Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Code And War
"Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?" Roblimo has a piece on NewsForge which addresses that question by showing a specific way that the U.S. military is using Free and Open Source software (in simulator-based training for Blackhawk helicopters), and letting one of the developers involved speak for himself. If software is Free, doesn't that already answer the question of who can use it?
Now, if only they would distribute the software for the simulators or even run "Arcades" with networks of these thing setup, we could have 8 year old fighter veterans!
Now the Iraqi pilots get get up to snuff in their large fleet of Blackhawk choppers using US simulators!
What part of OPEN do you not understand?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Obviously, you have no claim as to what your software can and cannot be used for if you release it out into the world. Whether or not you believe the upcoming war with Iraq is justified or not, it doesn't stop the software they use from being used.
This is a completely moot issue, but it is good for discussion I suppose. The thing that should not be seen is exclusion clauses from the GPL and other open source licenses. I would hate to see "This software may not be used for military purposes" because that will lead down a path that is more counter-productive. Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?
Code audits are important when using software for military purposes, to ensure that everything is accurate. Whether it's personnel tracking, mission tracking, or simulation software, accuracy is important. Maybe my view is just tainted because I'm finding myself leaning more toward the pro-War campaign...
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Give me a break. Developers aren't helping the "U.S. go to war with Iraq" they're developing software. I'm sure terrorists somewhere have an apache webserver running, it's not like the "developers helped them become terrorists by giving them a tool to create a membership database."
Software is software, open source software shouldn't try to control who uses it (other than stopping someone else for breaking the GPL) or for what purpose.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
*yawn*
I don't want to write open source code becasue somebody may use it for evil.
I won't want to work for a corporation because they may exploit someone.
I don't want to sell hammers because someone could hit someone else with it.
Let's face it. If you are doing anything at all productive in society somebody can use that to their benifit in a way that you may not agree with.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
I was under the impression that GPL and a few other licences do not allow the imposition of other rules.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes." ???
Non-issue ...
Although we can't perceive the use that code might have 100 years in the future (if any), developers should at least think about who might use their code when they make it open. Are there any licenses that restrict the military from using the code the way commercial entities are sometimes limited by certain licenses? Is it the place of the developer to show that bias? Does anyone really have the illusion that a government in North Korea or anywhere else is going to give a rat's ass about how a developer in Kansas wants his code used?
I don't think this faults the developers at all. This is like making knives; you can eat with it or you can butcher with it. The responsibility is up to the user.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Fortunately even if a source code is free i can add to the free license that the code mustnt be used in any military projects or projects related to non-civil actions at all. And i will do that from this point in time!
Now you taint the ability for Governments to switch to linux and escape the Microsoft licenses propogating less freedom in the world.
Congratulations on helping destroy the goal of Free software. I only hope no one uses your projects anyway. Open your eyes to the big picture.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
The problem with freedom - be it of speech or of software - is that you don't get to choose who you grant it to - otherwise it is no longer freedom.
You can choose not to give it to your enemies, but what's to stop you from arbitrarily dciding that your enemies are everyone except a select few.
There is always a responsibility that goes along with any project you work on - but it will get done with or without you. Ask Oppenheimer or Feynman or Einstein.
And the next guy who comes along doesn't like the military or governement, so restricts the usage from both of them.
Next guy doesn't like the military, the government, corporations or any incorporated businesses. So he restricts usage to all of them.
The next person doesn't like homosexuals or mexicans and restricts the usage from them.
Lets not start a vicious cycle, keep free software free for everyone. Period.
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right"
That is all very well and good. You can probably add whatever clauses you want to a licence. But how well would that actually hold water once the lawyers got involved?
If you really want to retain that sort of control over the source, then you probably have to close the source.
Download my free songs!
In terms of software licenses, which doesn't fully cover the question, but..:
RMS is very clear on this, and for those who don't agree with him (which seems to be the latest fad) many others have to.
You should not keep let politics like this get in the way. There was a particular project that released there code under a license that was basically GPL'ed but with a line saying that it was not to be used by terrorists and not to be used to help kill people. RMS really disliked the license, and argued that such lines are impossible to define.
and you wonder why Islamic fundamentalists say the same of Americans.
Actually, they say the same of Americans because they are highly intolerant of other cultures and religons.
I would know, I've been to Saudi Arabia and seen this intolerance first hand. Ever been to a shopping mall in SA? They typically have a government kiosk in the center which speaks of the US, Capitalism, and Christians in a most poisonous manner. Quite ironic considering their malls are populated with American brand stores (e.g. The Gap, Nike, etc.)
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Will you change your license if you happen to agree with a specific war? For example, what if a foreign country's military was actively killing your neighbors and/or family?
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
I just found some remarks by Eric S. Raymond on socially responsible programming. Very interesting.
Closed and opensource software will both be used for good and evil....deal with it.
Example:
Opensource encryption software can be used to protect liberties and the prying eyes of big government. It can also be used to hide child porn or terrorist activities...
should we abolish the encryption software just because it can be used for evil?
I'd really hate to see a new modified license that restricts use of software based on political bias.
I understand that the goverment can declare something classified for defense purposes (or somesuch). Haven't they done this with books and research. Could they declare classified a pice of GPL software for "national security reasons".
I don't live in the US, so its a bit of a gray area for me.
No sig
Then you won't be distributing Open Source software, and it won't be GPL. If that's acceptable to you, fine write your own license. I'm (mostly) against war, however, restricting the use of the code instantly invalidates it as Open Source.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
The outcome of this war is certain. The only question is, how many Iraqis and how many Americans will die in the process? Good software is part of the key to preserving lives on both sides: the sooner the war ends, the fewer lives will be lost; and good software (along with good hardware and good training) will shorten the length of the war.
