6 ms·

I don’t think you realize the security of our country has been built by hundreds of thousands of mechanical and electrical engineers, computer scientists, and p

by tozeur 8y ago

I don’t think you realize the security of our country has been built by hundreds of thousands of mechanical and electrical engineers, computer scientists, and physicists. Sure, working on military contracts may include uncomfortable problem spaces. But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives?

robin_reala 8y ago
I’m not American.
- drawnwren 8y ago
  Good news then, you aren't eligible to work on the vast majority of USG software projects. Definitely anything remotely related to military drones.
  - chrisper 8y ago
    The US is not the only country with a military and companies...
    - drawnwren 8y ago
      No but in the context of Google refusing to work for the US DoD, it's pretty clear that most of the posters in this thread are talking about the US DoD/Silicon Valley relationship. Further, a comment like "I always tell employers I won't work for the military..." has a significantly different meaning if we're talking about Swedish tech companies and the Swedish military than if we're talking about US companies, so it would probably have been helpful to clear up the setting in this context.
Rotten194 8y ago
Do you sincerely believe that us dropping bombs in the middle east is "protecting American lives"? If anything, it's spawned a whole generation of terrorists who hate the US for destroying their country. The best way to protect Americans would be for our country to get out of expensive, overseas wars and invest that money in healthcare and ending the drug war, things that actually kill Americans in large numbers.
- tozeur 8y ago
  That is a very naive, but understandable, viewpoint. Take the time to learn about how important America’s military is to global stability: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-military-role-treaties-allies-nato-asia-persian-gulf.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-m...
  - rixed 8y ago
    For some value of stability, I guess.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    And the New York Time's view on this issue is also understandable, but I sincerely believe that had it not been for US and its ventures abroad, we(over here in Europe) wouldn't need defending. Like when US wants to build anti-missile defense systems in Europe, and goes "look, we're just trying to save you from strikes from Middle East guys!" - great, but why would Middle East strike Poland for example? Oh that's right, because we're participating in every US war in that region. Great. It's basically US stirring trouble all over the world and then saying "look how great we are for defending peace across the globe!".
    - FanaHOVA 8y ago
      Europe has such a peaceful history, we never had wars over here until the US came around right? C'mon...
  - mamon 8y ago
    Yours is equally naive, but understandable viewpoint :) If anything, America's role is destabilising (see attacking Iraq on false pretenses that destabilized Middle East and helped ISIS rise to power). The same goes for other wars waged by US: they are started to protect American economic interests, long term consequences be damned.
  - alexbeloi 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory
realusername 8y ago
> But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives? [citations needed]. I've not been aware of any war on US soil.
- bergoid 8y ago
  It's not too much of a stretch to describe 9/11 as an act of war.
  - realusername 8y ago
    It's not too much of a stretch to describe the Bush claims leading to the Irak war as completely fabricated.
    - bergoid 8y ago
      Agreed.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    But think of how much better off we'd be today if we hadn't treated it like one. 9/11 was not an act of war. It was the work of a few deranged cultists who got lucky, nothing more and nothing less. Our response was equivalent to reacting to the Branch Davidians by bombing the Vatican.
  - lordnacho 8y ago
    I think you'll find quite a few people would find it is quite a stretch. The attack was planned by a group that wasn't the internationally recognized leadership of any country, and they hid in a war-torn country whose government was being violently contested. And the Taliban were also not recognized, at least not officially, as the leadership of Afghanistan. So to call it an act of war is indeed a stretch.
    - bergoid 8y ago
      I think the idea of "asymmetric warfare" is well established and it fits totally your description. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare Sure, there will always be people who think this not "real" war. But that's an irrelevant classification detail to the belligerents or the people caught up in the collateral damage.
ionised 8y ago
The US military is used as an invasion/occupation force way more often than any 'protecting American lives'.
Karishma1234 8y ago
> But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives? Would love to work on actually protecting American lives but at this point Pentagon in an unaccountable monster that has actually funded terrorist organisations and has made America (and rest of the world) unsafe. Not to mention I find it morally reprehensible that our young kids are dying in distant third world countries like Iraq, Afganistan and Syria and involved in killing thousands little kids and innocent civilians in the name of "protecting American lives".

