6 ms·

I worked full time for a military contractor. When I arrived some of the products didn’t work very well. After I worked on some of these products, some of them

I worked full time for a military contractor. When I arrived some of the products didn’t work very well. After I worked on some of these products, some of them became more efficient and effective. It was an opportunity for me to apply math and physics and engineering to solve very interesting problems (variously related to shortening human lifespan or rendering remaining lifespan more expensive). Then one Tuesday 9/11 happened. That morning all my colleagues turned into homocidal maniacs (they were already that way, the event merely triggered the expression of that personality trait— only much later did I realize that this meant they were and are good decent people) bent on revenge and eager to kill. The stock of the company skyrocketed and we got huge raises. I finally had an opportunity to see some of my work in action and strangely became sick to my stomach when the products functioned well and was oddly relieved when the products functioned less well. I eventually left the company and felt happy for the first time in years while I was unemployed. The irony is now that I have more perspective in life, I realize that society truly values killing and maiming (and threatening to kill and maim) other people. People feel safer when they can credibly threaten others with physical harm. I realize I squandered a wonderful opportunity to serve society more by helping kill and maim even more efficiently. Perhaps in a sense I have gone full circle.

nickbauman 8y ago
Wait ... what? You now believe that (more efficient) self destruction is a good thing?
- rhacker 8y ago
  That is what he said.
- OtterCoder 8y ago
  Almost all people do, deep down. The Vikings, the Mongols, the Romans, the Aztecs, cannibals, headhunters, human sacrificers, they are us, and are not that far removed in time. To be human, really, is to be breathtakingly kind, selfless, and noble, but it's also to be cruel, bloody, and vicious. Christians call that bloody side of us the "natural man," a creature in direct opposition to the "spiritual man," who values life and goodness. Gandhi called this dichotomy the "animal" and "human" lives. Hobbes called the lust for physical power over others a, "perpetual and restless desire". If you want to create a safe and good society, you can't ignore either half of human nature.
- joshsabol46 8y ago
  If you believe in hegemony, it's reasonable to want one entity to have a better (more efficient) weapon.
- bihnkim 8y ago
  If people are going to go to fight until one side is wiped out, minimizing attrition and ending the war more quickly and convincingly may be seen as a measure to minimize casualty. This is not necessarily my personal view, but one way logic could be applied to this statement.
  - Aeolun 8y ago
    The problem is that if both sides are really good at wiping out the other quickly, they might wipe each other out before they realize the other side has the same capability.
- rebuilder 8y ago
  Maybe it's the argument that we can't avoid wars, so it's best to make them as quick as possible? One way to do that is to make sure you can eradicate the other side's military might with overwhelming force. I think this is the kind of question where it is good to ask what the alternative to the terrible reality we're creating would realistically be.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  There are evil people in the world. People willing to commit genocide and enslave other peoples. People who will operate extermination camps, walk into a concert strapped with a suicide west to deliberately kill children, etc. Yes, I want a more efficient way to kill these people, and I want the US to have that. Not because the US is perfect, not because I am a fan of the Iraq war, but despite all the real difference, the US tries pretty hard not to hit civilians, and the others deliberately targets them. Maybe some day we won't have to kill each other anymore. That would be awesome, but tit-for-tat is the best strategy.
  - Aeolun 8y ago
    I am wondering what efficient way you can think of to kill suicide bombers? They’re pretty much 100% effective at killing themselves. It would be much more relevant if we could find a way to keep them alive.
warent 8y ago
Assuming you're being honest (not sarcastic or trolling), your original intuition made a lot of sense. There's nothing wrong with having a moral compass that runs contrary to the popular mindset. Occasions often arise when that is the actually "right" thing. Not to go too much into politics, but perhaps time is better spent by helping humanity heal and become more mutually caring rather than more authoritarian and flex on each other. It doesn't sound like you missed an opportunity at all, but rather dodged a bullet.
desireco42 8y ago
I always wondered what people think who produce weapons and such and how they go about their lives knowing what things they are making are doing. Now I have some idea.
- edoo 8y ago
  Weapons are just tools. The CDC did a study that showed guns are used 360% more often to protect than they are used by criminals. I would be proud of making a military weapon used to actually defend our country. The problem is our military isn't used defensively.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    The CDC is non exactly an unbiased organization. They ultimately report to the president, and there has not been a president in recent history who did not push for a fat 'defense budget'. Got a link to this study you are referring to?
    - edoo 8y ago
      https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to...
  - schwarrrtz 8y ago
    So, you’re saying that about 1 out of every 5 times a gun is used, it is used for a criminal act? And... you think that’s a good statistic?
    - wonthegame 8y ago
      I’d also question how the determined how often criminals use guns.
    - edoo 8y ago
      Out of every time one is used against a person. That is a huge distinction. Guns are used tremendously beyond that.
dm3730 8y ago
> bent on revenge and eager to kill. Could you clarify? Upon whom? My understanding is that neither the Afghans nor the Iraqi civillians that ended up being the majority of the victims of our subsequent actions were the perpetrators of the acts on 9/11 or even from the societies that nurtured them. If I recall correctly, 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia and the remaining 4 were from the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Even Osama bin Laden was Saudi, and nurtured in Switzerland, funded by the US Army and subsequently protected by the Pakistani Army which was itself directly funded by the US taxpayer.
- twunde 8y ago
  Speaking as someone from the NYC area at the time of the event, the anger was directed at Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. There was a lot of anger, fear and the need to do _something_. That need was directed at Afghanistan very quickly, even though none of the perpetrators were Afghanistani. If I remember correctly, the link was that Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan and the government there tried to protect him instead of handing him over.
  - pytester 8y ago
    >Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan and the government there tried to protect him instead of handing him over. They asked for evidence and when the US said no they said they wouldn't hand him over. Unlike his previous attacks, Bin Laden initially denied being behind 9/11.
  - dm3730 8y ago
    > the link was that Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan and the government there tried to protect him instead of handing him over. Describing the faction of the Taliban that for a brief period gave Bin Laden sanctuary as a "government" seems like an unusual way to interpret the term government. It is the equivalent for us of having some bandit hiding within some cult in Maine or Kentucky and us describing that cult as the government of Maine. Also, as others in this thread have pointed out, those Taliban offered to handover Bin Laden if evidence was provided convicting him of the crime. It is interesting to compare our level of "conviction" of blame for some sets of people and willingness to accept collateral damage to civilians who happen to be around them, but when it comes to our own, even despite blowback and high levels of culpability, we deny the equivalence and block judgements even from UN courts.
naikrovek 8y ago
This same thing happened to me, except I was in the USAF and I performed conventional munitions (non-nuclear weapons) maintenance. As part of this work, detailed manuals were provided with maintenance routines, service intervals and all kinds of top secret detailed information, and they were maintained (by me) with updates regularly. These were absolutely fascinating reading, and on a slow week I found myself reading several of the "Theory of Operation" sections for various weapons. A great deal of thought goes into killing people. Far more than your imagination would lead you to believe. Now you're imagining a lot more. It's WAY more than that. I couldn't really stomach the work after that and I started getting heavily depressed.
kiliantics 8y ago
homocidal maniac = good decent people that are "serving society" This is absurd and deeply disturbing. The only ones that such bloodthirsty individuals are serving are the ruling classes. I definitely do not feel well served by any of you and would much prefer it if you did not sell yourselves for such a cause. I think you ought to question how you were led to this worldview by your greater "perspective in life" or how that perspective really reflects what society as a whole values. There are a lot more people in places like say Yemen right now that I think would be more inclined to disagree with you and would wish that the US war machine were not so effective.