Finally, consider that the work on government programs won't be used only in Iraq. That's just where we need it at the moment. Should the US find itself fighting North Korea, the same software and hardware and training is going to save lives there as well.
I don't agree with the concept of invading Iraq. But I do believe in saving lives; and I think that contributing to government software efforts will help us toward that end.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
And then have the blackhawk control software crash, like the new 7-series BMW control software?
That could be interesting... a "possessed" Blackhawk bombing random targets and crashing into buildings...
"Owning a computer is like having your very own TV -- with a built in radio!" - Ed Helms
he can design his own open source license, if he so chooses.
i'd be vaguely disturbed if something i wrote went toward killing people, but how you deal with that as a developer would be your choice. ultimately you can't control how people use your code once you release it. after all, the government could choose to ignore his "CUL (civil use license)" and who could stop them? who's to say that windows xp doesn't contain half the linux kernel in it? theft is one advantage of having the closed end of a closed source program.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
You can do whatever you want with your code! But if it has such a restriction, it ain't GPL, and it fails many definitions of "open".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
with my government using open source software to fight terrorists...
as long as they...
don't call me a terrorist.
I think you have it all wrong. It's not that Americans believe every muslim is a terroist, rather it's Americans believe that every terrorist is a muslim. HUGE difference there and I still can't figure out why I don't see muslim leaders around the world standing up against terrorism.
There is a goatse.cx link in this post. Please mod it down so other /. readers aren't tricked into viewing it.
In Canada we have the same sort of kiosk's to talk about the US.
It's called a hockey game
Posting useless rant since 2003.
Better watch out there. You are coming close to mentioning a certain time in history with a certain war started by a certain leader of a certain country that did certain things to certain people in certain parts of the world. And once you do that someone gets to say "You lose." I know it's a strange rule, but that's how everyone else plays.
One of the things that struck me is how much Open Source is dependent on international development. Just off of the top of my head, Linux and Python were started outside of the US. Now, both are supported by developers around the world. Historically, nations have viewed techological advances as national resources, both out of national pride as well as national security. However, Open Source software is inherently borderless.
This would appear to some to make Open Source a security risk, but it isn't necessarily so. To play in the open source game, you have to be a contributor. So you need to be a nation that develops people with strong technical skills and keeps them. You also have to allow those people access to other people around the world in order to share ideas.
Saddam Hussein may get some benefit from Open Source, in that it gives him software that is free distributable. However, I would imagine it's rather difficult attracting and retaining technical talent in a regime as oppressive as his. In short, despots may be able to use Open Source software, but they'd have a hard time leveraging it fully without free and open communication with the rest of the world.
It's also further proof of the interdependence of developed countries upon each other.
Presumably you could grab the text of the GPL, rename it the "NOWAR-GPL" and throw in some text about not allowing military purposes. You'd probably need to be a lawyer to get it right, though.
The cake is a pie
yeah right, talk to people who havnt been there.
i lived there all through my childhood (8 years) and no i am neither a muslim nor is middle east my native. i have seen no such kiosk, ever in any mall.
Talk of a lack of freedom to speak, to assemble together peacefully , to practice ones own religion and Burkhas (Veils) for women -I would agree. Then again thats their culture, that is the way they have evolved. One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
Oh crap...the thought of my software being used to kill Iraqi children is just too much to bear...[sob]
The cake is a pie
Now you taint the ability for Governments to switch to linux and escape the Microsoft licenses propogating less freedom in the world.
As I read it, the GPL is politically neutral. it doesn't matter if you are a liberal, conservative, dicatator or saint, you have the same rights, and you can't take away those rights from others that use your code.
Its about bonified equality of use. It doesn't presume use, good or evil. The goal, it would seem, is to allow everyone to freely use the software to achieve their goals.
To put these "no war" use limitations is not only silly and purely politically motivated (its not anti-war, its anti-Bush. Even Sheryl Crow was doing USO tours in Bosnia when Clinton was in office, and now wears anti-military shirts. Hypocrite). Then its a matter of interpretation. What if the Govt. wanted to use it in the Bosnian conflict. Was that a war, a police action, or a rescue of Muslims from Christians? Depends on who you ask.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Those same helicopters are used for search and rescue as well as to deliver humanitarian aid. Do you believe that the military should not be allowed to use linux on their computers too? How about the defense contractors... they're using linux to design future weapons... What about the movie industry... again using linux for special effects in movies that glorify war. While you are at it, why don't you boycot swingline as I just used their stapler to staple together my report on how best to employ napalm against women and children.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Talk of a lack of freedom to speak, to assemble together peacefully , to practice ones own religion and Burkhas (Veils) for women -I would agree. Then again thats their culture, that is the way they have evolved.
No - That's the way their manipulative rulers have caused it to evolve.
One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.
True, however do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders? I think they should.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
I am against the killing of innocent civilians, and the military and the public relations for the military are experts in spinning massacres into `collateral damage' and `mistakes'.
I have given a lot of thought about the issue of whether I want the military of any nation to use the software I create to mutilate the lives of other people. I obviously do not want this, and I would love to have a debate about having a software license that explicitly forbids this use.
As the previous poster pointed out, once you go down this path, some people might not like X, or Y, and impose further restrictions, but this is not too different from where we are today.
There is a line to be drawn, and I would very much like to hear people's opinions on what is an acceptable line to draw, and where to draw it.
As you might expect, I consider the war being promoted against Iraq to be immoral. The spin for this war has gone through a number of phases, and it has yet to click. Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.
