberg trials because the Nazis lost. Had the Third Reich persisted with a truce, do you really think they would have been charged, convicted, and sentenced?

Legal liability gets pretty hazy when applying it in a non-sovereign arenas (i.e. international matters). Yes, there are treaties [0], but what are treaties without enforcement?

> Do you have to trust them for anything?

People are welcome to move to areas where government interaction is less or non-existent. They generally choose not to. Largely, because the economies in places like that suck, because it's hard to employ capital in an anarchist, solely-"might makes right" environment.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#International_tr...

> Had the Third Reich persisted with a truce, do you really think they would have been charged, convicted, and sentenced?

Pre Nuremberg expectations on soldiers were blind obedience nazi or not. Nuremberg set the expectation on soldiers from then on. WWII changed that.

It could not happen due to their own ideology. It did not allowed for lasting compromise which everyone else knew. Third Reich would not prosecuted those people, because by their ethical standards they were doing right thing.

Then again, Pablo Escobar believed he is cool guy by own standards too.

> WWII changed that

Bullshit. Who was prosecuted for the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo?

How many of the German rocketry experts scooped up during Paperclip were convicted?

How many US military members have been delivered to the ICJ?

> Bullshit. Who was prosecuted for the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo?

Neither of these is comparable for what Germans did and you know it.

> How many US military members have been delivered to the ICJ?

US did not signed membership.

> Neither of these is comparable for what Germans did and you know it.

A couple tens of thousands of dead civilians seems pretty serious to me.

By your metric, how many dead civilians are sufficient to warrant prosecution?

> US did not signed membership.

The US did sign membership, and then withdrew in 1986 because it didn't want to be bound by rulings.

I don't know any areas you're describing.

I also conjecture that once you turn a non-governed area into an El Dorado, "might makes right" will push it right back into a government. I don't feel a regular person has any choice if they want to thrive but to surrender themselves to some government regardless of trust.

It's often misunderstood, but the Nuremberg Defence is a genuine defence to criminal behaviour, including war crimes. It's just not an absolute one, and cannot be used for the crime of genocide. If you're in a missile silo and you're ordered to nuke Moscow, you're not responsible for the outcome.

From what perspective is there no responsibility for the actions of the last one in the chain of command?

>if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for?

Building roads, schools, and fire stations are pretty high on the list.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com