4 ms·

I think it's pretty obvious: when there's an obvious military threat that would have implications for civilians (e.g. invasion, blockade, etc), the software is

I think it's pretty obvious: when there's an obvious military threat that would have implications for civilians (e.g. invasion, blockade, etc), the software is tailored to that need, and the military is not currently engaged in multiple offensive bloody wars based on lies with a long history of doing so.

sa46 8y ago
What about non-obvious threats? Generally speaking, nations that fall behind technologically fare poorly against more advanced nations. What about software that is adapted by the military for new use cases instead of tailored use cases? Should Microsoft be responsible for damage caused operations planned in Word and PowerPoint? What about iPhone with sniper windage apps? How many layers removed before a company is considered ethical?
- jadedhacker 8y ago
  You're right that you can get into morally gray areas, but if the military is using applications that are available to ordinary consumers, businesses, and governments worldwide, it's not really giving them an edge now is it? We should focus our criticism on people that are doing bad things and know it. We don't need to dive into the most murky territory in order to achieve worthy effects when there's so much low hanging fruit. With regards to novel threats, it'd be nice if the military could justify these investments without resorting to propaganda, and outright lies. There should be a clear explanation that most people would understand the necessity of and how it works in their interest.
  - nradov 8y ago
    While I support a lower military budget and less interventionist foreign policy, the reality is that it's impossible to publicly justify some investments without revealing classified information that would put intelligence sources at risk. If we're going to have a military at all then people have to be willing to delegate those investment decisions to their elected officials and operate on a need-to-know basis.
nradov 8y ago
It's not at all obvious. Politicians, philosophers, ethicists, religious leaders, and military officers have ceaselessly debated this issue since the dawn of civilization and there is still no clear consensus.
- princekolt 8y ago
  It's very simple for me: Don't. If the military wants to use technology to enhance their killing techniques, then they should do it themselves with in-house development. If they can't that's just too bad.
  - nradov 8y ago
    How nice for you that you have the privilege and luxury to take that moral high ground. You would think differently if you had a friend or family member in the military. If we're going to have a military at all then our warfighters deserve the best killing technology we can provide to help keep the enemy from killing them. While the military does do some research in house, since we live in a capitalist society much of the work will always have to be done by private contractors.
    - uihdagkjhl 8y ago
      > our warfighters deserve the best killing technology Like biological and chemical weapons? Or more like Napalm buring through children? Or metal-free landmines that are even harder to remove after war?

sa46 8y ago

What about non-obvious threats? Generally speaking, nations that fall behind technologically fare poorly against more advanced nations. What about software that is adapted by the military for new use cases instead of tailored use cases? Should Microsoft be responsible for damage caused operations planned in Word and PowerPoint? What about iPhone with sniper windage apps? How many layers removed before a company is considered ethical?

jadedhacker 8y ago
You're right that you can get into morally gray areas, but if the military is using applications that are available to ordinary consumers, businesses, and governments worldwide, it's not really giving them an edge now is it? We should focus our criticism on people that are doing bad things and know it. We don't need to dive into the most murky territory in order to achieve worthy effects when there's so much low hanging fruit. With regards to novel threats, it'd be nice if the military could justify these investments without resorting to propaganda, and outright lies. There should be a clear explanation that most people would understand the necessity of and how it works in their interest.
- nradov 8y ago
  While I support a lower military budget and less interventionist foreign policy, the reality is that it's impossible to publicly justify some investments without revealing classified information that would put intelligence sources at risk. If we're going to have a military at all then people have to be willing to delegate those investment decisions to their elected officials and operate on a need-to-know basis.

nradov 8y ago

It's not at all obvious. Politicians, philosophers, ethicists, religious leaders, and military officers have ceaselessly debated this issue since the dawn of civilization and there is still no clear consensus.

princekolt 8y ago
It's very simple for me: Don't. If the military wants to use technology to enhance their killing techniques, then they should do it themselves with in-house development. If they can't that's just too bad.
- nradov 8y ago
  How nice for you that you have the privilege and luxury to take that moral high ground. You would think differently if you had a friend or family member in the military. If we're going to have a military at all then our warfighters deserve the best killing technology we can provide to help keep the enemy from killing them. While the military does do some research in house, since we live in a capitalist society much of the work will always have to be done by private contractors.
  - uihdagkjhl 8y ago
    > our warfighters deserve the best killing technology Like biological and chemical weapons? Or more like Napalm buring through children? Or metal-free landmines that are even harder to remove after war?