> In case your question is serious: There are still some of us who believe in peace as an end-goal for us humans Refusing to assist the military develop weapon

> In case your question is serious: There are still some of us who believe in peace as an end-goal for us humans Refusing to assist the military develop weapons doesn't really help that goal. A weak(er) military with a lesser technological edge could actually encourage war, as countries that aren't as bound by peace-seeking principles exploit the opportunity to wage war for their benefit. Basically, military weakness is destabilizing. The refusal line of thinking makes a little more sense if you assume (in this case) the US will be perpetually militarily dominant, which I think is a bad assumption. It's also kind of racist assumption, since it assumes other nationalities are incapable of technologically leapfrogging the US or negating its military advantages. That's not to say there might be good reason to not want to work on particular weapons systems that have specific moral problems to them, but I'd feel like you'd need a lot of detailed information to make those calls. I think the most defensible type of objection to assisting the military is at the personal ethical/religious level.