The problem is key management. A camera does not have a good way to enter a long password or passphrase, and an SD card is worse
This seems like a trivial problem. Have the camera look for a my.key file on the sdcard. If it's there, copy it to onboard and overwrite it on the card. All future pictures are encrypted using the key. Have a button which the user can push to wipe the key from onboard memory.
How can they not have an "All Clear" message? Even if there was a real attack, at some point you have to be able to say "OK, anyone still alive can come out now".
After being nuked? Yeah. That message would be delivered by guys in radiation suits yelling through megaphones.
The owner overlords in the world are celebrating yet another win. They're going to make trillions with this infectious attitude towards renting everything, along with selling your every click.
I've never met anyone this passionate about their floppy disc collection. You are a dying breed.
When Trump declassified the JFK files it showed that the CIA promoted conspiracy theories to distract from the fact that Oswald was a communist in an effort to avoid an escalation of the cold war.
Nonsense. The articles which make this allegation all then go on to point out that the CIA withheld some information, and that this withholding of information led to conspiracy theories. In other words they're shit articles with insanely misleading titles. There's zero evidence in any of the released documents that the CIA created or encouraged conspiracy theories.
When you hear far out conspiracy theories they could well be coming from the government itself.
That raises the question; since you yourself are pushing a conspiracy theory alleging that the government created the conspiracy theories, does that mean you're a government agent promoting conspiracy theories?
I guess the question is, is a segregationist message hate speech? In the United States it most certainly is. We have a long history of what's called "Separate by Equal" between our black and white populations where things were anything but equal.
What in the world does that have to do with immigration?
Well, the latest theology (2500 years ago, not counting Scientology, Mormonism and the like) is that God created everything, then on the 7th day he "rested". So everything is on auto, and it's our job to deal with it, like not building in a flood plain and expecting God to bail us out.
If that were the case, we wouldn't have organised religion. The vast majority of the religious believe that praying to their invisible magic will make their lives better. If you could convince them that everything is on auto, churches would disappear pretty quickly.
If you think that there's only one definition you are completely clueless.
As defined by every major religion in the world, "God" is no more, and no less than the very fabric of reality itself. God is the sum of all parts. You exist inside God, you exist as a part of God, as do all things in the universe.
We already have a name for the thing in which all "the things in the universe" exist; it's called "the universe". If your definition of your god is indistinguishable from the universe, then your god certainly exist; however it is a mindless "god" which has nothing in common with the vast majority of gods defined by the world's religions.
You are literally taking everything that ever was and will be (including the concept of beauty itself) and saying "It was an accident."
No, that's an absurdist position. The fusion of atoms in the sun's core is not an accident; it is the result of the laws which govenrn our universe. You might argue that those laws themselves are an accident, that the existence of the universe itself is an accident, and so on, but if you're willing to go to those extremes then absolutely any proposed "explanation" is accidental. If there were good evidence that a god exists, how would you explain why he exists?
I think people tend to dislike this hypothesis because it reduces the marvelous (us) to the mundane.
It's so sad that anyone would see it that way. I find the beauty and elegance of universal laws and natural selection to be far more marvellous than a mundane bearded guy in the sky.
I said representative, not member. Zim was the trainer and one of the purer representatives of the military as an organization, particularly when he operated in his capacity as a trainer.
Even better; why would you be surprised that an experienced member tasked with training new recruits might have a thoughtful response to a question which he has doubtless heard dozens of times? I still ask: what exactly WOULDN'T constitute glorification in your eyes? Do you require every military instructor to be presented as a drooling simpleton?
The military portrayed in the novel is one that can generally be trusted to wage war without supervision. That is contrary to the idea of things like the Geneva convention.
You still seem to believe that there's some higher power which can magically force the military to follow the Geneva Conventions if they decide that they don't want to. That's a rather silly proposition.
That doesn't mean that fascism in the context of a military organization (and not society) is bad. But if you're describing a society strictly through the lens of its military it might look a bit fascist.
Sure; especially if you go into the book with preconceived notions and then stop reading after 2 chapters.
But I'd also point out that Russia justified Crimea on the grounds of Yugoslavia and Iraq. Even if X was not your intent it can still be other's perceptions.
