9 ms·

These employees are free to exercise their right to (not) work for whomever they want, but the certainty they express (as well as most commenters here) in their

These employees are free to exercise their right to (not) work for whomever they want, but the certainty they express (as well as most commenters here) in their own self-righteousness seems misplaced to me. There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest. In fact, I would wager that a majority of Americans (and a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the world) hold the belief expressed in the previous statement. Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied? Granted, as stated in the first sentence, I'm not in favor of compelling anyone to work for any purpose, let alone military ones. But to pretend such a lien doesn't exist strikes me as somewhat selfish/narrow-minded in its own right. For that reason, I think the ostensible certainty that these employees (and their abundant proponents here) have in their convictions seems a little naive to me. There's also a real chance (though perhaps small) that an industry-wide refusal to cooperate with the US military could have disastrous consequences for the world, and that alone should give one pause before being so self-assured about such a decision. I agree that there is also a real chance (also perhaps small) that the US military could use the technology with disastrous consequences for the world, but--again--that makes this a difficult ethical conundrum, not the clear right/wrong moral issue as I often see it portrayed as in the industry.

bad_user 8y ago
Google is at this point not just some US company, but a multi-national one. I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance. So what stops me, as a Google customer (which I am), to stop doing business with them, given that I see proof after proof that they are working against my interests? This is the same problem as with the Snowden leaks. I don't care if Americans feel more safe with the NSA secretly watching their emails via gag orders, if my privacy as a non-US citizen is being violated, therefore at this point absolutely all US companies are suspects, starting with a negative ranking in my book; at this point I always prefer European ones. Also the usual arguments that countries collaborate with each other is bullshit, because in the EU I can sue companies, or my government, for cheap too, whereas in the US I have no rights. And if you find that acceptable, then maybe balkanizing the Internet isn't such a bad thing after all, lets start with ICANN. > There's also a real chance (though perhaps small) that an industry-wide refusal to cooperate with the US military could have disastrous consequences for the world There's also a real chance that I might get hit by a brick and die tomorrow, yet that doesn't stop me from going out. If you don't have an assessment done by experts of what might actually happen, then such arguments are bullshit.
- greyman 8y ago
  > I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance. Yes, that's exactly the problem. What if in the future, my country and USA will be enemies? It is not very probable, but so wasn't a prospect of war in Ukraine, for example. You just don't know how things will develop, and if a company want's to be global, it shouldn't directly support a military of a specific country.
  - slavik81 8y ago
    That's not how things are done today. Military technology is shared widely among allies. If we cannot trust our friends, we are doomed. There might be national secret-sauce here or there, but the major military contractors are all international. Lots of projects involve R&D spread across multiple nations. Things mostly get dicey when looking at nations that are too unstable to trust (Egypt, Pakistan, etc.), or those that are current rivals (Russia, China).
    - oldcynic 8y ago
      Isn't it the case that the only nation getting an F35 comparable to the US version is the UK? It's unclear if even that version is the same. Everyone else seems to be getting some sort of F35 lite export version, including Australia, Italy and possibly others. Is that trusting one's friends or are they too unstable to trust?
      - aurailious 8y ago
        The US generally does not export its most advanced defense technology. Almost all fighter aircraft exports over the past century have have limitations on its equipment. Generally the receiving country replaces some equipment with their own domestic variants. Israel and Japan do this with their US fighter aircraft. Trusting an ally with any version of the F-35 is a big thing. The base F-35 is still going to be a very great fighter aircraft.
      - engi_nerd 8y ago
icebraining 8y ago
> Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied? Why do these workers have such a lien, whereas the people who happened to go into a career that isn't useful for the military don't? That sounds quite unfair. I'd say they pay their obligation the same way everybody else does: through taxes. And people who benefited more from that environment will earn more, and subsequently pay more as well.
tonfa 8y ago
> There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest. In fact, I would wager that a majority of Americans (and a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the world) hold the belief expressed in the previous statement. That's probably true for US citizens, but I highly doubt non-US folks share that view (at least from a western European perspective I'd say definitely not).
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Did you kind of forget that Russia pretty much controlled half of Europe not too long ago, and sent tanks to fight citizens when it was needed to maintain "order". Countries under US rule never faced such severe repression.
  - astura 8y ago
    I understand what you're saying, but you're not quite accurate, there was the Philippine–American War.
  - pofilat 8y ago
    That's because the US already took over and genocided the interesting parts of its continent (+ Hawaii), and used covert operations to install friendly dictators across the hemisphere when it needed to maintain "democracy".
