upvote

points

by cushychicken12 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Demiurge9 hours ago|
next
[-]
> What people say about the US government being ahead of the commercially available technology curve is certainly true.

Is that what they say?

reply
upvoteby singingtoday5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes, and it's true. Not in every field. For example, defense contractors have material science well beyond what is commercially available. I'm a nobody, and what I've seen is world changing.

And that isn't even the half of it.

reply
upvoteby amarcheschi11 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Thanks
reply
upvoteby alexashka12 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby jckahn12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Is the implication here that we should take the moral high ground and let our adversaries murder us first?
reply
upvoteby justsomehnguy4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's quite strange what your adversaries become them after you travel to other side of the planet and kill, maim and destroy them.
reply
upvoteby Teever8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Is Canada an adversary of America? Or Greenland?

What position should Canadians or the people of Greenland take with regards to the people in the US military who are currently working to annex and invade their countries?

What position should the US military take with regards to the people in those countries who are currently working to resist those efforts to annex and invade their countries their homelands?

Do you consider Canadian and Icelandic civilians your adversary? If so, how did that come to be?

reply
upvoteby jacquesm6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I think you meant to write Greenland.
reply
upvoteby Teever6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Indeed I did, my brain was a bit foggy when I wrote after a night of partying.

Thanks for catching that.

reply
upvoteby jacquesm5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The times are wild enough that I first checked if Trump had been making any moves on Iceland, just in case I had missed something...
reply
upvoteby Sabinus6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Should the whole of the military quit because the American people were x enough to elect Trump?
reply
upvoteby jacquesm4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There is a Godwin in there somewhere.
reply
upvoteby Teever3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I can’t speak to what the American military should do in this situation but I’m curious to hear what HN users think the people of Canada and Greenland should do in this situation.

What would the American response to these kinds of actions be if the shoe was on the other foot?

Given the asymmetry in power how should Canada and Greenland respond?

If the American response to Iranian actions against American allies and interest in the Middle East is to spend half their missile stockpile to assassinate the leadership of Iran how should Canada respond to American threats of annexation and Greenland of invasion?

What’s proportional and sensible here?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/08/greenland-iwar...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alberta-separatism-trump-ad...

reply
upvoteby iso163111 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Well that would be fine if it was defence. But it's now the department of war, led by a person who has attacked two countries this year alone.
reply
upvoteby jckahn11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm against the U.S.'s broken leadership as much as any sensible person. But even in normal times with sane leadership, national defense is often a matter of "kill or be killed." This is certainly an uncomfortable truth, but that's the way of the world.
reply
upvoteby ryandrake7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
In what "normal" times is a country down to the "kill or be killed" choice? It's only "kill or be killed" if you are under attack by an actual aggressor. When was the last time, say, Canada or New Zealand, felt their national defense choices were "kill or be killed"?
reply
upvoteby alexashka9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> national defense is often a matter of "kill or be killed."

You and Israel's current leadership are in agreement.

reply
upvoteby mpyne9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Ukraine is also running headlong into the reality of kill or be killed.
reply
upvoteby culi11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I mean it's not like we know those "adversaries" ever wanted to murder us. For example, the US has a long record of assassinating labor leaders in South America to protect our Banana Republics on behalf of Chiquita. I think it's absolutely fair to bring in skepticism towards the secrets our military keeps from us
reply
upvoteby jckahn11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Do you believe that "death to America" chants should not be taken seriously?
reply
upvoteby dofm9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
In short, yes. They should not be taken seriously. You should take Iranian actions on the ground seriously, and ignore that which is essentially compelled political theatre.
reply
upvoteby culi10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I'm saying it is foolish and historically uninformed to hold a blind faith that everyone that the US labels an "adversary" is evil.

Would you like to engage with the comment I left?

reply
upvoteby jckahn10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I agree that blindly assuming that all "adversaries" of the U.S. (per labeling by the U.S. government) want to kill us. But it does seem that some indeed do. It would further seem that proportionate countermeasures would be appropriate for those cases.
reply
upvoteby Planktonne7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
If they have no practical way of acting on the chant, then it's just bluster.
reply
upvoteby throw3108229 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
No they shouldn't because "death to" is simply a mistranslation. "Death to" is an idiom in Persian that means approximately "down with"- and in fact the official translation by the Iranian government itself is "Down with the USA". But I'm curious what you thought it meant.
reply
upvoteby theodric8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So rather than wanting to kill the USA, they merely want to bring it down? That sounds like a distinction without a difference if you're a military tasked with ensuring that your country continues to exist.
reply
upvoteby culi5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I would say "down with Palantir". That doesn't mean I want every member of that organization dead. In the same way, it's absolutely fine to say down with a state. States/corporations don't have rights. People do.
reply
upvoteby mx7zysuj4xew9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yeah

To the younger generations it's just political theatre and gets laughed at as being the equivalent of boomer cringe

reply
upvoteby fryanyway_swe8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby alexashka10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby jckahn9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm genuinely not sure how else to interpret your previous comment. Do you see any situations where defense by lethal force is appropriate?
reply
upvoteby alexashka9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby oh_fiddlesticks12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
A bit of an unconstructive, unwarranted jab, if I may say so.
reply
upvoteby halJordan11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Ah. Cool story bro. Meanwhile private equity doctors let their private corp owners kill people over insurance denials. But complain only when their malpractice copay rises.

Tech workers for Silicon Valley daily enable and positively contribute to the pervasive surveillance and exploitation of the majority of the world. To the point the poors cant even open the app or walk into the store without an algorithm raises prices to the mathematical max this person can afford. But they only complain when free bananas are removed from the snacks.

reply
upvoteby kingkawn11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Maybe everything you listed and nation state murders are all bad?
reply