3 ms·
>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 i
by chibg10 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.
A multi-national company is still responsible to multiple nations in differing amounts though, no? It shouldn't mean "responsible to no one." And America quite clearly should have some significant claim on Google, even if it isn't all of it (or necessarily even a majority). Furthermore, most of the those non-American countries that Google should be accountable to (i.e. most democratic countries and most developed countries... as that is from where it draws revenue and employees) rely, in large part, on the US military for their own national security.
>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.
This misses the point entirely--which was that whether or not the US military is good or bad for the world is a complicated and difficult question to answer. At the very least, this is clear from the large number of democratic countries who have chosen to mostly rely on the US military for their own national security. So the apparent certainty in the moral correctness of those refusing to work on technology for it is unjustified.
Again, I'm not saying that these employees are necessarily making the incorrect moral decision. I'm saying that the conversations on this topic seem to overlook a lot of the ethical difficulties associated with their choice.
- smts 8y agoIm sorry but google isn't just active in what you call demcratic countries and which country in Europe does the USA protect, the Ukraine? The last military interaction my home country had with the USA, was be accidentally beeing bombed in WW2. And you did great in protecting the dictatorships south of you, really great. So many democracies had to fall, judt because they were left leaning. You've been using your military the get cheap resources in the midfle east, ever since the cold war. So I dont want to work for such a military, even in proxy.
- Nimitz14 8y agoBalkans.
- Atlantium 8y ago"who have chosen to mostly rely on the US military for their own national security" I often wonder if statements like this are disingenuous. The US military "polices" parts of the world where American interests lie; ie Natural resources, supply chains, potential markets for American companies to exploit. When you say countries "choose" American military protection you are not considering the considerable economic pressure America can leverage when it wants something you have. In developing countries this can be a difficult choice too. By not spending on military you can spend elsewhere. Even if that means resources end up in the hands of politicians directly; which is no different to any first world country.
- Nimitz14 8y agoJust because some people who don't know any better say the US invaded Iraq for oil does not make it true. And ignoring Iraq, did the US intervene in the Balkans because of natural resources or potential markets? Or in Somalia? Please try and put in a little more effort into your thought process.
- pofilat 8y agoThe US occupied Iraq for over a decade, and installed a new government. The US spent a little time in the Balkans and Somalia and then gave up. There's a difference.
- trophycase 8y agoSo removing Saddam and stabilizing the power vacuum aren't justifications for spending 10 years?
- 394549 8y ago> The US occupied Iraq for over a decade, and installed a new government. The US spent a little time in the Balkans and Somalia and then gave up. There's a difference. A similar difference to the one that motivated its even longer occupation of the oil-less Afghanistan.