This quote from the CEO of Palantir (Alex Karp) haunts me.
---<p><pre><code> > “I actually am a progressive,” he said. “I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology and by scaring the bejabers — I’m trying to be nice here — out of our adversaries. If they are not scared, they don’t wake up scared, they don’t go to bed scared, they don’t fear that the wrath of America will come down on them, they will attack us. They will attack us everywhere.”
</code></pre>
Source: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/17/style/alex-karp-palantir.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/17/style/alex-karp-palantir....</a>
America was build on paranoia and violence, so this doesn't surprise me very much
At any point in time there are probably many competing ideologies, even ones that are based on strength. For example, "speak softly but carry a big stick" is based on strength, but is pretty different than "they must wake up scared".<p>The issue with the "scared" approach is that all it takes is one country with that ideology for escalations to occur and everyone else to adopt that mindset.
It's quite surprising how long it took for the paranoia and violence to become directed inwards.
You must be a WASP.
I'm not American, nor living in the USA, nor Anglo-Saxon, not protestant, so no, you are absolutely wrong :)
Yep. This is the type of a psycho, that start all the wars.<p>If history teaches us anything, as soon as some country gets a superior war tech, it immediately leads to them using it to destroy whoever they see as their enemies. And what really stops wars is when their main adversaries have the same power to destroy if being attacked.<p>Mutual deterrence is what was keeping us from WW3 for several decades. But the recent and growing idea of USA that they can break from this stalemate and crush anyone with overwhelming strength is what makes WW3 closer and closer by the day.
The worst version of Si vis pacem, para bellum. There is an element of truth, but the reality is when one has overwhelming military over other, they also tend to use it and cause wars. See USA / Irak.
<i>If you want peace, prepare for war.</i><p>What is the purpose of using Latin in this context?
This quote has a very long history, most people know the latin locution (like memento mori) : <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum</a>
The quote is old, as old as our month names, which are also Latin, and are Latin because that was the language spoken by the people who named them.
> There is an element of truth, but the reality is when one has overwhelming military over other, they also tend to use it and cause wars. See USA / Irak.<p>I actually don't have an issue with the idea of the Iraq war <i>per se</i>. Deposing dictators is always a good thing, dictators have no right to exist.<p>The problem I have with the Iraq war was the completely botched execution, from start to finish. The start was based on the infamous WMD lies, the plans didn't include any concept on how the country should be run after the war, how to prevent warlords fighting over scraps, how to make sure democracy comes in <i>and stays afterwards</i>, and while the departure wasn't as bad as Afghanistan it wasn't clean either.
The problem with your thinking is that there was never a non-botched execution for the Iraq war. If you understood this before the invasion, it was very easy to be against the war.
<i>>Deposing dictators is always a good thing, dictators have no right to exist.</i><p>Oh yeah right, because those North African and middle eastern countries are doing so much better off now after the west spend decades and trillions to replace the Taliban with ... a different strain of Taliban. Such an improvement that was.<p>So then when are you also gonna declare war on North Korea, Eritrea, Turkmenistan, Syria, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia to free those people from their dictators? Second time's the lucky charm. Or third, Or fourth. Or 128th, depending when in time you start counting western military interventionism abroad.
Clearly shows that he does not understand the concept of cooperation, not outside of how a mob cooperates. He probably considers the Marshall Plan a failure.<p>Yes, strength isn't unimportant. But if that's your only approach you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. May he reap what he saws, preferably with as little collateral as possible.
Sounds like a direct quote from some religious ISIS fanatic.
Haunting part is as if they even care about less war. This is them trying to be progressive!
Karp also mentions being on the populist left in his own words in this video I posted on HN recently where he speaks at the Economic Club of Chicago:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44433483">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44433483</a>
<i>terror</i><p>noun<p>1) a state of intense or overwhelming fear<p>2) violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion<p><i>a regime that rules by terror</i><p><i>especially</i>: violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands<p><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror" rel="nofollow">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror</a>
The United States is the world's biggest terrorist.