nickbauman 8y ago

Wait ... what? You now believe that (more efficient) self destruction is a good thing?

rhacker 8y ago
That is what he said.
OtterCoder 8y ago
Almost all people do, deep down. The Vikings, the Mongols, the Romans, the Aztecs, cannibals, headhunters, human sacrificers, they are us, and are not that far removed in time. To be human, really, is to be breathtakingly kind, selfless, and noble, but it's also to be cruel, bloody, and vicious. Christians call that bloody side of us the "natural man," a creature in direct opposition to the "spiritual man," who values life and goodness. Gandhi called this dichotomy the "animal" and "human" lives. Hobbes called the lust for physical power over others a, "perpetual and restless desire". If you want to create a safe and good society, you can't ignore either half of human nature.
joshsabol46 8y ago
If you believe in hegemony, it's reasonable to want one entity to have a better (more efficient) weapon.
bihnkim 8y ago
If people are going to go to fight until one side is wiped out, minimizing attrition and ending the war more quickly and convincingly may be seen as a measure to minimize casualty. This is not necessarily my personal view, but one way logic could be applied to this statement.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  The problem is that if both sides are really good at wiping out the other quickly, they might wipe each other out before they realize the other side has the same capability.
rebuilder 8y ago
Maybe it's the argument that we can't avoid wars, so it's best to make them as quick as possible? One way to do that is to make sure you can eradicate the other side's military might with overwhelming force. I think this is the kind of question where it is good to ask what the alternative to the terrible reality we're creating would realistically be.
tomjen3 8y ago
There are evil people in the world. People willing to commit genocide and enslave other peoples. People who will operate extermination camps, walk into a concert strapped with a suicide west to deliberately kill children, etc. Yes, I want a more efficient way to kill these people, and I want the US to have that. Not because the US is perfect, not because I am a fan of the Iraq war, but despite all the real difference, the US tries pretty hard not to hit civilians, and the others deliberately targets them. Maybe some day we won't have to kill each other anymore. That would be awesome, but tit-for-tat is the best strategy.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  I am wondering what efficient way you can think of to kill suicide bombers? They’re pretty much 100% effective at killing themselves. It would be much more relevant if we could find a way to keep them alive.