  - rmc 8y ago
    Plenty of that happened in US backed, and funded, regimes in Central and South America.
- gurkendoktor 8y ago
  Fellow Western European here, and I understand that sentiment. However, it seems that countries which are closer to Russia or China don't mind the American military nearly as much. See: Baltic States, Sweden, Taiwan. Pax Americana is a thing, even if it's usually overshadowed by completely braindead interventions like the Iraq War.
rambossa 8y ago
Thank you. Many want their cake and to eat it too.
- ionised 8y ago
  You can think that if it makes you feel better, but I'd be perfectly happy giving the cake back.
brightball 8y ago
It just means that other companies will get these contracts.
black_puppydog 8y ago
> I would wager that a majority of Americans (and a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the world) hold the belief expressed in the previous statement. wow. words fail me. I used to see the US as the "big partner overseas". That was 20 years ago. Maybe I'm projecting my own views and development here, but IMHO the picture the US as friendly or even just benign faded over a decade or so, then got utterly destroyed by whatever the heck US politics is today.
black_puppydog 8y ago
> Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied? No. Education ideally is a gift from society to the individual, in the hope that it will be reciprocated, by work, but also by making informed decisions. And those can easily include refusing to work on a project (military or not) if the individual deems it harmful. Harmful to who? To the society that financed the education, to their family, or to "the world"? That's up to the individual to decide, too.
johannes1234321 8y ago
Even if one agrees that a "strong US military" is beneficial this doesn't neccissarily includes all forms of warfare. For example I can argue that a strong military is important to defend the country (or maybe even the West or whatever) while a military made out of drones and robots mixed with AI, driven by a Space Force is too easily deployed in combat, since risk on own loss is low, while the opponent might see civilian casualties, causing more harm than good.
jdietrich 8y ago
As a Brit, I'm very grateful to the Americans. By antagonising a substantial proportion of the global population, you've really taken the heat off us. The people of Afghanistan have a long and justifiable tradition of hating the British, mainly thanks to the three Anglo-Afghan wars of 1839, 1878 and 1919. Since the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, we seem almost quaint by comparison; our brutal imperialism is tinged with a vague hint of nostalgia for the days before cluster bombs and counter-insurgency tactics. We invaded Iran during the first world war, backed a military coup of their government and ruthlessly looted the country for oil, but all of that seems like water under the bridge compared to the CIA's persistent efforts to destabilise Iranian society. Pakistanis have every reason to hate the British - we imposed a bloody and brutal regime across the Indian subcontinent, then so badly botched the transition to self-governance that at least a million people died. Thanks to a decade of poorly-targeted and possibly illegal drone strikes by the US, nearly a century of totalitarian rule under the British is almost forgotten. I can't remember the last time I saw a British flag being burned by an angry mob. Your government's decision to remain constantly at war probably hasn't done a great deal for your safety, but it's really distracted attention from our barbarism.
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  It is fascinating as an American how cold war military spending has basically become so traditional that even when our military budget is larger than the next ten nations combined you have people carrying on about rebuilding and strengthening our military. Give it fifty or a hundred years and Americans will be thanking the Chinese for the same reasons.
  - Scipio_Afri 8y ago
    It's slightly misleading to say that because other countries, like China and Russia, aren't as transparent with their budgets and there is some hiding of military spending in other parts of their government, from what I've read.
    - jimbofisher1 8y ago
dangerface 8y ago
"There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest." Then make a case, don't just state that you can and move on as if you did. For example here is my counter argument: The US is currently stealing children, this is obviously not in the best interests of anyone, womp womp. "a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the world" Democratic countries like to keep their democracy not be ruled by a tyrant. The US Military is very tyrannical, the CIA has been a massive destabilising force in a lot of democratic countries. "Given that society created the environment" The tech companies created their environment, just like their employees spent their time and effort acquiring their skills. You are claiming authority over other peoples work with no justification. "I'm not in favor of compelling anyone to work for any purpose" You just stated the opposite. These are hypocritical weasel words so you can walk back your argument. "There's also a real chance -sic- refusal to cooperate -sic- could have disastrous consequences for the world" Such as? You make a lot of wild claims with absolutely nothing to back it up. Your argument is ultimately trying to make a case for totalitarianism as long as the US are the totalitarians.
tjr225 8y ago
I think that this sentiment is jingoistic and stupid. I hope the US ant-war movement comes back, and bigger than ever.
Zigurd 8y ago
Militaries, police, and other government security organs have benefits, but they also have downsides. It's not purely up to them which is which. Tools are not neutral, and tool-makers even less so. The general reputation of private sector weapons makers used to be very low. They were "merchants of death." This comment assumes their legitimacy.
white-flame 8y ago