Miguel.
Furthermore, software under such a license would cease to be Free Software, as it would restrict Freedom 0. Such a piece of software would also not be free under the DFSG either.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Hello, McFly? If you want to kill open-source, start adding weird and useless conditions until you have a EULA like Microsoft. "The military can't use it," "You can't use this software if the company produces carbon-based pollution," "You can't use this software if you are involved in cutting down rainforests," "You can't use this software if you used a car to get to work today," "You can't use this software if you |insert liberal activist agenda here|."
Free software is free software. If you're going to start putting conditions on who can and can't use it you might as well remove the word "free" and just call it "Discrimination-promoting software."
True, however do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders? I think they should.
Agreed, seeing every city in the world with the same ideals that we honour in democratic nations would be nice. But we should also understand that Any change should come from within the country - not forced upon externally.
I would be the happiest to see American Culture as a whole being adopted throughout the world through its inherent power and influence (which is happening to a lots of places in the world btw) - not because of its military muscle.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
The Last StarFighter. The StarFighter video game was a "stealth" training and selection tool. And the candidates were paying for their training. Cost effective.
I love the typical ultra-liberal Slashdot kneejerk. Consider (applying to US laws/military):
1. You owe all of the grand technology you wrote your comment on to the US military. All of the cool stuff we work on and use personally with regards to Internet communications was developed, in part, by the military. They make good stuff.
2. So what if the military uses the code? I'm not about to sling around the T-word (begins and ends with 'T', favorite word of Ashcroft), but c'mon. Might that be a little reactionary to prohibit the group that protects our freedoms from employing your work to protect more of our freedoms? It's the politicians, not the military, that suck.
3. Two words: emminent domain.
4. If you think for a split second that some silly clause in an open software license is going to stop the US mililtary, or that if you managed to prove it, you could sue them successfully, you need to stop huffing gasoline.
I don't mean this to come off as a troll (it's a passionate disagreement), but just 'cause it's military don't mean it's bad. Lighten up, folks.
You may want to be careful using a blanket clause for the military. Not only does the military wage war, our primary purpose, we also do peace keeping, disaster relief (natural and otherwise), research, medicine. Do you want to restrict it to just the combat arms jobs or does that mean that finannce, medical, personnel, supply, etc cant use open source either.
One might also have to define what one means by military. Do I voilate the clause by using your software while I go to college funded by my GI Bill benefits? If I work for a police station and martial law is declared, am I all of a sudden not allowed to use my software because the Army is in control? What if I develop a great software program that is then used as a weapon? Does that mean that the product is illegitmate because I used your source for a program that became a weapon somewhere down the line?
Using a military restriction seems more throuble than its worth. If your really against the military, there are other more productive things you can do.
PFC Gruhn
US Army, Fort Lewis
"Serve and Sustain"
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
If a developer doesn't like war, then he better put that in the license. Short of that, he has nothing to complain about.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
I think this "all or nothing" argument is a cop out, a "reductio ad absurdum" excuse for people who can't or won't consider the potential ramifications of their actions in the world at large.
Everyone, no matter what their position in society or what work they do, has a responsibility to consider how their actions affect other people both in the short and long term. We can no longer afford short-sighted short term thinking -- the earth is too small a place these days.
Furthermore, this comment (and others) don't seem to be based on the content of the articles. (No, I am not new to slashdot! I just haven't let my standards sink to the lowest common denominator. Yet.) The anti-war link to the bluefish site in the original article is a discussion of whether or not to put an anti-war banner on the bluefish, not whether or not to develop code. Anthony L. Awtrey's remarks in the article presents his contrasting opinions in support of military action against Iraq, based in part on his wife's personal experience. Serious public discussion of these issues is what democracy is (supposed to be) all about.
Maybe the prospect of a major war in the Middle East makes you *yawn* but I'm glad to see that not everyone shares this view.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
You and which army?
Not all 'military projects' are bad. When I was in the army, I secured my country's borders (not primarily hunting illegal immigrants, but the facilitators that take all their money) and helped victims of natural catastrophes. Of course, there also are those 'military projects' that are about killing lots of humans. For good reasons, they are planned and conducted rather secretly and the people involved are making rather sure no one gets access to their computers. So, why do you think they would respect your little license terms?
And who decides which 'actions' are 'non-civil' and in which ways a software program could be 'related' to them? That whole idea is callow humbug.
I'd rather try making the world a little better and thus a less likely place to start wars by creating stuff like free software, not almost-free software.
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
Not to mention which this won't be a war as we are used to thinking of them. Casualties in the Gulf War were very low, and I can't imagine this being much different. As you say, the military considers minimization of collateral damage to be a top priority. The concept of there being 100,000 civilian deaths (I've heard someone say it) is FUD.
Not to mention which, programmers aren't experts on military matters. This is scarcely better than Susan Sarandon et al spouting off about the war. Yes, they have a right to free speech, but I'm not exactly going to let a moron actor change my views easily. Nor a programmer, just because he won't let the military use his crappy program.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
They may even like it more than the college kids!
How dare you even suggest that! I'm a college student, and the only thing I hold higher in regard above my beer is the prospect of getting more beer!
If I had all the money I'd ever spent on beer, I would go out and buy some beer!
Dude, I go to an engineering school. I'm not actively forced away from members of the opposite sex, but I may as well be. I think my school's all of 20% female.