No. They’re <i>all</i> terrorists. <i>All</i> states, <i>all</i> nexuses of control, can be defined as terrorists, if we broaden our definition of terrorist to include states and all their apparatuses. In particular, with reference to the state’s effective monopoly on legal violence.<p>But, amongst those options, you should have the intelligence to choose the <i>least bad</i>.<p>“The United States is the world's biggest terrorist”, is IMHO almost a meaningless claim. It is true, arguably, but in that case it is irrelevant.<p>Based on this interpretation, the US is far from the worst powers in our world. In fact it is above the median.
Really? What's your ranking then and methodology?<p>IMO one of the primary ways the US terrorizes is by bombing with impunity. According to its own record keeping, the US has dropped 337000 bombs in the last 20 years, or 46 bombs per day.<p>Can you imagine living in one of the countries that the US keeps bombing? Every time you hear an airplane you have to think if you're about to die, or someone you know is about to die, or a school is about to be blown up, or a water treatment facility.
<i>>You only stop war by having the best technology and by scaring the bejabers — I’m trying to be nice here — out of our adversaries.</i><p>That's haunting indeed to the naive minds who imagine the world must run on political correctness, rainbows and unicorns, but that's not how the real world works or has ever worked, and nobody can say that he's wrong though just because he's not sugar coating it. You only have peace if everyone is scared of you. Why do only small guys get bullied and not the tall muscular jocks? Why does Russia bully the EU and not the US?<p>Being pacifist doesn't assure you any peace if you're weak, as eventually, inevitably, someone hungry and greedy will build their strength to come for your lunch and you'll have to defend it if you want to keep it, as per human history in the last infinity years. Ask Belgium or NL how their pacifism worked out in WW2 in face of the Nazi army.<p>He should have just said: "Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war" if he wanted something that sounds nicer.
> You only have peace if everyone is scared of you.<p>How does your theory explain the 30 European nations that have been at peace with each other for decades? Is Poland simply too afraid of Lithuania due to Lithuanias military supremacy? Does France not invade the Netherlands because the Dutch army can field so many tanks?
<i>>How does your theory explain the 30 European nations that have been at peace with each other for decades?</i><p>How much of a percentage is those decades of peace out of the 200k year existence of the entire human race that has been defined only by war and conquest? You're cherry-picking the one exception the proves the rule.<p>Secondly, peace amongst EU countries was due to the US world nuclear power having established occupation of Europe after WW2, and then EU countries have allied together not out of fondness for one another (which doesn't exist even today), but out out necessity of survival, since that was the only way they could stand up to USSR threat. The enemy of my enemy is my friend basically.<p>Thirdly, conquest is at the core of EU too, except it's bureaucratic, political and economical, not military. Just because you don't see bullets being fired, doesn't mean the spoils of the economic pie doesn't get split up between victors.
> How much of a percentage is those decades of peace out of the 200k year entire existence of the human race that has been defined only by war?<p>This makes the peace they enjoy even more impressive, no?<p>> And secondly, EU countries have allied together not out of fondness for one another (which doesn't exist even today), but out out necessity of survival, since that was the only way they could stand up to bullying from US, Russia and China.<p>This is so inaccurate it would take an article long comment to refute. Maybe you should avoid explaining the history of places to others online if you clearly do not live in them.<p>> Thirdly, conquest is at the core of EU too, except it's bureaucratic, political and economical, not military.<p>This is why sovereign countries join the EU by their own volition, clearly!
<i>>This makes the peace they enjoy even more impressive, no?<p></i><p>No. "One bloomed flower does not mean it's spring" - saying from my country.<p><i>>This is why sovereign countries join the EU by their own volition, clearly!<p></i><p>Willingness or necessity? If I'm a small weak country and I want to sell something to make money, and the only way is to succumb to the rules of the largest trading block in the world, do I really have a choice? You know the saying, "if you can't beat them, join them". Even Norway and Switzerland still succumb to most EU rules even if they're not members and they might not like all those rules but they have no choice but to play ball if they want to maintain trade and prosperity.<p><i>>Maybe you should avoid explaining the history of places to others online if you clearly do not live in them.</i><p>OK, I'll stop it here and never answer you again since you're being needlessly petty and not wailing to argue in good faith.