by tozeur 8y ago

robin_reala 8y ago

I’m not American.

drawnwren 8y ago
Good news then, you aren't eligible to work on the vast majority of USG software projects. Definitely anything remotely related to military drones.
- chrisper 8y ago
  The US is not the only country with a military and companies...
  - drawnwren 8y ago
    No but in the context of Google refusing to work for the US DoD, it's pretty clear that most of the posters in this thread are talking about the US DoD/Silicon Valley relationship. Further, a comment like "I always tell employers I won't work for the military..." has a significantly different meaning if we're talking about Swedish tech companies and the Swedish military than if we're talking about US companies, so it would probably have been helpful to clear up the setting in this context.

Rotten194 8y ago

Do you sincerely believe that us dropping bombs in the middle east is "protecting American lives"? If anything, it's spawned a whole generation of terrorists who hate the US for destroying their country. The best way to protect Americans would be for our country to get out of expensive, overseas wars and invest that money in healthcare and ending the drug war, things that actually kill Americans in large numbers.

tozeur 8y ago
That is a very naive, but understandable, viewpoint. Take the time to learn about how important America’s military is to global stability: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-military-role-treaties-allies-nato-asia-persian-gulf.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-m...
- rixed 8y ago
  For some value of stability, I guess.
- gambiting 8y ago
  And the New York Time's view on this issue is also understandable, but I sincerely believe that had it not been for US and its ventures abroad, we(over here in Europe) wouldn't need defending. Like when US wants to build anti-missile defense systems in Europe, and goes "look, we're just trying to save you from strikes from Middle East guys!" - great, but why would Middle East strike Poland for example? Oh that's right, because we're participating in every US war in that region. Great. It's basically US stirring trouble all over the world and then saying "look how great we are for defending peace across the globe!".
  - FanaHOVA 8y ago
    Europe has such a peaceful history, we never had wars over here until the US came around right? C'mon...
- mamon 8y ago
  Yours is equally naive, but understandable viewpoint :) If anything, America's role is destabilising (see attacking Iraq on false pretenses that destabilized Middle East and helped ISIS rise to power). The same goes for other wars waged by US: they are started to protect American economic interests, long term consequences be damned.
- alexbeloi 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory

realusername 8y ago

> But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives? [citations needed]. I've not been aware of any war on US soil.

bergoid 8y ago
It's not too much of a stretch to describe 9/11 as an act of war.
- realusername 8y ago
  It's not too much of a stretch to describe the Bush claims leading to the Irak war as completely fabricated.
  - bergoid 8y ago
    Agreed.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  But think of how much better off we'd be today if we hadn't treated it like one. 9/11 was not an act of war. It was the work of a few deranged cultists who got lucky, nothing more and nothing less. Our response was equivalent to reacting to the Branch Davidians by bombing the Vatican.
- lordnacho 8y ago
  I think you'll find quite a few people would find it is quite a stretch. The attack was planned by a group that wasn't the internationally recognized leadership of any country, and they hid in a war-torn country whose government was being violently contested. And the Taliban were also not recognized, at least not officially, as the leadership of Afghanistan. So to call it an act of war is indeed a stretch.
  - bergoid 8y ago
    I think the idea of "asymmetric warfare" is well established and it fits totally your description. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare Sure, there will always be people who think this not "real" war. But that's an irrelevant classification detail to the belligerents or the people caught up in the collateral damage.

ionised 8y ago

The US military is used as an invasion/occupation force way more often than any 'protecting American lives'.

Karishma1234 8y ago

> But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives? Would love to work on actually protecting American lives but at this point Pentagon in an unaccountable monster that has actually funded terrorist organisations and has made America (and rest of the world) unsafe. Not to mention I find it morally reprehensible that our young kids are dying in distant third world countries like Iraq, Afganistan and Syria and involved in killing thousands little kids and innocent civilians in the name of "protecting American lives".