The bulk of the comments here all seem to insinuate something to the effect that as an open source developer, you should not expect to have any restrictions whatsoever placed upon your work, and that you accept this upon "opening" your work. This is totally ridiculous. The GPL itself places all types of restrictions on the use of the open source. It could be argued that some of these restrictions are in fact politically motivated. Arguments to the effect that it is impossible to define "military uses" could be applied to just about anything in the law. The law is all about attempting to place a concrete definition on an inherently ambiguous problem, so that folks can interpret it as their reason dictates -- and upon a conflict of understanding, the parties show up in a court and a judge/jury settles the dispute w/ their interpretation. I see the task of defining an open source license that excludes military uses as no more difficult than defining the GPL that excludes derivative uses (i.e. new apps that uses GPL'd libraries) from not being GPL'd. If a group of programmers wants such an open source license, I say great, go for it, and get a good lawyer to help you draft it.
Well you are certainly within your right to do so (assuming that a parent license does not prohibit further restrictions), but is that the best thing to do?
As other posters have mentioned, not only does restricting Government/military use of Open Source software encourage them to seek out closed-source options but have you considered a scenario where your country's military might need something you have created in an operation you do support?
The "military" doesn't just mean the infantry, armor and artillery types...it also includes some sectors of homeland defense and disaster relief. Some aspects of military research can directly benefit the public (bioterrorism defense research, for instance). And where exactly would the Coast Guard fit in?
Software can be used for both good and bad purposes. If a tool can do more good than harm, why place restrictions on where it could possibly do good?
Dude, your head is screwed on backwards! The prospect of getting more beer should be priority #2 after you deal with item #1 on the agenda, the beer currently in front of you.
Sheesh. Kids these days. I weep for America.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Quotes from Zimmerman regarding developing technology that might be used by criminals and terrorists:
By the way, the U.S. Military is not the bad guy here, and by no means do I want anyone to think that I feel that way. Should we go to war, it's our kids that will be the targets of bullets and most likely gas and bio shit, all because in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, our elected leaders sowed the seeds of discontent around the world, and ignored the crop.
I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally. If you have a problem with the war, run for the PTA, the local council, state government, or federal government. Did you remember to vote?
A related quote, on the selective enforcement of laws:
Almost every single copy of any software that I have used while in the military has been pirated (Blackhawk pilot in the Army 5 years). Can't say that the intent to disregard rules is malicious, but often down where "the rubber meets the road" users will do whatever they need to get the job done. Often IT in the military is poorly funded and as a result information managers (some poor person chosen to do the job on top of their regular job) "acquire" software. As far as finding out if someone is using GPL code, I assume you would have to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which now, more than ever, thanks to Aschroft is very easy to deny.
By the way, when you crash the Blackhawk simulator you get a red-screen-of-death. I'd love to see a tux screen saver while the simulator reboots.
This isn't an issue limited to free software or even to software at all; it's a technology issue and, reduced to its bare essence, the question is whether an inventor is responsible for the use of his inventions.
The question of intellectual property is entirely beside the point. I remember that, when downloading Oracle for Linux, I was required to fill out an HTML form affirming that I would not use the product for the development of nuclear weapons. Somehow, I have a hard time picturing Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il saying, "Well, shit. I can't use Oracle for my clandestine nuclear program because of this license. I guess I'll have to use MySQL instead." The same is true of commercial software. Does anyone believe an export license (or for that matter, a licensing fee) would stop anyone from either purchasing a boxed copy in the US or Europe or just downloading a copy from alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc? If you don't want your code to be misused, don't release it. If you release it, it eventually, inevitably will be misused.
Several years ago, I completed work on a library and set of tools for textual- and communication-traffic analysis. Among the things you could do with the tools was determining authority relationships between people in an organization on the basis of the patterns of their email communications. Another interesting application, which I tested with a full non-binaries Usenet feed, was a surprisingly effective system for determining the political affiliation of posters on the basis of their non-political postings. (For the curious, I used a sample group of 1,000 posters who made consistent ideological posts to political newsgroups as well as non-political posts to non-political newsgroups.) The accuracy rate over a six month period approached 95%.
Concluding that such code could be used by governments to track political dissidents, I was reluctant to release the code. Once John Ashcroft and John Poindexter appeared on the scene, I destroyed the source. This was probably pointless, as the algorithms being used are well-understood -- only the particular combination of algorithms was novel -- and the NSA probably has similar software written by much smarter guys than me, but when my own government, much less foreign tyrants, is arresting people without charges and holding them incommunicado in undisclosed locations, I didn't want to be responsible for contributing to the next round of political arrests.
Contrary to what the above seems to imply, I don't think inventors ought to be held responsible for the misuse of their inventions. I do think that inventors ought to be held responsible for failing to consider the potential consequences of misuse, however. In my case, I decided the potential benefits were outweighed by the potential abuses and decided not to release. Ultimately, that's all you can do if you are concerned about abuses, for the simple reason that the people who are likely to abuse your code are not going to be stopped by legal fictions like the GPL, copyrights, patents, or anything less substantial than the barrel of a gun.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
#include
//Ok let's see if it will run without //War being declared...
#include
#include
#include
int main()
{
cout "Attack!" endl;
while ((War==True) && (!Over_And_We_All_Go_Home_Heros))
{
Bomb();
}
return 0;
}
Mod Parent Funny...and mod my college experience sadly similar...
The few women got creative and in the 'converted' mens bathrooms, they put plants in the urinals. Even I'd water plants if it was THAT easy!