I very much doubt that it's "their perception"; more likely it's opportunistic propaganda. I highly doubt that Putin actually believes that his annexation of Crimea is in any way comparable to a UN peacekeeping operation. Regardless, not all perceptions are valid; if he does believe it then he's a fool.
The way in which Starship Troopers is uncomfortable for me is it portrays a fairly extreme society, which could be troubling in other contexts, and drops it in a context (war for survival) in which it seems reasonable and logical.
I can sympathise with that, but the perception of their society as "extreme" seems awful funny to me. It's a world-wide democracy which seems to function better than our own, which allows all the liberties we enjoy and more while encouraging people to be responsible citizens, which seems to have zero racial or sexual discrimination apart from keeping women out of the infantry, and whose people largely shun militarism, would never institute a draft, and do not recruit or encourage anyone to join.
Frankly it sounds like a much more functional/sane planet than the one we currently have.
It should be noted that Heinlein did agree somewhat that Starship Troopers glorified the military.
It's interesting that the wiki article and section you link to originally had a passage which pointed out that Heinlein also vehemently disagreed that the society in his book was militaristic. That passage is no longer there.
Anyway, the quote presented there is one I'm familiar with, but it's chopped up and seems like it might have been taken out of context. I've tried finding the full essay from which it was taken, but have not succeeded thusfar.
I have no doubt that Heinlein believed that the average grunt deserved to be reckognized and appreciated for the hardships which he willingly insures, but that's not really the same thing as glorifying them. It's quite clear in the book that being an Infanteer is a shitty, arduous, dangerous, job, with very little benefit. Which is the truth. As an ex infantryman I know full well how little glory there is in.
Because the gunman set up the situation, it's still not the police's fault for "failing to save them". It's the gunman's fault! And it wouldn't be paraded around youtube, because it would just be a "terrible tragedy by a deranged killer".
If police were more worried about PR than about enforcing the law and saving lives, then yes, this would be an excellent strategy. Better yet, they could just stay inside their police stations playing solitaire, and then we would have a whole lot of tragedies and zero police shootings.
Considering Heinlin wrote a story about a man being his own father AND mother I can see why conservatives and anyone decent would take issue with Heinlien's views
It's a brilliant story, and the movie which was based on it is one of my favourite sci-fi flicks of all time. An absolutely flawless example of how to adapt a Heinlein story for the big screen, unlike Verhovens abortion of a film.
I suspect that your definition of "decent" differs significantly from mine.
In our defense, the bulk of the Greek military are conscripts like me, so of lower quality (as you surely understand - you can't train ordinary people to be "soldier" enough, even if you press them hard), and training (that in the last decade last only 9 months...) must be about the real national enemy: a neighbor Muslim country with 8 times our population and a big conventional military.
Yeah, I absolutely understand that. National priorities come first. It's unfortunate that Greece has to rely on conscripts to such an extent, but most NATO nations (including my own) have been underfunding their standing armies thanks to the safety blanket provided by the Yanks. I've worked with Brits, Aussies, Germans, French, Sweedes... we all do very well with what we have, but if it ever came to a major war we just don't have the manpower or the equipment to do much without the US leading the way.
but still they don't really emphasize it as it is just for keeping NATO generals happy - i think you understand...
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the old "technically doing just barely enough to keep NATO happy" thing:)
Anyway, keep safe my friend (i am - the most dangerous thing i do now is crossing the road in the typical Greek way!)
ie. while I was serving nobody ever told me I had to follow orders; I took an oath to do it when I first joined, and knew it was expected of me. Whereas we had numerous fancy presentations complete with videos and power point slides talking about our duty to refuse unlawful orders, to follow the various laws governing armed conflicts, to report harassment and abuse, including abuse of power by superiors, etc.
I know that's not a clear cut answer, but it's a difficult thing to quantify.
But that's the glorification, the wisdom and humanity is coming from the representative of the military.
That "the wisdom and humanity" are coming from a member of the military should be no surprise given that 95% of the characters in the book are military members. What are you suggesting; that they should all have been presented as booger-eating troglodytes? That any sign of intellect or compassion coming from a military character is de-facto "glorification"?
The implication is that if even the grunts understand ethics and philosophy, and the military is rigorous in disciplining its own, then external constraints like the Geneva Conventions or politicians are unnecessary.