> There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest. The USA was formed on a basic distrust of the government, including checks & balances, and non-federal armament in the 2nd amendment. It is not allowed to be a single, trusted federal power, but rather one whose powers are defined by limited and explicit allowance, with default powers resting on the distributed states and people. The notion that the USA should stand in a singular trusted and empowered situation over the rest of the world neither fits with fundamental American concepts, nor notions of robustness in general. Strength of militaries should be distributed among independent allies, not focused on any single point of failure or corruption. The military strength of the USA certainly benefits the USA. But a singular point of above-and-beyond military strength is not a model of benefiting the world.
- pofilat 8y ago
  Foreign affairs is one of the few enumerated central/Federal powers, so I don't understand your point.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
> There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest. In fact, I would wager that a majority of Americans (and a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the world) hold the belief expressed in the previous statement. Given that the U.S. is being consistently voted as being the biggest threat to world peace, I'd vaguer not. That does not mean we want Russia or China to dominate us instead, it just means the world doesn't want to be bullied by the U.S. either. You do realize that every single empire in history assumed it has a more moral position to bully others that those that came before it, don't you? I don't know how it reflects in American society, but in the rest of the world the fact that the U.S. killed a million Iraqis here, a few hundred thousand Afghanis elsewhere, enabled the slave-markets of Libya, funded terrorists in Syria and is currently helping to commit genocide in Yemen does not reflect anywhere near great on the U.S. Some of us actually think that the people from these places are also valid, genuine human beings who deserve to live, so no, many people do not think the U.S. has any moral high ground here. It may be hard to swallow for some U.S. patriots, but I'd say you should be proud of the country and what it is supposed to stand for, rather than being proud of the government, (government != country), and what it is doing in many places. Despite what many Americans seem to think, you do not have the best healthcare in the world, nor the best education system, nor the best infrastructure and I could go on and on - please focus on that instead of empire building.
Bartweiss 8y ago
> a strong US military One point I haven't seen raised here is that "a strong military" is not a one-dimensional proposition. The military does a lot of things in a lot of contexts, and they don't all have the same moral value. If someone wants to build better Humvee armor for the US Army, I wouldn't criticize them at all. I don't think there's a reasonable case that better-armored Humvees are worse for the world. (Not least because we proved in 2003 that a lack of proper armor doesn't deter the US from starting wars.) But I think the work Google engineers are likely to do for the US military is not likely to advance Pax Americana, which is mostly about a nuclear umbrella and secure international shipping lanes. Instead, it's very likely to abet either the drone war or mass surveillance, since those are closer to Google's area of expertise. Quite a lot of people who are not strictly against US superpower status are still deeply opposed to the specific sorts of action Google would be best-placed to enable. And since they haven't actually signed on with the military, it seems totally reasonable that they would object to doing such work even if they do value a strong US military in other domains.
- allenz 8y ago
  Defensive technology can shift the balance of power and escalate violence in ways that are hard to predict. Humvees carry armed soldiers, who could act more aggressively if they were safe from retaliation. Reagan's missile defense proposal was criticized for undermining second strike deterrence against US missile strikes, and thus escalating the arms race. Ultimately, there is no technical solution to prevent war. Education, tourism, economic ties, diplomacy, and humanitarian efforts are better ways of promoting peace than military defense.
d1zzy 8y ago
> Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied? Which society does have that lien, the one I left behind that fully payed for my education (although almost everything I know about computers I learned on my own) or the one hosting the company I happen to work for right now? What about some years in the future when I move to another company/country?
MarkMMullin 8y ago
>"Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied?" Yes. And that's the rub. I had the good fortune to work in research for the military for almost 10 years. They have more patience and willingness to adapt than any commercial company I've known. Their time horizon spans a much longer interval than most corporations. Did neural networks out of the PDP groups work in the '80s, and when things were too slow, they went yup and bought a bunch of Mercury computer cards to speed stuff up without squawking or delaying. Now I do work in stereoscopic machine vision. I'm pretty certain that biological or machine, the lowest levels of the visual stack are just targeting systems based on feedback loops. Here I agree with Dr. Russell at Bezerkely. We must not, can not, make autonomous killing machines because the consequences are potentially too catastrophic. So I refuse to work on anything resembling autonomous mobile weapons systems, as do many many others in this field. This has happened before - we were playing with enhanced radiation weapons in the '70s and '80s (neutron bomb), and over time pretty much every participant decided it was a very bad horrible no good idea. I would argue that for talented players capable of dragging the future into the present, the issue is not that the military is bad, it's whether a specific application they want is unequivocally bad. It's not about who, it's about what.