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
- The point is to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq
- We need to "keep the oil flowing"
- If you are against the invasion, you support S. Hussein
- If you support the UN, you do not have the will, courage, strength, etc. to confront S. Hussein
- We are doing it to stop the proliferation of WMD
- We are going to liberate the people of Iraq
- We are going to bring democracy to Iraq
- We have no "territorial ambitions," as G. Bush has claimed
- We are committed to fighting evil
- We are by definition fundamentally good, and thus most suited to decide on our own what regimes should be confronted and how to do it
- An overwhelmingly strong military and demonstrable willingness to use it are the best guarantors of peace
- The best way to dissuade authoritarian regimes from developing deterrent WMD arsenals is to threaten them with full-scale military invasion
- We will defeat asynchronous, decentralized, distributed religious fundamentalist terrorists with full-scale military confrontation
I could go on, but I don't have time. If you believe in the above points, then may the gods have mercy on all of us.Better log off the Internet (descendant of DARPANet) Have fun doing nothing for the rest of your life.
But therein lies a real 'double edged sword', the great thing about the GPL/LGPL is that it doesn't have lots of different potentially incompatible licenses - so people can mix and match their software - libertarian code works with lefty code works with evil warmongering republican code.
:)
By omitting the ability for the military, and therein the government, to utilize your code you are causing more damage. The proprietary code is less easily auditable, thereby potentially more buggy causing more destruction. Also, what about the peace keeping portions of the military?
If you write something that can be used for military purposes, and forbid the government on your side from using it and gaining advantage, than what will stop the opposing force from using it without your consent? Fear of a lawsuit... don't think so
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
If you are right that Iraq doesn't have the bomb (I'm not sure even the inspectors can say that with any certainty), all the more reason to invade them rather than North Korea - Iraq won't launch nukes it doesn't have. Attacking North Korea in no way assures they won't get a nuke off, unless the US were to launch an all-out preemptive nuke attack against them, which is not on the table right now, in small part because it would prove true North Korea's belief that the US wants to destroy their country.
Should China be prohibited from using GPL code because they enslave their population and have a dictatorship/communist government? No. As much as despise the Chinese government, that's not what GPL is about. BC
Now, I know the use of "unilateral war" is a great rhetoric-filled way to drum up opposition for the action, but, well... it's a falsehood. Try again?
Whether or not war is right or wrong is not the issue with Iraq. Saddam has very little to do with the "terrorists" that the US is attempting to fend off, if you buy their rhetoric. There is never a right and a wrong in war. Only those that dominate, and they that win write the history books. I happen to think it's wrong, but some other people think it's right. I live in the US and will do what I can show my disdain for the current Government as I think they are a bunch of damn money-grubbing bullies. But they get to write history with their actions. It's just a damn shame they won't think about what they are doing first. They are short-sighted imbeciles, just look at Bush and Cheany's Coorporate antics, which are exemplified by his current tax antics. They have a "make as much as you can and run" policy. Which will turn Iraq into something far worse than it is currently...
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
While I wouldn't put much stock in a Die Hard-type movie as a good source, the government can stop a patent from issuing, or take it outright. Methods include secrecy orders (seals a patent application for N years) or eminent domain (where the government takes property, but must compensate the owner.)
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
The American millitary answers to no-one. The debate is pointless since they would use whatever technology they could get there hands on. Oddly enough this sounds similar to the Iraqi millitary. They mentioned zimmerman and pgp and guilt but software is no different from any other technology. Hundereds of years ago, no-one had guns, then someone invented guns, and now all countries have guns (except for us brits who have guns that dont like sand). Software just propogates faster than hardware because of its nature. But then you could argue that its ok to sell other countries software and weapons, if technology is already being made availiable freely. Why is putting instructions to build chemical weapons from household ingreadients on the web different to giving instructions to build gpg from the source? (ok they are very different things, bad example)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
does writing or contributing to open source, have anything at all with your own personal political views. I really don't think it does.
I'd say do what your own convictions tell you to. If you feel that your contributions to a project are going towards a means that you don't like.. then don't contribute. But as a previous post said, Open source is open source. Anybody can use it. If you don't like that then don't do open source anymore. (or at least not in the project that is contributing to your moral conundrum.)
Who makes you Sig?
I don't think going full force against Iraq for crimes the US has failed to prove is the correct choice of action.
If the US does have *proof* of what the US alleges, it should be brought to the attention of the allies. If whatever evidence the US can present isn't convincing enough to sway allies, then it isn't enough to go to war. Going to war without the support of the allies and against the desires of the allies is bad. *If* Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, they sure as hell can't do anything with them right now under the scrutiny of the world. The US can afford to be patient in this matter.
It is *really* hard to believe anything the US government puts out about this issue. It is clear, the US are going to attack very soon, disregarding the position of all of its allies, disregarding the protests of the people. Iraq *knows* this, and is now faced with two options:
1) Destroy the missles, make themselves look good and appease most of the U.N. In doing so, making themselves weaker, and the US will attack anyway, because they don't give a damn.
2) Keep the missles. Piss off more of UN. Face more opponents in a war. Come out looking bad and beaten.
They cannot win in this situation. Hussein requests a internationally televised debate between him and Bush. Bush refuses to take it seriously. Why the hell not? No matter what Bush thinks, he should at least give the *appearance* he is interested in letting both sides be known and letting the people see them. If Bush's convicitons are right, why should he fear a debate? He certainly cannot claim the matter is too insignificant, it is a very critical issue for the whole world.
Also, saying explicitly that no matter how many protest in the US, he will not be swayed is boneheaded. The president is supposed to represent and accomodate the will of the people. If 60% of the people protested and he refuses to be swayed, he wouldn't be fulfilling his duty.