The Geneva Conventions are not "external constraints", they are rules which we have agreed to follow. Politicians are not an external constraint; they are the leaders we have agreed to follow. Without a military which is structured to enforce the ethics of the society which it serves, how will you enforce them? Without military leaders who consent to embody those principles, how will you ensure compliance? Nobody is suggesting that every single military member is the epitome of moral virtue; the only implication being made is that they have taken an oath to follow the ethics and directives of their society regardless of their personal desires.
Fascism encourages sacrifice on behalf of the state, what is the state if not the defence of others? If you want to understand why fascism and other terrible ideas take root then you need to look at them in a sympathetic light.
Fascism also encouraged very efficient train schedules. If Verhovens train arrives on time will he conclude that he's living under fascism?
The willingness for self sacrifice in the service of society is a good thing, if the society is good. The problem with German and Italian soldiers wasn't their willingness to put society before self; the problem was the fact that they were serving a fascist state. That's a failure of the political process and of the civilians who were responsible for maintaining it. The military is only as good as the society it serves.
How would you classify the US in 2003? A lot of us outside saw the US as a militaristic nation using force to achieve objectives (be they strategic, economic, or humanitarian) in Iraq. Many inside the US saw it as a proactive act of self-defence.
That's an incredibly complex question, largely because the objectives were so muddled. If it was solely a humanitarian intervention, such as, say, the UN peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia, I don't think any reasonable person would consider it militarism. The reasons given for the invasion of Iraq were numerous; some better than others, some more believable than others, which all muddies the water quite a bit.
Suffice it to say that I would classify the invasion of Iraq as far more militaristic than the war in Starship Troopers, and far less militaristic than, say, the Russian annexation of Crimea. If that makes sense.
I agree that full mobilization in self-defence is different than militarist for self-interest. But people are great at rationalizing and mostly see that self-interest as a form of defence, or at least as retaking what is rightfully theirs. I'm not sure those countries look drastically different on the inside.
People are great at rationalising all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean that there aren't objective truths, or that we cannot define consistent standards. That's why it's important for civilians to think about and discuss these things, rather than just simplifying everything down to "soldiers evil, war bad". A society which is willing to rationalise evil will have an army which does evil, and a society which is unwilling to defend itself and it's values will quickly perish. Let's try to avoid both of those scenarios, shall we?
It's been a lot of years since I read it, but the vibe I got was that the harsh discipline was part of the message that grunts were being held to a held to a higher standard than the rest of society, and being melded into something better.
If by "something better" you mean a superior fighting force, then yes, absolutely. If, on the other hand, you mean some flawless ubermenschen, then no, absolutely not.
There was certainly a lot of talk in the book about morality and how to be a decent, responsible human being, but much of that was outside the context of the military. When Zim is asked why the mobile infantry need to risk their lives instead of just nuking the enemy, he points out that the recruit should have learned the answer in highschool during his moral philosophy classes. The military doesn't teach them some secret knowledge on how to be a good person; it merely follows and enforces ethics which all people should already understand.
You could compare that to what we do today when, for example, we insist our soldiers follow the Geneva Conventions. All civilised people should already know that it's wrong to kill prisoners, and that we should offer aid to any injured person regardless of which side they happen to be on. Yet many people, both inside and outside the military, feel so much hatred and so little compassion that they would gladly beat a captured opponent to death given the opportunity. The military enforces those ethical standards not because it makes soldiers "noble" but because we, as a society, have agreed that it's the right thing to do. Following those rules doesn't make a soldier "something better"; it just makes his actions better than the alternative.
I'm not trying to object to it, just trying to explain how Verhoeven saw fascism in it.
I'm not sure you're having the desired effect. If Veerhoven looked at the passages which encourages self sacrifice in the defense of others and concluded that it is an example of "fascism" then he is more of an idiot than I thought.
How is a massive mobilization with everyone joining the fight not militarism? I'd say the West became militarist for the extent of WWI and WWII, the thing that we generally find objectionable is militarism during a time of peace.
We are mixing definitions, then. Militarism, AFAIK, is the position that a nation should employ military might in the furthering of national interests. In practice this has meant things like the annexation of neighbouring nations, the imposition of military blockades, and the subjugation of unpopular groups, all with no purpose other than the expansion or enrichment of the state.