> If I want to sell something and the only way is to succumb to the rules of the largest trading block in the world, do I have a choice?<p>Gee, I wonder how they became that largest trading bloc in the first place without being large enough to be the largest trading bloc.<p>> OK, I'll stop it here and never answer you again since you're being needlessly petty and not wailing to argue in good faith.<p>I cannot argue with someone living in a parallel fantasy world. You bring in claims about how EU support is not anchored in the populace which is just entirely fabricated. I cannot argue with this because I cannot argue within the hypothetical world of your lies where your arguments make sense because the reality on the ground is just entirely different. Visit the EU, talk to real people, you might be surprised on how they view the world and there place in it.
I agree that the EU used political, economic and bureaucratic means of power projection and also that it is for the first time in history that that is the case.<p>From that follows, I would argue, that the EU is the first society that has evolved past crude violence and is the example for the world to follow.
When trust is high, crime and corruption are low. Do you increase trust by making people scared?<p>How can we increase trust? Both internationally, but also nationally?
That does not work with ideologies that see war as natural or good, as in the example you replied to<p>it's naive to think that the wars of the 20th century were caused by lack of trust, or the 21st
On a scale, how much do you trust your fellow countrymen from the bad parts of town not to rob you? Then how much do you trust your politicians not to lie to you? Then how much do you trust other countries' politicians not to invade you?<p>There's your answer right there.<p>Trust only works locally throughout family and closely knit communities, but globally trust is like fiat currency, on a large global scale it is completely worthless on its own, without any higher form of enforcement through violent means to defend and enforce the relationship where the winner dictates the conditions and everyone else has to follow.<p>Countries don't trust the US government, but they trust and use the USD because they trust the US will do everything militarily to protect it. That's as far as trust goes.
That's only been observed for small, close knit communities (regardless of race etc before the pitchfork activists come out). You're never ever getting that for the whole world. Some things (not all) are just a conflict of interest. There's no solution except one with a winner and a loser.
You know, you increase trust also by arresting actual criminals<p>So when the police is happy to fine you for any technicality while people are free to do drugs on the streets (due to bad policy) this brings trust down - like in SF
This paranoid attitude leads to an arms race that will destroy liberty for everyone.<p>The Chinese are just preventing terrorism in Xinjiang, right? And the Russians are just scared of NATO expansionism.<p>This fake fear is the veiled language of conquest.
<i>>This paranoid attitude leads to an arms race that will destroy liberty for everyone.
</i><p>You are free to give up your arms first in a race for world peace. Lead by example. Now do you think US, China and Russia will then follow you or will they just say thank you while they take your lunch and let you starve?<p><i>>This fake fear is the veiled language of conquest.</i><p>The fear isn't fake because the conquest isn't fake either. The entire societies, borders and economies we live in today have been agreed upon through violent conquest and you need to be capable of violence to defend or change them. Humans are greedy, tribal creatures, and conquest has been at the core of human behavior since time immemorial, and it's not going away just because you want to be a hippy.
So America should invade Canada and Greenland to Anex them?
it would be a good argument if America didnt claim to be a moral beacon. Dont forget, nagasaki and hiroshima were bombs dropped on women and children. You might be able to convince me that women were part of the Japanese war effort, but theres no reason ill accept for nuking children. Why does no American ever feel shame about cooking a few hundred thousand civilians alive?
So what is the west even fighting for if it requires building a dystopian surveillance apparatus?<p>Clearly its not for liberty or human rights, so at that point why should the population even support it?
I don't get HN anymore. This comment reflects a legitimate stance that's articulated just fine. Why is it grayed out?