And if it is truly about getting rid of a dangerous tyrant, why the *hell* are they ignoring N. Korea, saying they are innocuous? Even if Iraq has weapons, they lack the delivery capability. N. Korea seems to have the capability to strike US Soil, and they make it public knowledge and make repeated threats. The US response comes off as 'Oh that silly N. Korea, they're harmless, ignore their nukes and delivery capacity, now Iraq, they are dangerous, they *might* have a warhead.. somewhere.... maybe... let's go attack iraq and liberate the iraqi oil... err people!'
*Maybe* the US military has good reason and evidence for an assault, I wouldn't doubt it. But even if they do have right on their side, they sure as hell are not handling it in a manner that looks good in the eyes of the world. Don't withold evidence. At least *pretend* to participate some in peaceful approaches to the issue (i.e. debate). Act consistantly towards threats (don't ignore N. Korea if your sole justification for war is to pre-empt aggressive nations.)
I know, Saddam and his regime isn't good. I know they are likely lying about a lot of things. But the US *cannot* just pretend the rest of the world's opinion and view does not matter. Everyone knows that ultimately this is about getting oil so those SUVs can keep on wasting that gas. If they treated N. Korea the same way and at least appeared to participate in peaceful, diplomatic approaches, the US would look a lot better.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
First of all, as everyone else points out, it's a non-issue. The government will do what they want, the terrorists are more than likely using opensource encryption, etc...
for the sake of argument, let's say you can ban the military from using open source. what about those linux clusters that help break "bad guy" encryption, or the clusters they use to similate any number of things including nuclear weapon blasts. would you rather we go back to dropping nuks on remote south pacific islands?
how about this...i'm in the US Air Force. does that mean i can't run linux on all my machines in my dorm room? i know it's a stretch, but i do live on a military base and use my computers to contact people in my office regarding work (unclassified of course). couldn't that be taken as "use by the government"? what about a previous posters thought of saying "can't be downloaded for use by members of the military"?
-frozen
I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
Why Iraq?
Short answer: we're still trying to end the Gulf War. The long answer is going to have to start with a history lesson. I hope you'll take the time to read it, and to understand.
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait. That same day, the United Nations Security Council (UNSEC) adopted resolution 660, demanding that Iraq withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally to the positions they were in on August 1.
Between August 6 and November 28, UNSEC adopted 12 resolutions on the problem, finally adopting resolution 678 on November 29. Resolution 678 authorized UNSEC member states, in particular the US-led Allied Coalition, to use "all necessary means" to enforce the will of the Security Council if Iraq refused to comply by January 15.
Iraq didn't comply. There was a war. On February 27, 1991, the US-led Coalition announced a unilateral, temporary cease-fire to discuss with Iraq the terms of a permanent, formal cease-fire and an end to the war. On March 2, UNSEC adopted resolution 686, which recognized the temporary cease-fire and called on Iraq to accept the Coalition's terms. On March 3, Iraq agreed to the terms, and the formal cease-fire was signed on April 6. On April 8, UNSEC adopted resolution 687 which called on Iraq, as a condition of the cease-fire, to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons... [and] all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres." Resolution 687 also establised a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and tasked them with verifying-- not enforcing, but verifying-- Iraq's compliance.
Almost immediately, Iraq began to defy the will of UNSEC and the Allied Coalition. On August 15, 1991, UNSEC adopted resolution 707 in which they "condemn[ed] Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under section C of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure... of all aspects of its programmes," "allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access," "cease immediately any attempt to conceal, or any movement or destruction of any material or equipment," and so on. If these demands sound familiar, they should. We've been making them since 1991.
For the next five years, UNSCOM tried in vain to verify Iraq's compliance. On June 12, 1996, UNSEC adopted resolution 1060, which "deplore[d] the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On June 21, 1997, UNSEC adopted resolution 1115, which "condemn[ed] the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On October 23 of the same year, they did it again with resolution 1134. Then again on November 12 with resolution 1137.
On August 5, 1998, Iraq announced that they intended to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM. A month later, on September 9, UNSEC adopted resolution 1194, in which they "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq," accused Iraq of "a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind its above-mentioned decision and cooperate fully with the Special Commission."
On October 31, Iraq formally ceased cooperation with UNSCOM. On November 5, UNSEC adopted resoltuion 1205, which "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission," accused Iraq once more of "a flagrant violation of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998."
On November 11, the UN withdrew its staff from Iraq. The US-led Allied Coalition began planning an operation to be called "Desert Fox." The mission of the operation would be to strike Iraqi targets from the air with the goal of reducing Iraq's ability to pursue weapons of mass destruction and to threaten its neighbors, and to demonstrate to Iraq the consequences of further defiance. On November 14, with B-52 bombers in the air and within 20 minutes of striking their targets, Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors back in. On December 8, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler reported that Iraq was still not complying, and ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
On December 16, 1998, the Allied Coalition launched Operation Desert Fox. For four days, Coalition aircraft struck Iraqi military targets and targets related to Iraqi WMD programs. The strikes continued for four days, ending on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. On the last day of the strikes, Iraq's resolve was unshaken, and they declared that UNSCOM would never be allowed back into their country.
The correct course of action at this point would have been to follow up the limited air strikes with an all-out air campaign, followed immediately by invasion from all fronts and the forced disbanding of the Baath party and government. Unfortunately, the United States and the rest of the Allied Coalition lacked the political will to carry out such a massive military campaign at that time. The events of 9/11, however, served to galvanize American and Allied political will.
In 1999, however, that was not the case. On December 17, 1999, UNSEC adopted resolution 1284 which created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to carry out UNSCOM's mandate, deciding that "UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687."
Finally, on September 16, 2002, after a series of failed negotiations, Iraq agreed to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into their country. Their goal, as stated in a letter from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." On October 1, 2002, Iraq and UNMOVIC/IAEA agreed on the terms for the return of the inspectors.