A nation fighting for it's very survival is in a wholly different category. You could certainly argue that survival is a "national interest", but to put that in the same category as an armed invasion of a peaceful neighbour is asinine.
Insofar as your definition of militarism encompasses any military activity whatsoever then sure, the society in the book was militaristic. However, in that case, the word "militaristic" ceases to have any of the negative connotations which we typically associate with it, and I again fail to see what the objection is or how it's linked to fascism.
Those are people who have gone through training where they are taught to follow orders without question
This is a caricature used by those who have never served. Every western nations puts great emphasis on the difference between lawful and unlawful orders, and makes it clear in no uncertain terms that a soldiers duty is to follow all lawful orders, as well as to reject all unlawful ones. If you are given an unlawful order not only is it your duty to refuse to obey, it is also your duty to report the person who issued it.
As far as the book goes, the oath of the terran federation specifically stated that the members vows to follow "all lawful orders". Heinlein did not include that word by accident.
that their enemies (militarily or politically) are not people
In the book the enemy quite literally are not people. But it doesn't matter, since the purpose of the war was never extermination, or enslavement, or any form of subjugation; it was self defence. The enemy attacked, and the mobile infantry responded.
I seriously hope that this part of your comment only applied to the book, because if you think it plays any relevance to how modern armies operate you are seriously misinformed.
and that the military is important.
Isn't it?
Anyone who doesn't learn these lessons is unlikely to survive. This makes for something very similar to having a society run by the military.
If you caricature of the military were at all accurate, I suppose there might be some truth to that. But if that were the case, we wouldn't be a having this discussion; you would already be living under a military dictatorship supported by the millions of men and women who are serving or have served in your armed forces.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is key management. A camera does not have a good way to enter a long password or passphrase, and an SD card is worse
This seems like a trivial problem. Have the camera look for a my.key file on the sdcard. If it's there, copy it to onboard and overwrite it on the card. All future pictures are encrypted using the key. Have a button which the user can push to wipe the key from onboard memory.
How about a cop who wants to protect life and serve the people of his community rather than shoot them? Letâ(TM)s hire cops like that.
Sounds good; when are you signing up?
It's funny how 100% of your examples are black. Couldn't find a single Asian, Native, or White victim? Only black lives matter, eh?
My guess is that it was not recorded in one piece like that
RTFA; it wasn't recorded at all. It was a dumbass calling them on the phone, verbally giving them the message.
How can they not have an "All Clear" message? Even if there was a real attack, at some point you have to be able to say "OK, anyone still alive can come out now".
After being nuked? Yeah. That message would be delivered by guys in radiation suits yelling through megaphones.
The owner overlords in the world are celebrating yet another win. They're going to make trillions with this infectious attitude towards renting everything, along with selling your every click.
I've never met anyone this passionate about their floppy disc collection. You are a dying breed.
When Trump declassified the JFK files it showed that the CIA promoted conspiracy theories to distract from the fact that Oswald was a communist in an effort to avoid an escalation of the cold war.
Nonsense. The articles which make this allegation all then go on to point out that the CIA withheld some information, and that this withholding of information led to conspiracy theories. In other words they're shit articles with insanely misleading titles. There's zero evidence in any of the released documents that the CIA created or encouraged conspiracy theories.
When you hear far out conspiracy theories they could well be coming from the government itself.
That raises the question; since you yourself are pushing a conspiracy theory alleging that the government created the conspiracy theories, does that mean you're a government agent promoting conspiracy theories?
I guess the question is, is a segregationist message hate speech? In the United States it most certainly is. We have a long history of what's called "Separate by Equal" between our black and white populations where things were anything but equal.
What in the world does that have to do with immigration?
Well, the latest theology (2500 years ago, not counting Scientology, Mormonism and the like) is that God created everything, then on the 7th day he "rested". So everything is on auto, and it's our job to deal with it, like not building in a flood plain and expecting God to bail us out.
If that were the case, we wouldn't have organised religion. The vast majority of the religious believe that praying to their invisible magic will make their lives better. If you could convince them that everything is on auto, churches would disappear pretty quickly.
Too late.
If you think that there's only one definition you are completely clueless.
As defined by every major religion in the world, "God" is no more, and no less than the very fabric of reality itself. God is the sum of all parts. You exist inside God, you exist as a part of God, as do all things in the universe.