He's not wrong in that excerpt.<p>Russia only dared invade Ukraine because the US under Obama didn't do shit when Assad violated the "red lines" of using chemical weapons and barrel bombs against civilians or when the "little green men" took over Crimea and Donbas. And it's not Obama alone for what it's worth, Trump was just as bad in cozying up to Putin, and us Europeans didn't care either.<p>The secret to the relative period of peace after WW2 was that everyone was mightily afraid of getting smacked hard by the US. The first cracks obviously started back with Vietnam, but the actual erosion of the US hard and soft power was the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I live in Western EU so I like this.<p>Wont affect me and USA military power is not to play with.<p>Yes I support Israel. Gulf War 1 was justified so was Vietnam. Gulf War 2, maybe not but Saddam gone was good. Iran IS our enemy too btw.
> “I want less war. But I really really really like having lots of money, like Scrooge McDuck swiming pools of money. If some children half way around the world have to get blown up for me to bathe in fresh $100 bills every day, so be it."
It's suicidally naive <i>not</i> to pursue military supremacy. Your enemies will.<p>What are you going to do when they appear on your shores to begin the slaughter, enslavement, rape, and pillaging? Write an angry letter? Start an online petition?
Can't really understand if this is the boutade of a 13 years old COD player, but: lots of countries don't have military supremacy nor enslavement and pillaging on their shores. There are LOTS of shades in between which you obviously don't get.
An easy way to avoid having to dump billions into defense is simply to have less enemies in the first place.
I think it's not about the truth in that message, but rather how the message is delivered, and how the kernel of truth is planted into what context.<p>For example, the same message could be told by referring to respect instead of fear.<p>"I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology so much that earns the respect of your adversaries. If they don't respect you, if they don’t respect the might that your army can summon, you. Instead of going along with you, they will attack you at the next opportunity"
The issue is that by introducing hyperbole, the meaning changes completely. Take the two statements:<p>1. I want peace.<p>2. a) Therefore I need to be strong enough to deter any attack.<p>2. b) Therefore I need to be so strong that all my enemies fear me.<p>2. a) is sound. Nobody attacks if they believe the cost is higher than benefit. ("Believe" is doing heavy lifting here, most wars start when countries belief about cost/value is misaligned)<p>2. b) is incompatible with 1. Either you believe that a stronger party does not necessarily attack weaker parties, thus peace could also be maintained without supremacy, or you believe supremacy leads to wars, but then your own goal of supremacy cannot be in the name of peace.<p>Unless, of course, you're a race supremacist, who believes you're so much wiser and more moral than anyone else that only you can be trusted with unchecked power. An idiotic and immoral position to take.
Wrong. 2b is compatible with 1. You <i>can</i> have peace without military supremacy, for a time at least. But you can <i>guarantee</i> peace with military supremacy. That's the difference.<p>You are at your enemy's mercy without it. They may conquer you on a whim, and there's not a thing you can do about it.<p>I would much prefer that military supremacy in the hands of the wise and moral, there's nothing idiotic or immoral about that (indeed, the <i>opposite</i> is idiotic and arguably immoral).
Although I agree with you in principle, after having seen what Putin is doing in Ukraine, I believe the original message would reach the target better than yours.<p>To add to the confusion, you can have military intelligence assess your potential target and still fail miserably just like Putin failed in his blitzkrieg. So a little bit of saber-rattling might serve a purpose, I guess.
might as well use it then right? I mean think about it if there was only 1 country on the whole world. Then we would be safe. I mean we would still need to use the military equipment on the people. Anything else but absolute control over everyone would be suicidally naive.<p>Right?
Wrong.<p>1 country in the world won't make you safe from wars. There's a reason why military was and is separated from police. Just think what's going to happen when your soldiers start to kill citizens.<p>1 country in the world tend to degrade to dystopian regime, and it was researched by multiple books authors, and actually a modern day USA is a good example of a regime on the path to dystopia.
You then have that option, yes. Usually it's not worth it - even the "winners" of a war suffer massive short-term loss of soldiers and resources, and create long-term enemies - but it's a nice option to have.
