5 ms·

They are completely free to quit if they don't like what they're building is used to help their soldiers defend their own country.

mjburgess 8y ago
The only attack on american soil I can recall is Pearl Habor... Almost invariably, to provide the american military with hardware is to arm an offensive force.
- wrkronmiller 8y ago
  As has been pointed out repeatedly in other comments, we live in a post-nuclear era where military strength is, itself, the defense. In this particular case, it's less relevant, but since we are generalizing I'm pointing it out. As for improving military training and tactical hardware, yes it will most likely be used for offensive purposes. The absence of the technology wouldn't stop those offensives though; the absence would just result in less-well-trained less-well-equipped troops in the same situation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, bad training and lack of information is likely to lead to more deaths. While I think it's wonderful employees of major tech companies are trying to drive more ethical choices, this was an odd choice for a line in the sand.
  - freeflight 8y ago
    > we live in a post-nuclear era That's a bold statement to make, particularly in the context of the US pulling out of INF and JCPA (Iran deal), especially when accounting for the reality that nuclear weapons "modernization" is still steadily going on [0]. That's not something you'd expect to see in the "post-nuclear era". Particularly not with a US president who clearly does not understand nuclear weapons and would just love to sell and use them. [0] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
    - wrkronmiller 8y ago
      Post-nuclear as in: following the invention and use of nuclear weapons.
- vasili111 8y ago
  If not US forces, my country Georgia would be occupied by Russia back in 2008. People in world and espessially EU did not understand how lucky they are that US millitary exist and they do not live under Russian occupation. Also fear to be millitary contractor for your own country seems pathologic to me.
  - wbxrs 8y ago
    Yeah, instead we have US occupation in many other countries. And US military bases all around the world. Yahoo!
    - vasili111 8y ago
      I wish to see US military base in my country. This will be one of the best days in my life.
- DKnoll 8y ago
  There have been 15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_U.S._territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_U.S._territ...
alkonaut 8y ago
Luckily they are also completely free to use that leverage to pressure their employees to try to change decisions.
simion314 8y ago
And are not free to speak? The only option is to shut up and resign?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
LIV2 8y ago
They're all there on H1Bs so the soldiers aren't really defending the workers' countries
freeflight 8y ago
> help their soldiers defend their own country When is the last time the US military actually "defended" its own territory/country, heck even just its own continent? How does droning people in Pakistan, and having troops stationed in Syria "help" with "defending" the US? Even worse: This kind of logic is then used by NATO allies to justify their own partaking in US foreign military adventures. That's how the Germans "protective military" ended up "Protecting freedom at the Hindukush" [0]. [0] https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/protecting-freedom-at-the-hindukush-source-of-famous-afghanistan-quote-dies/ https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/protecting-freedom-at-t...
detaro 8y ago
They're also completely free to protest, luckily.

mjburgess 8y ago

The only attack on american soil I can recall is Pearl Habor... Almost invariably, to provide the american military with hardware is to arm an offensive force.

wrkronmiller 8y ago
As has been pointed out repeatedly in other comments, we live in a post-nuclear era where military strength is, itself, the defense. In this particular case, it's less relevant, but since we are generalizing I'm pointing it out. As for improving military training and tactical hardware, yes it will most likely be used for offensive purposes. The absence of the technology wouldn't stop those offensives though; the absence would just result in less-well-trained less-well-equipped troops in the same situation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, bad training and lack of information is likely to lead to more deaths. While I think it's wonderful employees of major tech companies are trying to drive more ethical choices, this was an odd choice for a line in the sand.
- freeflight 8y ago
  > we live in a post-nuclear era That's a bold statement to make, particularly in the context of the US pulling out of INF and JCPA (Iran deal), especially when accounting for the reality that nuclear weapons "modernization" is still steadily going on [0]. That's not something you'd expect to see in the "post-nuclear era". Particularly not with a US president who clearly does not understand nuclear weapons and would just love to sell and use them. [0] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
  - wrkronmiller 8y ago
    Post-nuclear as in: following the invention and use of nuclear weapons.
vasili111 8y ago
If not US forces, my country Georgia would be occupied by Russia back in 2008. People in world and espessially EU did not understand how lucky they are that US millitary exist and they do not live under Russian occupation. Also fear to be millitary contractor for your own country seems pathologic to me.
- wbxrs 8y ago
  Yeah, instead we have US occupation in many other countries. And US military bases all around the world. Yahoo!
  - vasili111 8y ago
    I wish to see US military base in my country. This will be one of the best days in my life.
DKnoll 8y ago
There have been 15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_U.S._territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_U.S._territ...

alkonaut 8y ago

Luckily they are also completely free to use that leverage to pressure their employees to try to change decisions.

simion314 8y ago

And are not free to speak? The only option is to shut up and resign?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

LIV2 8y ago

They're all there on H1Bs so the soldiers aren't really defending the workers' countries

freeflight 8y ago

> help their soldiers defend their own country When is the last time the US military actually "defended" its own territory/country, heck even just its own continent? How does droning people in Pakistan, and having troops stationed in Syria "help" with "defending" the US? Even worse: This kind of logic is then used by NATO allies to justify their own partaking in US foreign military adventures. That's how the Germans "protective military" ended up "Protecting freedom at the Hindukush" [0]. [0] https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/protecting-freedom-at-the-hindukush-source-of-famous-afghanistan-quote-dies/ https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/protecting-freedom-at-t...

detaro 8y ago

They're also completely free to protest, luckily.