4 ms·

This is an incredible story. But I think it's important for everyone to remember the context of who this hero is. He manages the F22 fighter jet program at Boe

by cryptoz 16y ago

This is an incredible story. But I think it's important for everyone to remember the context of who this hero is. He manages the F22 fighter jet program at Boeing. That means that he's in charge of building gigantic killing machines that are only built so that they can be used to kill or threaten to kill human beings. This man did an incredible thing on the road and I'm not trying to diminish that. But he's not a 100% good person: he works with weapons fully knowing that his work has probably resulted in many deaths of innocent people. Edit: Hey downvoters, I'm being totally serious here. Please reply to me and we can have a discussion; downvoting my opinions silently (because you disagree? or you think I'm trolling? or you don't like what I'm saying?) is rude and not good for the community.

noonespecial 16y ago
Some people make aluminum rivets. These can be used to make weapons. Now that they know, should they show up for work on Monday if they are "good people"? How about bauxite miners who mine the minerals that are used to make aluminum to make rivets?
gruseom 16y ago
I believe you're not trolling, so here's an attempt to explain. First, even if you're right, it's discordant to spoil a beautiful story of individual goodness. Second, even if you're right about Boeing, the connection you're drawing to this one guy is facile. If he's evil for working at Boeing, by that standard we're all so drenched in evil the difference is negligible. Your reference to being a "100% good person" is foolish; anyone who would even entertain the concept of such a thing being possible in this world has a lot of limbering up to do. Finally, your favored ideology is not one of the, let's say, two or three ideologies most in favor here. In general, when speaking in a community with very different basic beliefs, you need to make fewer assumptions - probably a good idea in any case. Also, please (re-)read the HN guidelines.
krschultz 16y ago
The engineers don't decide to go to war. The military gives them a spec for a weapon system, and they build it. Outside of the Manhattan project, I can think of very few instances where the actual engineers involved are in any way irreplacable. So if you don't do it, someone else will anyway. Once the government decides it wants to buy a weapon system, it is going to get it if it is technically and financially feasible. So don't point your finger at this guy, if you have a problem with fighter jets then you need to change the country itself. That is through politics and the military. To me he is just an aerospace engineer that works on the F-22, I see no problem with that. Especially considering the F-22 is barely used and is mostly a weapon to deal with other jets that don't even exist yet. If you are working on biological, nuclear, or chemical weaopns than I'd have problems with it, but something like a missile or a rifle or a tank isn't that ethically bad because we already have plenty of weapons just like them. The advances in technology just allows the military to do things more precisely. If you have a choice between a guided missile to hit a house, or an artillery barrage to level a block, which would you rather have? Engineers enabled the former.
sp4rki 16y ago
So you neglect that lives that might be saved by building the F22, because they might also be used to kill people. I can kill someone with my car, so by definition Lexus is an evil company and you'd be wrong to work with them? A gun might save your life someday... I'm pretty sure my neighbor agrees with me on that one with the bunch of thieves he has brought to justice (not killed).
philwelch 16y ago
The F-22 is primarily designed to shoot down enemy aircraft. It has never been used in combat, and hence has never been used to kill anyone, guilty or innocent. If it were to be used, it would primarily be used to shoot down military aircraft--in other words, to destroy other "gigantic killing machines". (It has some ground attack capability, mainly to satisfy color-of-the-bikeshed criticisms from Congressmen, but that's not it's raison d'etre.)
lotharbot 16y ago
Why I downvoted you, in no particular order: 1) it's off topic. It's like if there was a thread about a Marine saving a kid's life at a pool using such-and-such technique and you went off about how Marines are trained to kill and therefore the guy sucks. 2) Even if the thread was about F22 as a weapon, your comment displays remarkable ignorance of what the platform is used for. It's an air superiority fighter; you use it to shoot other fighter aircraft, whose occupants are typically military personnel actively engaged in warfare, not "innocents". And as far as I can tell, it's never been involved in actual combat. So your claim that his work "probably resulted in many deaths of innocent people" is completely off base. 3) I have friends who have worked on this and similar platforms, who are also good people. They all know that their systems are designed to kill, have thought through the ethical and philosophical ramifications of that (as well as the ramifications of deterrence, of Russia or China winning a global war, etc.), and have decided that what they're doing is a good thing. You may not agree with them, but at least have the decency to address them on an adult level instead of with naive platitudes like they're not good because they work on weapons. That's not the sort of statement I expect from someone looking to have a reasoned discussion. (In comparison, my Mennonite friends and military friends have had some very good, mature, respectful conversations about this topic, without making personal attacks like "you're not a good person".) In summary: your post was off topic, factually incorrect, and moderately trollish. I'd say that is rude and not good for the community.
heresy 16y ago
I work on software that improves the efficiency of manufacturing, any manufacturing. It's an interesting problem space, and with many challenges. Yes, Boeing, Northrop Grumman & Lockheed Martin number among our customers, and our software is used in these programs. So do NASA and various other companies putting things up into space, things orthogonal to defense. By your logic, because our software makes it simpler and cheaper to manufacture F-22s and F-35s, I am in some small way culpable as well. It's the use to which a tool is put.
tlrobinson 16y ago
I know nothing about you, but if I did I'm sure I could find some way you contribute to something I'm morally opposed to. Do you pay taxes to a country involved in warfare? Do you eat meat? Do you drive a gasoline powered vehicle? Etc etc etc. Note the above are just examples of things some people are opposed to, not necessarily me personally (in fact I do all of those things)
WalterBright 16y ago
Without effective weapons, many will die. Nobody picks a fight with someone who can effectively fight back.
- sharjeel 16y ago
  Thats why every country should have nuclear weapons. There would be so much deterrance that nobody would go for war!
  - Dove 16y ago
    In spite of the sarcasm, it's actually a good argument. Warfare before the advent of nuclear weapons was a devastatingly bloody affair, with death tolls in the hundreds of thousands. And warfare these days in which only one side or neither has nuclear weapons is much the same. But when two nuclear powers fight? There are skirmishes. Proxy wars. Posturing and arms races and diplomacy and . . . very little bloodshed. For all its terror and danger and struggle, the Cold War did not wipe out an entire generation of young men the way previous World Wars had. As violent and bloody a past as India and Pakistan have had, once they both went nuclear, they settled down. They still fight, but it's limited. Neither side wants it to escalate out of control. That is the nature of strategic weapons. Nobody wants to pick a fight with a country that has ICBMs or B-52s. Heck, countries that have them don't want to pick fights with each other. What could they hope to win that would offset the staggering losses they could incur? As they say, an armed society is a polite society. It scales right up to nations. Raptor is such a weapon. Not because of the casualties it could inflict -- it can carry only a paltry eight missiles, or a couple medium bombs -- but because of what it does to an air force. The Air Force periodically goes out for large force exercises -- where they get a huge number of jets together in the air, and act out something as close to a real war as they can. The last few years Raptor's been going to those, and its numbers are astonishing. They match up Red with tons of 4 or 4.5 gen fighters against Blue with a few 4 gen fighters and a few Raptors. And Blue wins. With a kill ratio like 180-0 or 241-2. [1] Nobody wants to pick a fight with that. There are two ways to get a country to resolve its conflicts with you peacefully. One is to trust in their good nature and dislike for bloodshed. The other is to make fighting not an option. The second route is more reliable in my opinion, and strategic weapons accomplish it. If you hate war, you should love Raptor. Just sitting on the tarmac, it saves lives. American lives, yeah, but Chinese or North Korean or Russian lives too. It prevents war and forces people to pursue peace. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Service_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Service_history