On November 8, 2002, UNSEC adopted resolution 1441, which declared that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations," offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," demanded that Iraq provide to UNMOVIC" a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes," declared that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq... shall constitute a further material breach," and, finally, stated "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." On November 13, 2002, Iraq agreed to accept the terms of resolution 1441, saying, "We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable." The letter of acceptance, from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri, was filled with paranoid ramblings of great length and creativity, accusing the United States of "the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq," and stridently declaring that claims that Iraq has produced chemical and biological weapons were "fabrications" and "baseless." It's a fascinating read, and it's available on line here.
On December 7, 2002, Iraq delivered a 12,000 page dossier on its weapons programs in which it declared that it has no weapons of masss destruction at all. On December 19, Dr. Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC, reported that the declaration was incomplete, and left many questions unanswered. Since that time, it has been determined that the declaration was not merely incomplete, but inaccurate as well. On January 27, 2003, Dr. Blix said in his report to UNSEC, "Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq?s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues." He then went on to give some examples: Iraq has claimed that they only produced VX nerve agent on a pilot scale. UNMOVIC has information, including documents produced by Iraq, that contradicts this claim. Iraq declared that 19,500 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988. An Iraqi Air Force document uncovered by UNMOVIC indicates that the correct number is 13,000. Iraq has refused to reconcile this difference of 6,500 chemical weapons. The list goes on and on.
That brings us, more or less, up to the present date. For the past twelve years, Iraq has been repeatedly reminded that they are required, under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to voluntarily and unilaterally disarm. They have refused to do so.
Acting under the mandate of resolution 678 of November 29, 1991, the US, as a member of UNSEC, has the legal authority to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. The Allied Coalition attempted to do so in 1998 with limited strikes on military targets, but to no avail. Iraq continues, even in the face of further military action, to defy the Coalition and the Security Council. We have reached the point where we can no longer hold onto the hope that sanctions, strongly worded resolutions, or limited military strikes might convince Iraq to comply. We have reached the point where the only realistic hope for an end to this conflict lies in the destruction of the Baath government and the establishment of a democratic regime.
I hope this answers your question.
I write in my journal
why not? you guys did a great job of dallying while pakistan and north korea built the bomb. it's an open secret that isreal has the bomb and the u.s. continues to do nothing. seems like the us gov is good at dallying and doing nothing.
it would still be a just war if for anything for the sake of trying to resuce the Iraqi people
oh please. since when has the u.s. government cared about the lives of foreign civilians? do you not remember in 1984 when the un security council sought a resolution condemning iraq that it was blocked by the united states? how about in 1981 when the us state department took iraq off the list of nations that "sponsored terrorism"... conveniently this was done a few weeks after the iraqi invasion of longtime us-enemy iran. do you not remember in 1986 when the center for disease control and the american type culture collection sent anthrax and Clostridium botulinum strains to iraq? how about in 1988 when cdc/atcc *gave* iraq botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod? if there are bio weapons in iraq, remember where they came from: atlanta.
the us backed hussein for a decade because it was looking for someone to keep iran in line. no one gave a damn about the "iraqi people" from 1979 until last week. so why, all of a sudden, is it the united state's number one priority?
I think even the folks in France know I'm right
i think the people of france know that when the us ousts a government and puts in a new one, the new puppet has a bad habit of becoming a monster later on. remember noriega? remember (dare i say it) osama bin laden? the mujahadeen were called "the moral equivalent of the [us] founding fathers" by reagan back when they were fighting the soviets. oops. the difference between the us and france is that france understands history and is not blinded by ultranationalism.
2 1337 4 u!
Women as stress RELIEF?? Lord, they are the cause of it most of the time...
Jeremy
Great conspiracy theory. You chase UFO's too? There don't have to be al Queda *IN* Iraq for Iraq to *collaborate* with them toward a common end. Yes, bin Laden has condemned Iraq as a secular nation, but that doesn't mean they both don't consider us enemy #1 - and therefore willing to work together. Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.
Blaming Clinton, the typical republican excuse, doesn't carry any water. Clinton inherited the situation from Bush Sr. His excuse wasn't "humanitarian," but "no UN mandate" for a regiem change. Just like we have now.
Carries a lot of water. Yeah, the UN was weak - but had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today. At that point, the coalition was strong, he could have more easily pressured the UN, and there was more momentum toward disarming Iraq at the time. But what did he do? Jack shit. So he has to carry a lot of the weight for the problem, because he could have influenced the UN but he didn't even try. Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much. You could contend that neither is at fault at best an dblame the weak UN instead.
The problem [terrorism] isn't one of government, its one of culture. We do for the House of Saud what we did for Japan after WWII. We park several armored divisions in downtown Mecca and change the culture with blue jeans, VCRs and constitutional government. To that end, Hussein could be an asset, as he already oversees a secular government and a fairly westernized society.
You're being a bit generous with "fairly westernized" - they don't seem to have any of the characteristics unless you consider a military dictator as opposed to a religious dictator "western." I don't care how you define the problem, you have yet to advocate ANY solution. Unfortunately, Saddaam isn't as likely as the house of Saud to let our tanks in. And as for constitutional government in Saudi Arabia - did I miss something?
So he's used them in his own country's military actions. Big deal. To date, they havn't been used in *any* terrorist act.
And you don't have to be a damned genius to realize that if he'll use them on his own people, he'll use them on anyone else. As for whether they've been used in any terrorist act yet...do you want to wait? Want another 9/11?
Box cutters and ammonium nitrate seem to do the trick for most terrorists. We should be focusing our resources on that.