bad_user 8y ago

Google is at this point not just some US company, but a multi-national one. I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance. So what stops me, as a Google customer (which I am), to stop doing business with them, given that I see proof after proof that they are working against my interests? This is the same problem as with the Snowden leaks. I don't care if Americans feel more safe with the NSA secretly watching their emails via gag orders, if my privacy as a non-US citizen is being violated, therefore at this point absolutely all US companies are suspects, starting with a negative ranking in my book; at this point I always prefer European ones. Also the usual arguments that countries collaborate with each other is bullshit, because in the EU I can sue companies, or my government, for cheap too, whereas in the US I have no rights. And if you find that acceptable, then maybe balkanizing the Internet isn't such a bad thing after all, lets start with ICANN. > There's also a real chance (though perhaps small) that an industry-wide refusal to cooperate with the US military could have disastrous consequences for the world There's also a real chance that I might get hit by a brick and die tomorrow, yet that doesn't stop me from going out. If you don't have an assessment done by experts of what might actually happen, then such arguments are bullshit.

greyman 8y ago
> I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance. Yes, that's exactly the problem. What if in the future, my country and USA will be enemies? It is not very probable, but so wasn't a prospect of war in Ukraine, for example. You just don't know how things will develop, and if a company want's to be global, it shouldn't directly support a military of a specific country.
- slavik81 8y ago
  That's not how things are done today. Military technology is shared widely among allies. If we cannot trust our friends, we are doomed. There might be national secret-sauce here or there, but the major military contractors are all international. Lots of projects involve R&D spread across multiple nations. Things mostly get dicey when looking at nations that are too unstable to trust (Egypt, Pakistan, etc.), or those that are current rivals (Russia, China).
  - oldcynic 8y ago
    Isn't it the case that the only nation getting an F35 comparable to the US version is the UK? It's unclear if even that version is the same. Everyone else seems to be getting some sort of F35 lite export version, including Australia, Italy and possibly others. Is that trusting one's friends or are they too unstable to trust?
    - aurailious 8y ago
      The US generally does not export its most advanced defense technology. Almost all fighter aircraft exports over the past century have have limitations on its equipment. Generally the receiving country replaces some equipment with their own domestic variants. Israel and Japan do this with their US fighter aircraft. Trusting an ally with any version of the F-35 is a big thing. The base F-35 is still going to be a very great fighter aircraft.
    - engi_nerd 8y ago

icebraining 8y ago

> Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied? Why do these workers have such a lien, whereas the people who happened to go into a career that isn't useful for the military don't? That sounds quite unfair. I'd say they pay their obligation the same way everybody else does: through taxes. And people who benefited more from that environment will earn more, and subsequently pay more as well.

tonfa 8y ago

ekianjo 8y ago
Did you kind of forget that Russia pretty much controlled half of Europe not too long ago, and sent tanks to fight citizens when it was needed to maintain "order". Countries under US rule never faced such severe repression.
- astura 8y ago
  I understand what you're saying, but you're not quite accurate, there was the Philippine–American War.
- pofilat 8y ago
  That's because the US already took over and genocided the interesting parts of its continent (+ Hawaii), and used covert operations to install friendly dictators across the hemisphere when it needed to maintain "democracy".
- rmc 8y ago
  Plenty of that happened in US backed, and funded, regimes in Central and South America.
gurkendoktor 8y ago
Fellow Western European here, and I understand that sentiment. However, it seems that countries which are closer to Russia or China don't mind the American military nearly as much. See: Baltic States, Sweden, Taiwan. Pax Americana is a thing, even if it's usually overshadowed by completely braindead interventions like the Iraq War.

rambossa 8y ago

Thank you. Many want their cake and to eat it too.