by cryptoz 16y ago

noonespecial 16y ago

Some people make aluminum rivets. These can be used to make weapons. Now that they know, should they show up for work on Monday if they are "good people"? How about bauxite miners who mine the minerals that are used to make aluminum to make rivets?

gruseom 16y ago

I believe you're not trolling, so here's an attempt to explain. First, even if you're right, it's discordant to spoil a beautiful story of individual goodness. Second, even if you're right about Boeing, the connection you're drawing to this one guy is facile. If he's evil for working at Boeing, by that standard we're all so drenched in evil the difference is negligible. Your reference to being a "100% good person" is foolish; anyone who would even entertain the concept of such a thing being possible in this world has a lot of limbering up to do. Finally, your favored ideology is not one of the, let's say, two or three ideologies most in favor here. In general, when speaking in a community with very different basic beliefs, you need to make fewer assumptions - probably a good idea in any case. Also, please (re-)read the HN guidelines.

krschultz 16y ago

The engineers don't decide to go to war. The military gives them a spec for a weapon system, and they build it. Outside of the Manhattan project, I can think of very few instances where the actual engineers involved are in any way irreplacable. So if you don't do it, someone else will anyway. Once the government decides it wants to buy a weapon system, it is going to get it if it is technically and financially feasible. So don't point your finger at this guy, if you have a problem with fighter jets then you need to change the country itself. That is through politics and the military. To me he is just an aerospace engineer that works on the F-22, I see no problem with that. Especially considering the F-22 is barely used and is mostly a weapon to deal with other jets that don't even exist yet. If you are working on biological, nuclear, or chemical weaopns than I'd have problems with it, but something like a missile or a rifle or a tank isn't that ethically bad because we already have plenty of weapons just like them. The advances in technology just allows the military to do things more precisely. If you have a choice between a guided missile to hit a house, or an artillery barrage to level a block, which would you rather have? Engineers enabled the former.

