4 ms·

Sorry for being imprecise, when I refer to military I mean specifically warfare. As the Google letter notes: > > We believe that Google should not be in the bu

Sorry for being imprecise, when I refer to military I mean specifically warfare. As the Google letter notes: > > We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology. So the issue is specifically warfare technology, not DoD/military bureaucracy in general.

gaius 8y ago
not DoD/military bureaucracy in general. The bureaucracy exists solely to get warfighters downrange and on-target. I mean, what do you think they do all day, and why?
- pgodzin 8y ago
  I would say collaborating on a Google Doc about strategy is pretty far removed from powering the drone technology used to kill people even if that's what the doc is about.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  Sure, if you follow all the links of causality, economic activity always produces federal taxes, which exist solely to fund the bureaucracy, which exists solely to get warfighters downrange and on-target. Therefore, nobody should ever spend or make money, lest you be supporting an immoral regime dedicated to killing people. There are a few zealots that actually think like this, but most people realize that each stage in that chain is pretty lossy. There's a good portion of your wages that are not taxed, and there's a good portion of your taxes that are not directed to the DoD. Similarly, there's a good portion of the DoD bureaucracy that does not exist to get warfighters downrange and on-target - think of all the folks involved in procurement projects that are basically employment projects for defense contractors, or DARPA and the basic research it does, or the combat engineers building bridges in warzones, or the folks responsible for administering the VA and military pensions. You can be morally opposed to writing software that helps target drones while still believing that former vets should have access to health care.
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    there's a good portion of the DoD bureaucracy that does not exist to get warfighters downrange and on-target No, actually there aren't. Whether or not they are successful or efficient is irrelevant. The money funding both the super efficient successful targeting system and the failed warfighter support system are fungible and come from the same "color" or pot of money. It's not zealotry, it's understanding the purpose and mission of the organization. Also the VA isn't part of the DoD. It's a Cabinet level agency. Frankly it's getting annoying listening to people in tech talk about Defense matters as though they are authoritative. [1]http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/color-of-money http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/color-of-money
  - acct1771 8y ago
    50-52% of US federal budget = defense budget, so...

gaius 8y ago

not DoD/military bureaucracy in general. The bureaucracy exists solely to get warfighters downrange and on-target. I mean, what do you think they do all day, and why?

pgodzin 8y ago
I would say collaborating on a Google Doc about strategy is pretty far removed from powering the drone technology used to kill people even if that's what the doc is about.
nostrademons 8y ago
Sure, if you follow all the links of causality, economic activity always produces federal taxes, which exist solely to fund the bureaucracy, which exists solely to get warfighters downrange and on-target. Therefore, nobody should ever spend or make money, lest you be supporting an immoral regime dedicated to killing people. There are a few zealots that actually think like this, but most people realize that each stage in that chain is pretty lossy. There's a good portion of your wages that are not taxed, and there's a good portion of your taxes that are not directed to the DoD. Similarly, there's a good portion of the DoD bureaucracy that does not exist to get warfighters downrange and on-target - think of all the folks involved in procurement projects that are basically employment projects for defense contractors, or DARPA and the basic research it does, or the combat engineers building bridges in warzones, or the folks responsible for administering the VA and military pensions. You can be morally opposed to writing software that helps target drones while still believing that former vets should have access to health care.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  there's a good portion of the DoD bureaucracy that does not exist to get warfighters downrange and on-target No, actually there aren't. Whether or not they are successful or efficient is irrelevant. The money funding both the super efficient successful targeting system and the failed warfighter support system are fungible and come from the same "color" or pot of money. It's not zealotry, it's understanding the purpose and mission of the organization. Also the VA isn't part of the DoD. It's a Cabinet level agency. Frankly it's getting annoying listening to people in tech talk about Defense matters as though they are authoritative. [1]http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/color-of-money http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/color-of-money
- acct1771 8y ago
  50-52% of US federal budget = defense budget, so...