warent 8y ago

Assuming you're being honest (not sarcastic or trolling), your original intuition made a lot of sense. There's nothing wrong with having a moral compass that runs contrary to the popular mindset. Occasions often arise when that is the actually "right" thing. Not to go too much into politics, but perhaps time is better spent by helping humanity heal and become more mutually caring rather than more authoritarian and flex on each other. It doesn't sound like you missed an opportunity at all, but rather dodged a bullet.

desireco42 8y ago

I always wondered what people think who produce weapons and such and how they go about their lives knowing what things they are making are doing. Now I have some idea.

edoo 8y ago
Weapons are just tools. The CDC did a study that showed guns are used 360% more often to protect than they are used by criminals. I would be proud of making a military weapon used to actually defend our country. The problem is our military isn't used defensively.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  The CDC is non exactly an unbiased organization. They ultimately report to the president, and there has not been a president in recent history who did not push for a fat 'defense budget'. Got a link to this study you are referring to?
  - edoo 8y ago
    https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to...
- schwarrrtz 8y ago
  So, you’re saying that about 1 out of every 5 times a gun is used, it is used for a criminal act? And... you think that’s a good statistic?
  - wonthegame 8y ago
    I’d also question how the determined how often criminals use guns.
  - edoo 8y ago
    Out of every time one is used against a person. That is a huge distinction. Guns are used tremendously beyond that.

dm3730 8y ago

> bent on revenge and eager to kill. Could you clarify? Upon whom? My understanding is that neither the Afghans nor the Iraqi civillians that ended up being the majority of the victims of our subsequent actions were the perpetrators of the acts on 9/11 or even from the societies that nurtured them. If I recall correctly, 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia and the remaining 4 were from the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. Even Osama bin Laden was Saudi, and nurtured in Switzerland, funded by the US Army and subsequently protected by the Pakistani Army which was itself directly funded by the US taxpayer.

twunde 8y ago
Speaking as someone from the NYC area at the time of the event, the anger was directed at Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. There was a lot of anger, fear and the need to do _something_. That need was directed at Afghanistan very quickly, even though none of the perpetrators were Afghanistani. If I remember correctly, the link was that Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan and the government there tried to protect him instead of handing him over.
- pytester 8y ago
  >Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan and the government there tried to protect him instead of handing him over. They asked for evidence and when the US said no they said they wouldn't hand him over. Unlike his previous attacks, Bin Laden initially denied being behind 9/11.
- dm3730 8y ago
  > the link was that Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan and the government there tried to protect him instead of handing him over. Describing the faction of the Taliban that for a brief period gave Bin Laden sanctuary as a "government" seems like an unusual way to interpret the term government. It is the equivalent for us of having some bandit hiding within some cult in Maine or Kentucky and us describing that cult as the government of Maine. Also, as others in this thread have pointed out, those Taliban offered to handover Bin Laden if evidence was provided convicting him of the crime. It is interesting to compare our level of "conviction" of blame for some sets of people and willingness to accept collateral damage to civilians who happen to be around them, but when it comes to our own, even despite blowback and high levels of culpability, we deny the equivalence and block judgements even from UN courts.

naikrovek 8y ago

This same thing happened to me, except I was in the USAF and I performed conventional munitions (non-nuclear weapons) maintenance. As part of this work, detailed manuals were provided with maintenance routines, service intervals and all kinds of top secret detailed information, and they were maintained (by me) with updates regularly. These were absolutely fascinating reading, and on a slow week I found myself reading several of the "Theory of Operation" sections for various weapons. A great deal of thought goes into killing people. Far more than your imagination would lead you to believe. Now you're imagining a lot more. It's WAY more than that. I couldn't really stomach the work after that and I started getting heavily depressed.

kiliantics 8y ago

homocidal maniac = good decent people that are "serving society" This is absurd and deeply disturbing. The only ones that such bloodthirsty individuals are serving are the ruling classes. I definitely do not feel well served by any of you and would much prefer it if you did not sell yourselves for such a cause. I think you ought to question how you were led to this worldview by your greater "perspective in life" or how that perspective really reflects what society as a whole values. There are a lot more people in places like say Yemen right now that I think would be more inclined to disagree with you and would wish that the US war machine were not so effective.