sp4rki 16y ago

So you neglect that lives that might be saved by building the F22, because they might also be used to kill people. I can kill someone with my car, so by definition Lexus is an evil company and you'd be wrong to work with them? A gun might save your life someday... I'm pretty sure my neighbor agrees with me on that one with the bunch of thieves he has brought to justice (not killed).

philwelch 16y ago

The F-22 is primarily designed to shoot down enemy aircraft. It has never been used in combat, and hence has never been used to kill anyone, guilty or innocent. If it were to be used, it would primarily be used to shoot down military aircraft--in other words, to destroy other "gigantic killing machines". (It has some ground attack capability, mainly to satisfy color-of-the-bikeshed criticisms from Congressmen, but that's not it's raison d'etre.)

lotharbot 16y ago

Why I downvoted you, in no particular order: 1) it's off topic. It's like if there was a thread about a Marine saving a kid's life at a pool using such-and-such technique and you went off about how Marines are trained to kill and therefore the guy sucks. 2) Even if the thread was about F22 as a weapon, your comment displays remarkable ignorance of what the platform is used for. It's an air superiority fighter; you use it to shoot other fighter aircraft, whose occupants are typically military personnel actively engaged in warfare, not "innocents". And as far as I can tell, it's never been involved in actual combat. So your claim that his work "probably resulted in many deaths of innocent people" is completely off base. 3) I have friends who have worked on this and similar platforms, who are also good people. They all know that their systems are designed to kill, have thought through the ethical and philosophical ramifications of that (as well as the ramifications of deterrence, of Russia or China winning a global war, etc.), and have decided that what they're doing is a good thing. You may not agree with them, but at least have the decency to address them on an adult level instead of with naive platitudes like they're not good because they work on weapons. That's not the sort of statement I expect from someone looking to have a reasoned discussion. (In comparison, my Mennonite friends and military friends have had some very good, mature, respectful conversations about this topic, without making personal attacks like "you're not a good person".) In summary: your post was off topic, factually incorrect, and moderately trollish. I'd say that is rude and not good for the community.

heresy 16y ago

I work on software that improves the efficiency of manufacturing, any manufacturing. It's an interesting problem space, and with many challenges. Yes, Boeing, Northrop Grumman & Lockheed Martin number among our customers, and our software is used in these programs. So do NASA and various other companies putting things up into space, things orthogonal to defense. By your logic, because our software makes it simpler and cheaper to manufacture F-22s and F-35s, I am in some small way culpable as well. It's the use to which a tool is put.

tlrobinson 16y ago

I know nothing about you, but if I did I'm sure I could find some way you contribute to something I'm morally opposed to. Do you pay taxes to a country involved in warfare? Do you eat meat? Do you drive a gasoline powered vehicle? Etc etc etc. Note the above are just examples of things some people are opposed to, not necessarily me personally (in fact I do all of those things)

WalterBright 16y ago

Without effective weapons, many will die. Nobody picks a fight with someone who can effectively fight back.

sharjeel 16y ago
Thats why every country should have nuclear weapons. There would be so much deterrance that nobody would go for war!
- Dove 16y ago
  In spite of the sarcasm, it's actually a good argument. Warfare before the advent of nuclear weapons was a devastatingly bloody affair, with death tolls in the hundreds of thousands. And warfare these days in which only one side or neither has nuclear weapons is much the same. But when two nuclear powers fight? There are skirmishes. Proxy wars. Posturing and arms races and diplomacy and . . . very little bloodshed. For all its terror and danger and struggle, the Cold War did not wipe out an entire generation of young men the way previous World Wars had. As violent and bloody a past as India and Pakistan have had, once they both went nuclear, they settled down. They still fight, but it's limited. Neither side wants it to escalate out of control. That is the nature of strategic weapons. Nobody wants to pick a fight with a country that has ICBMs or B-52s. Heck, countries that have them don't want to pick fights with each other. What could they hope to win that would offset the staggering losses they could incur? As they say, an armed society is a polite society. It scales right up to nations. Raptor is such a weapon. Not because of the casualties it could inflict -- it can carry only a paltry eight missiles, or a couple medium bombs -- but because of what it does to an air force. The Air Force periodically goes out for large force exercises -- where they get a huge number of jets together in the air, and act out something as close to a real war as they can. The last few years Raptor's been going to those, and its numbers are astonishing. They match up Red with tons of 4 or 4.5 gen fighters against Blue with a few 4 gen fighters and a few Raptors. And Blue wins. With a kill ratio like 180-0 or 241-2. [1] Nobody wants to pick a fight with that. There are two ways to get a country to resolve its conflicts with you peacefully. One is to trust in their good nature and dislike for bloodshed. The other is to make fighting not an option. The second route is more reliable in my opinion, and strategic weapons accomplish it. If you hate war, you should love Raptor. Just sitting on the tarmac, it saves lives. American lives, yeah, but Chinese or North Korean or Russian lives too. It prevents war and forces people to pursue peace. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Service_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor#Service_history