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

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.