We already have a name for the thing in which all "the things in the universe" exist; it's called "the universe". If your definition of your god is indistinguishable from the universe, then your god certainly exist; however it is a mindless "god" which has nothing in common with the vast majority of gods defined by the world's religions.
You are literally taking everything that ever was and will be (including the concept of beauty itself) and saying "It was an accident."
No, that's an absurdist position. The fusion of atoms in the sun's core is not an accident; it is the result of the laws which govenrn our universe. You might argue that those laws themselves are an accident, that the existence of the universe itself is an accident, and so on, but if you're willing to go to those extremes then absolutely any proposed "explanation" is accidental. If there were good evidence that a god exists, how would you explain why he exists?
Yep. He's an accident.
How do you know you're not just programmed to think that you think?
I think people tend to dislike this hypothesis because it reduces the marvelous (us) to the mundane.
It's so sad that anyone would see it that way. I find the beauty and elegance of universal laws and natural selection to be far more marvellous than a mundane bearded guy in the sky.
Yes, in some fields we reached the point where the final scientific question can only be logically answered with... God!
Sorry, you're wrong. God is a figment of your imagination; the only logical answer is pixie dust.
I said representative, not member. Zim was the trainer and one of the purer representatives of the military as an organization, particularly when he operated in his capacity as a trainer.
Even better; why would you be surprised that an experienced member tasked with training new recruits might have a thoughtful response to a question which he has doubtless heard dozens of times? I still ask: what exactly WOULDN'T constitute glorification in your eyes? Do you require every military instructor to be presented as a drooling simpleton?
The military portrayed in the novel is one that can generally be trusted to wage war without supervision. That is contrary to the idea of things like the Geneva convention.
You still seem to believe that there's some higher power which can magically force the military to follow the Geneva Conventions if they decide that they don't want to. That's a rather silly proposition.
That doesn't mean that fascism in the context of a military organization (and not society) is bad. But if you're describing a society strictly through the lens of its military it might look a bit fascist.
Sure; especially if you go into the book with preconceived notions and then stop reading after 2 chapters.
But I'd also point out that Russia justified Crimea on the grounds of Yugoslavia and Iraq. Even if X was not your intent it can still be other's perceptions.
I very much doubt that it's "their perception"; more likely it's opportunistic propaganda. I highly doubt that Putin actually believes that his annexation of Crimea is in any way comparable to a UN peacekeeping operation. Regardless, not all perceptions are valid; if he does believe it then he's a fool.
The way in which Starship Troopers is uncomfortable for me is it portrays a fairly extreme society, which could be troubling in other contexts, and drops it in a context (war for survival) in which it seems reasonable and logical.
I can sympathise with that, but the perception of their society as "extreme" seems awful funny to me. It's a world-wide democracy which seems to function better than our own, which allows all the liberties we enjoy and more while encouraging people to be responsible citizens, which seems to have zero racial or sexual discrimination apart from keeping women out of the infantry, and whose people largely shun militarism, would never institute a draft, and do not recruit or encourage anyone to join.
Frankly it sounds like a much more functional/sane planet than the one we currently have.
It should be noted that Heinlein did agree somewhat that Starship Troopers glorified the military.
It's interesting that the wiki article and section you link to originally had a passage which pointed out that Heinlein also vehemently disagreed that the society in his book was militaristic. That passage is no longer there.
Anyway, the quote presented there is one I'm familiar with, but it's chopped up and seems like it might have been taken out of context. I've tried finding the full essay from which it was taken, but have not succeeded thusfar.
I have no doubt that Heinlein believed that the average grunt deserved to be reckognized and appreciated for the hardships which he willingly insures, but that's not really the same thing as glorifying them. It's quite clear in the book that being an Infanteer is a shitty, arduous, dangerous, job, with very little benefit. Which is the truth. As an ex infantryman I know full well how little glory there is in.
Because the gunman set up the situation, it's still not the police's fault for "failing to save them". It's the gunman's fault!
And it wouldn't be paraded around youtube, because it would just be a "terrible tragedy by a deranged killer".
If police were more worried about PR than about enforcing the law and saving lives, then yes, this would be an excellent strategy. Better yet, they could just stay inside their police stations playing solitaire, and then we would have a whole lot of tragedies and zero police shootings.