ionised 8y ago
You can think that if it makes you feel better, but I'd be perfectly happy giving the cake back.

brightball 8y ago

It just means that other companies will get these contracts.

black_puppydog 8y ago

> I would wager that a majority of Americans (and a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the world) hold the belief expressed in the previous statement. wow. words fail me. I used to see the US as the "big partner overseas". That was 20 years ago. Maybe I'm projecting my own views and development here, but IMHO the picture the US as friendly or even just benign faded over a decade or so, then got utterly destroyed by whatever the heck US politics is today.

black_puppydog 8y ago

> Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied? No. Education ideally is a gift from society to the individual, in the hope that it will be reciprocated, by work, but also by making informed decisions. And those can easily include refusing to work on a project (military or not) if the individual deems it harmful. Harmful to who? To the society that financed the education, to their family, or to "the world"? That's up to the individual to decide, too.

johannes1234321 8y ago

Even if one agrees that a "strong US military" is beneficial this doesn't neccissarily includes all forms of warfare. For example I can argue that a strong military is important to defend the country (or maybe even the West or whatever) while a military made out of drones and robots mixed with AI, driven by a Space Force is too easily deployed in combat, since risk on own loss is low, while the opponent might see civilian casualties, causing more harm than good.

jdietrich 8y ago

As a Brit, I'm very grateful to the Americans. By antagonising a substantial proportion of the global population, you've really taken the heat off us. The people of Afghanistan have a long and justifiable tradition of hating the British, mainly thanks to the three Anglo-Afghan wars of 1839, 1878 and 1919. Since the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, we seem almost quaint by comparison; our brutal imperialism is tinged with a vague hint of nostalgia for the days before cluster bombs and counter-insurgency tactics. We invaded Iran during the first world war, backed a military coup of their government and ruthlessly looted the country for oil, but all of that seems like water under the bridge compared to the CIA's persistent efforts to destabilise Iranian society. Pakistanis have every reason to hate the British - we imposed a bloody and brutal regime across the Indian subcontinent, then so badly botched the transition to self-governance that at least a million people died. Thanks to a decade of poorly-targeted and possibly illegal drone strikes by the US, nearly a century of totalitarian rule under the British is almost forgotten. I can't remember the last time I saw a British flag being burned by an angry mob. Your government's decision to remain constantly at war probably hasn't done a great deal for your safety, but it's really distracted attention from our barbarism.

Brockenstein 8y ago
It is fascinating as an American how cold war military spending has basically become so traditional that even when our military budget is larger than the next ten nations combined you have people carrying on about rebuilding and strengthening our military. Give it fifty or a hundred years and Americans will be thanking the Chinese for the same reasons.
- Scipio_Afri 8y ago
  It's slightly misleading to say that because other countries, like China and Russia, aren't as transparent with their budgets and there is some hiding of military spending in other parts of their government, from what I've read.
  - jimbofisher1 8y ago

dangerface 8y ago

"There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest." Then make a case, don't just state that you can and move on as if you did. For example here is my counter argument: The US is currently stealing children, this is obviously not in the best interests of anyone, womp womp. "a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the world" Democratic countries like to keep their democracy not be ruled by a tyrant. The US Military is very tyrannical, the CIA has been a massive destabilising force in a lot of democratic countries. "Given that society created the environment" The tech companies created their environment, just like their employees spent their time and effort acquiring their skills. You are claiming authority over other peoples work with no justification. "I'm not in favor of compelling anyone to work for any purpose" You just stated the opposite. These are hypocritical weasel words so you can walk back your argument. "There's also a real chance -sic- refusal to cooperate -sic- could have disastrous consequences for the world" Such as? You make a lot of wild claims with absolutely nothing to back it up. Your argument is ultimately trying to make a case for totalitarianism as long as the US are the totalitarians.

tjr225 8y ago

I think that this sentiment is jingoistic and stupid. I hope the US ant-war movement comes back, and bigger than ever.