Yeah, and we are. For one, box cutters will never work again - didn't even work on the fourth plane. And there are only so many people you can kill with ammonium nitrate/diesel oil bombs, as they're pretty crude. And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.
Bottom line - you criticize the planned war. OK, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but your arguments against it are...what? Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence? That's ridiculously lame. Go with the cost, ($100b) if anything. Go with the slippery slope argument - basically, that getting rid of *just* Iraq won't work without Syria, etc. Or fear of the scorched-earth policy that Saddaam will likely follow if deposed. Or power-vacuum theory. You have so many choices, don't go with the shitty argument. Do realize, though, that an anti-war stance ultimately admits that we have effectively no hope of stopping terrorism, as its sources will go unchecked. You have no alternative solution, the UN has done *absolutely* nothing - so, again, other than *living* with terrorism, which I don't find particularly attractive, what do we do other than destroy all regimes that support it?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
If on the other hand, your software is a political platform for your views and you think that's more important than Free Software (or Open Source Software, depending on your leaning), then go ahead and add the restrictions. I won't use your software since I find software that pretends to be Free while throwing in lots of additional random restrictions to be much more distasteful than straightforward, honest commercial software.
and where, exactly, did the iranian "monster" come from? well, in 1941 the allies invaded iran and deposed the shah. miracle of miracles, the new power structure in iran was decided by an election. the guy they elected was a chap called Mossadegh. Mossadegh did a lot of things... most of them very popular with the iranian people (he was even time's man of the year for 1951!). unfortunately, he decided to nationalize the iranina oil reserves. such a move was not popular with the us government as it limited foreign (read: us and british) investment in/control of the oil industry in iran. the solution was for the cia to orchestrate an overthrow of Mossadegh and a re-implemnentation of the shah. this, of course, they did and gave the people of iran 26 years of murderous dictatorship.
the rule of the shah resulted in two things in iran: 1. a hatred of the shah and a desire to oust him 2. a distrust of the united states who had put him there in the first place. eventually in 1979, the shah was ousted by kohmeni and ko.
a simple formula: you subvert a nation and its people will hate you. the us continues to prop up dictators and foster bad will around the world, then to contain the situation they develop more dictators (and develop more bad will).
Oil? I wonder, why we even went to Somalia, or why we are still in South Korea
south korea was a cold-war anti-domino play. why don't you ask your government why they bombed hanoi or cambodia instead? why don't you ask your government where they were when rwanda needed help? how about east timor? why don't you ask your government why they supported burtal dictatorships in el salvador and honduras in the 80s. were all of these decisions made to help the people of these nations? the united states government is not concerned with the lives and well being of foreign civilians unless it is convenient for public relations. that's realpolitik.
Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor Israel have ever joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties or otherwise promised not to develop WMDs...
so iraq merely has to not recommit to the nnpt andeverything is fine? unlikely. hey! you know what country is the biggest owner and producer of weapons of mass destruction? the united states. forget about nukes, there are over one million pounds of nerve gas in the pine bluff arsenal in arkansas right now. go and inspect it yourself.
The French? Oh, they just can't get over the loss of the "grand nacion" (sp?) status
so it's hubris? hm. there are some other nations that may have a little more in that department than the french...
2 1337 4 u!
The monster helped to contain another monster -- Iran -- as you point out.
The head of a popularly elected government decided to nationationalize Iranian oil. So we assasinated him and put the Shah back in power. When the students marched, he brought in soliders with machine guns to shoot them. We put this monster into power; why should be surprised that when his government is overthrown, the resulting government doesn't like us?
I've read about the current Iranian government. It's partially democratic, with elections open to all over 15, male or female. (Kuwait, which I assume you don't consider a monster, doesn't let women vote. Saudi Arabia doesn't let anyone vote.) It's not the most nice, liberal government in the world, but the governmental failings present themselves as voter apathy, not rebellions put down at gun point. It's probably optimistic, but I've defenitely got the impression that Iran will go totally democratic in the next decade, possibly without bloodshed.
Destroying Stalin in 1945 was hardly an option - he was America's ally at that time, and no-one of any political persuasion thought there was any chance at all of fighting Russia just as WWII finally drew to an end.
Probably the "right" thing would have been for the US to follow the British line more, and deal more harshly with the Soviets and the iron curtain. Who though can blame them for not doing so. And who's to say they were wrong anyway - somehow the world got through the next 40 years with organizations like NATO never firing a shot in anger. Sure there was a lot of tension. But maybe the outcome was the best that could be hoped for.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
How come every post in this thread that is sympathetic to war is modded down as flamebait?
Destroying Stalin in 1945 was hardly an option - he was America's ally at that time, and no-one of any political persuasion thought there was any chance at all of fighting Russia just as WWII finally drew to an end.
After the war, no one really considered him our ally. We adopted a policy of containment as early as 1948 and we knew he was trouble in 1945, which is why we were in a rush to beat him to Berlin. It's true that no one considered a preemptive invasion of the USSR at the time, and it probably would have been a diplomatic nightmare, as you point out.
But we would have saved those 20 million from the Soviet police state, millions more from the gulags, tens of millions from poverty under Communism, and hundreds of thousands from the proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, we would not have had to prop up all those terrible regimes, and the proliferation problems we face today would be significantly less.
So it's easy for me to say this in hindsight, but nevertheless, it would have been wise to crush Stalin in 1945. The Cold War was in fact the worst case of appeasement in the 20th century, worse than the appeasement of Hitler, just due to the existence of nuclear weapons.
Thanks for replying instead of modding me down. And thanks for keeping an open mind