Why?
Considering Heinlin wrote a story about a man being his own father AND mother I can see why conservatives and anyone decent would take issue with Heinlien's views
It's a brilliant story, and the movie which was based on it is one of my favourite sci-fi flicks of all time. An absolutely flawless example of how to adapt a Heinlein story for the big screen, unlike Verhovens abortion of a film.
I suspect that your definition of "decent" differs significantly from mine.
Frogs reputation as assholes is exaggerated. Most french people are decent.
Yeah, I know that, but I thought "The French" was more humourous than "Parisians" and either way the point should be clear.
In our defense, the bulk of the Greek military are conscripts like me, so of lower quality (as you surely understand - you can't train ordinary people to be "soldier" enough, even if you press them hard), and training (that in the last decade last only 9 months...) must be about the real national enemy: a neighbor Muslim country with 8 times our population and a big conventional military.
Yeah, I absolutely understand that. National priorities come first. It's unfortunate that Greece has to rely on conscripts to such an extent, but most NATO nations (including my own) have been underfunding their standing armies thanks to the safety blanket provided by the Yanks. I've worked with Brits, Aussies, Germans, French, Sweedes ... we all do very well with what we have, but if it ever came to a major war we just don't have the manpower or the equipment to do much without the US leading the way.
but still they don't really emphasize it as it is just for keeping NATO generals happy - i think you understand...
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the old "technically doing just barely enough to keep NATO happy" thing :)
Anyway, keep safe my friend (i am - the most dangerous thing i do now is crossing the road in the typical Greek way!)
Cheers!
Which half of that receives more emphasis in training?
Explicitly, refusing orders; implicitly, obeying orders.
ie. while I was serving nobody ever told me I had to follow orders; I took an oath to do it when I first joined, and knew it was expected of me. Whereas we had numerous fancy presentations complete with videos and power point slides talking about our duty to refuse unlawful orders, to follow the various laws governing armed conflicts, to report harassment and abuse, including abuse of power by superiors, etc.
I know that's not a clear cut answer, but it's a difficult thing to quantify.
But that's the glorification, the wisdom and humanity is coming from the representative of the military.
That "the wisdom and humanity" are coming from a member of the military should be no surprise given that 95% of the characters in the book are military members. What are you suggesting; that they should all have been presented as booger-eating troglodytes? That any sign of intellect or compassion coming from a military character is de-facto "glorification"?
The implication is that if even the grunts understand ethics and philosophy, and the military is rigorous in disciplining its own, then external constraints like the Geneva Conventions or politicians are unnecessary.
The Geneva Conventions are not "external constraints", they are rules which we have agreed to follow. Politicians are not an external constraint; they are the leaders we have agreed to follow. Without a military which is structured to enforce the ethics of the society which it serves, how will you enforce them? Without military leaders who consent to embody those principles, how will you ensure compliance? Nobody is suggesting that every single military member is the epitome of moral virtue; the only implication being made is that they have taken an oath to follow the ethics and directives of their society regardless of their personal desires.
Fascism encourages sacrifice on behalf of the state, what is the state if not the defence of others? If you want to understand why fascism and other terrible ideas take root then you need to look at them in a sympathetic light.
Fascism also encouraged very efficient train schedules. If Verhovens train arrives on time will he conclude that he's living under fascism?
The willingness for self sacrifice in the service of society is a good thing, if the society is good. The problem with German and Italian soldiers wasn't their willingness to put society before self; the problem was the fact that they were serving a fascist state. That's a failure of the political process and of the civilians who were responsible for maintaining it. The military is only as good as the society it serves.
How would you classify the US in 2003? A lot of us outside saw the US as a militaristic nation using force to achieve objectives (be they strategic, economic, or humanitarian) in Iraq. Many inside the US saw it as a proactive act of self-defence.
That's an incredibly complex question, largely because the objectives were so muddled. If it was solely a humanitarian intervention, such as, say, the UN peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia, I don't think any reasonable person would consider it militarism. The reasons given for the invasion of Iraq were numerous; some better than others, some more believable than others, which all muddies the water quite a bit.
Suffice it to say that I would classify the invasion of Iraq as far more militaristic than the war in Starship Troopers, and far less militaristic than, say, the Russian annexation of Crimea. If that makes sense.