Zigurd 8y ago

Militaries, police, and other government security organs have benefits, but they also have downsides. It's not purely up to them which is which. Tools are not neutral, and tool-makers even less so. The general reputation of private sector weapons makers used to be very low. They were "merchants of death." This comment assumes their legitimacy.

white-flame 8y ago

> There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest. The USA was formed on a basic distrust of the government, including checks & balances, and non-federal armament in the 2nd amendment. It is not allowed to be a single, trusted federal power, but rather one whose powers are defined by limited and explicit allowance, with default powers resting on the distributed states and people. The notion that the USA should stand in a singular trusted and empowered situation over the rest of the world neither fits with fundamental American concepts, nor notions of robustness in general. Strength of militaries should be distributed among independent allies, not focused on any single point of failure or corruption. The military strength of the USA certainly benefits the USA. But a singular point of above-and-beyond military strength is not a model of benefiting the world.

pofilat 8y ago
Foreign affairs is one of the few enumerated central/Federal powers, so I don't understand your point.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

> There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest. In fact, I would wager that a majority of Americans (and a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the world) hold the belief expressed in the previous statement. Given that the U.S. is being consistently voted as being the biggest threat to world peace, I'd vaguer not. That does not mean we want Russia or China to dominate us instead, it just means the world doesn't want to be bullied by the U.S. either. You do realize that every single empire in history assumed it has a more moral position to bully others that those that came before it, don't you? I don't know how it reflects in American society, but in the rest of the world the fact that the U.S. killed a million Iraqis here, a few hundred thousand Afghanis elsewhere, enabled the slave-markets of Libya, funded terrorists in Syria and is currently helping to commit genocide in Yemen does not reflect anywhere near great on the U.S. Some of us actually think that the people from these places are also valid, genuine human beings who deserve to live, so no, many people do not think the U.S. has any moral high ground here. It may be hard to swallow for some U.S. patriots, but I'd say you should be proud of the country and what it is supposed to stand for, rather than being proud of the government, (government != country), and what it is doing in many places. Despite what many Americans seem to think, you do not have the best healthcare in the world, nor the best education system, nor the best infrastructure and I could go on and on - please focus on that instead of empire building.

Bartweiss 8y ago

> a strong US military One point I haven't seen raised here is that "a strong military" is not a one-dimensional proposition. The military does a lot of things in a lot of contexts, and they don't all have the same moral value. If someone wants to build better Humvee armor for the US Army, I wouldn't criticize them at all. I don't think there's a reasonable case that better-armored Humvees are worse for the world. (Not least because we proved in 2003 that a lack of proper armor doesn't deter the US from starting wars.) But I think the work Google engineers are likely to do for the US military is not likely to advance Pax Americana, which is mostly about a nuclear umbrella and secure international shipping lanes. Instead, it's very likely to abet either the drone war or mass surveillance, since those are closer to Google's area of expertise. Quite a lot of people who are not strictly against US superpower status are still deeply opposed to the specific sorts of action Google would be best-placed to enable. And since they haven't actually signed on with the military, it seems totally reasonable that they would object to doing such work even if they do value a strong US military in other domains.

allenz 8y ago
Defensive technology can shift the balance of power and escalate violence in ways that are hard to predict. Humvees carry armed soldiers, who could act more aggressively if they were safe from retaliation. Reagan's missile defense proposal was criticized for undermining second strike deterrence against US missile strikes, and thus escalating the arms race. Ultimately, there is no technical solution to prevent war. Education, tourism, economic ties, diplomacy, and humanitarian efforts are better ways of promoting peace than military defense.

d1zzy 8y ago

> Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied? Which society does have that lien, the one I left behind that fully payed for my education (although almost everything I know about computers I learned on my own) or the one hosting the company I happen to work for right now? What about some years in the future when I move to another company/country?

MarkMMullin 8y ago

>"Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied?" Yes. And that's the rub. I had the good fortune to work in research for the military for almost 10 years. They have more patience and willingness to adapt than any commercial company I've known. Their time horizon spans a much longer interval than most corporations. Did neural networks out of the PDP groups work in the '80s, and when things were too slow, they went yup and bought a bunch of Mercury computer cards to speed stuff up without squawking or delaying. Now I do work in stereoscopic machine vision. I'm pretty certain that biological or machine, the lowest levels of the visual stack are just targeting systems based on feedback loops. Here I agree with Dr. Russell at Bezerkely. We must not, can not, make autonomous killing machines because the consequences are potentially too catastrophic. So I refuse to work on anything resembling autonomous mobile weapons systems, as do many many others in this field. This has happened before - we were playing with enhanced radiation weapons in the '70s and '80s (neutron bomb), and over time pretty much every participant decided it was a very bad horrible no good idea. I would argue that for talented players capable of dragging the future into the present, the issue is not that the military is bad, it's whether a specific application they want is unequivocally bad. It's not about who, it's about what.