You seem to greatly underestimate how much of the fighting Roman legions did was against other Roman legions.
> I mean think about it if there was only 1 country on the whole world. Then we would be safe.<p>This is the logic behind the old-style Jihad. Also the Chinese emperors used the same argument when conquering smaller kingdoms.<p>Unfortunately, what happens in practice is that even in one Islamic country Sunni vs Shia terrorists attacks happen. And in the case of China, the price you pay for superficial peace are Uighur concentration camps, Tibetan self-immolations and so on.
It's one thing to pursue military supremacy.<p>It's another to build an Orwellian surveillance state.
We don't need military supremacy in Asia, Asia isn't part of the US and the Asians should have supremacy there. Anything else is insane.
The ones doing what you are describing here especially lately are the western powers with millions and millions of dead each decade in wars over resources not ideology or safety. It’s about money and power resulting in thousands of dead children, women and civilians - lately in palestine via israel. It’s creating terrorism not safety - so your argument is backwards - it’s the military industrial complex keeping the war going. And to use the ‘it’s for safety’ is extremely sinister and has been debunked continuously by everyone with even the slightest interest in geopolitics.
that's the thinking that brought us a nuclear arms race, to the point where we are now capable of wiping out the entire planet; thanks.
Out of curiosity, which country in the world is going to "begin the slaughter, enslavement, rape and pillaging" of:<p>- The country already having the largest army in the world, whose internal military branches are larger than most armies in the world ?<p>- The country that has a ocean to ocean control of its land, with east and west being fundamentally impossible to attack ?<p>- The country that is surrounded north and south by either allies, or third world countries struggling to even maintain peace within their own borders ?<p>- The country that is already going down some of the fastest descent into fascism history has seen ?<p>And how exactly that relates to Palantir, whose goal is not to provide vision algorithms for bombing brown people in the middle east, but to straight up build a file about their own citizens that would have made the Gestapo drool ?<p>The vast majority of countries that can afford a solid military already do, and neither is at threat of whatever bullshit you're making up here. Even local tensions like Pakistan and India, Thailand and Cambodia are being handled with incredibly small portions of their militaries, despite some pretty deep hatred. The countries that cannot, either have agreements with other powers in the region, or indeed get attacked by a military so overwhelmingly strong for them that even putting 100% of their GDP into it would not suffice.<p>I'll tell you what "pursuing military supremacy" does though: as it stands, the vast majority of the world sees the United States as a threat, with ever renewed imperialistic needs and aspirations. The United States is always just a single dip towards madness away from being the greatest danger that currently exists in the world. And now, they are suppressing internal protesters. But hey, if you're looking to rediscover how 9/11 was like and why it happened, pop off I guess.
There are stickers everywhere in my city against NATO. They say "food not weapons". As though the Ukrainians could defeat the Russians with pickles and ham. Left-wing idealism is grounded in denial of reality.
Sounds pretty smart to me. The best way to beat your enemy is to dissuade them from even trying
Or just don't invade, kill, rape their womens? Trust me if you don't terrorise othe nations they won't attack you.<p>And if you are speaking about what you guys did and doing in Palestine or any other Muslim nation trust my they aren't afraid of you, they just raise people who despise you and you will cry in future when they attack you at your homes.
It sounds silly, but the cold war was a nice period of peace. Both sides were prepared and knew what’s coming. So peace was inevitable. When opponent gets weak war happens. Sounds even sillier, but strong and ready armies are warrant of peace.
> but the cold war was a nice period of peace<p>Tell that to the Vietnamese, the Afghan, the Cuban, the korean, ... And arguably you might include a lot of eastern european country.
Just because the confrontation didn't happen in the country that were "enemy" didn't mean they didn't cause wars.
Exactly, people have a "non-event bias" they can't fathom thing that didn't happen because of the preceeding things that had to happen to prevent it!
like in vietnam? or what about in al qaeda who didnt have a single tank? america arent even that good at war, theyre just not afraid to be underhanded