I agree that full mobilization in self-defence is different than militarist for self-interest. But people are great at rationalizing and mostly see that self-interest as a form of defence, or at least as retaking what is rightfully theirs. I'm not sure those countries look drastically different on the inside.
People are great at rationalising all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean that there aren't objective truths, or that we cannot define consistent standards. That's why it's important for civilians to think about and discuss these things, rather than just simplifying everything down to "soldiers evil, war bad". A society which is willing to rationalise evil will have an army which does evil, and a society which is unwilling to defend itself and it's values will quickly perish. Let's try to avoid both of those scenarios, shall we?
It's been a lot of years since I read it, but the vibe I got was that the harsh discipline was part of the message that grunts were being held to a held to a higher standard than the rest of society, and being melded into something better.
If by "something better" you mean a superior fighting force, then yes, absolutely. If, on the other hand, you mean some flawless ubermenschen, then no, absolutely not.
There was certainly a lot of talk in the book about morality and how to be a decent, responsible human being, but much of that was outside the context of the military. When Zim is asked why the mobile infantry need to risk their lives instead of just nuking the enemy, he points out that the recruit should have learned the answer in highschool during his moral philosophy classes. The military doesn't teach them some secret knowledge on how to be a good person; it merely follows and enforces ethics which all people should already understand.
You could compare that to what we do today when, for example, we insist our soldiers follow the Geneva Conventions. All civilised people should already know that it's wrong to kill prisoners, and that we should offer aid to any injured person regardless of which side they happen to be on. Yet many people, both inside and outside the military, feel so much hatred and so little compassion that they would gladly beat a captured opponent to death given the opportunity. The military enforces those ethical standards not because it makes soldiers "noble" but because we, as a society, have agreed that it's the right thing to do. Following those rules doesn't make a soldier "something better"; it just makes his actions better than the alternative.
I'm not trying to object to it, just trying to explain how Verhoeven saw fascism in it.
I'm not sure you're having the desired effect. If Veerhoven looked at the passages which encourages self sacrifice in the defense of others and concluded that it is an example of "fascism" then he is more of an idiot than I thought.
How is a massive mobilization with everyone joining the fight not militarism? I'd say the West became militarist for the extent of WWI and WWII, the thing that we generally find objectionable is militarism during a time of peace.
We are mixing definitions, then. Militarism, AFAIK, is the position that a nation should employ military might in the furthering of national interests. In practice this has meant things like the annexation of neighbouring nations, the imposition of military blockades, and the subjugation of unpopular groups, all with no purpose other than the expansion or enrichment of the state.
A nation fighting for it's very survival is in a wholly different category. You could certainly argue that survival is a "national interest", but to put that in the same category as an armed invasion of a peaceful neighbour is asinine.
Insofar as your definition of militarism encompasses any military activity whatsoever then sure, the society in the book was militaristic. However, in that case, the word "militaristic" ceases to have any of the negative connotations which we typically associate with it, and I again fail to see what the objection is or how it's linked to fascism.
Those are people who have gone through training where they are taught to follow orders without question
This is a caricature used by those who have never served. Every western nations puts great emphasis on the difference between lawful and unlawful orders, and makes it clear in no uncertain terms that a soldiers duty is to follow all lawful orders, as well as to reject all unlawful ones. If you are given an unlawful order not only is it your duty to refuse to obey, it is also your duty to report the person who issued it.
As far as the book goes, the oath of the terran federation specifically stated that the members vows to follow "all lawful orders". Heinlein did not include that word by accident.
that their enemies (militarily or politically) are not people
In the book the enemy quite literally are not people. But it doesn't matter, since the purpose of the war was never extermination, or enslavement, or any form of subjugation; it was self defence. The enemy attacked, and the mobile infantry responded.
I seriously hope that this part of your comment only applied to the book, because if you think it plays any relevance to how modern armies operate you are seriously misinformed.
and that the military is important.
Isn't it?
Anyone who doesn't learn these lessons is unlikely to survive. This makes for something very similar to having a society run by the military.
If you caricature of the military were at all accurate, I suppose there might be some truth to that. But if that were the case, we wouldn't be a having this discussion; you would already be living under a military dictatorship supported by the millions of men and women who are serving or have served in your armed forces.