Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlecSchueler | Hacker News Reader

Indirectly is great unless you don't live in the US/SR in which case it's in your backyard. Indirect fighting hasn't been so great for Afghanis.

View on HN

My most recent commute took me over the line of the Berlin wall. While what you say is true, a direct conflict between the USA and USSR would have been so much worse for most of the world.

Co-incidentally, home discussion about "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" this evening.

I didn't mean to suggest direct conflict would be any better, I just found out disturbing to see NINBYism applied to war. Basically "let's hope it continues to be other people who suffer from our conflicts and never us."

Mm. I get your vibe.

…but also I think NINBYism is the wrong metaphor for the point you make: if everyone NINBYs housing, we have an end to housing and all suffer the shortage; if everyone NINBYs war, we have an end to war.

But I get your vibe.

But everyone can't do that. There are tremendous global power disparities. That's why there's near continuous proxy conflicts but it rarely flares up to the point that aggressor nations have to suffer directly.

Were they doing well before?

Turns out that people bombing your infrastructure and your people actually makes life worse, regardless of your ranking in the world economic stack ranking...

Is the suggestion that we should fight all our wars in the most impoverished places because it makes the least difference to the people there? I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com