[kazinator]

I suspect you have to read between the lines here.

Kuipers says that "the goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence", but of course, as someone of far above average intelligence, he understands that if you have no military, then (1) a hostile, belligerent foreign power has no incentive to use the tools of peaceful conflict resolution with you no matter how available they are and (2) your sovereignty may well succumb to violence.

Rather, I suspect, what he really means here is that the goal of the American military is to settle other countries' international conflicts through violence, participating in conflicts in which the USA is not even remotely under attack.

If you believe such a thing, then you have a rationally founded reason to refuse military funding of USA origin.

[randcraw]

Kuipers states directly that he believes solving disagreements through violence is ineffective and wrong. He is not talking about other countries, only about the possible sources of funding for his research, namely the US military (and possibly their intelligence agencies).

As someone committed to nonviolence, and keenly aware that America has a long history of exporting violence to supposedly solve problems on foreign soil (but never seems todo so), I think he sees his duty as extending to the practicality of violent solutions, not just the philosophical bases, as you suggest.

I'd agree with him on this point. I can't think of a conflict since Korea that was solved (thoroughly and lastingly and without major loss of civilian life) using the US military to invade.

[philwelch]

> I can't think of a conflict since Korea that was solved (thoroughly and lastingly and without major loss of civilian life) using the US military to invade.

Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Panama, and Grenada.