9 ms·
To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doe
by noobermin 8y ago
To be very honest, count me in as one of these. I am someone who works for a gov't lab, but I do "very pure" scientific research. It's not that our research doesn't have "defense applications," it might eventually, but we are definitely a few steps removed from say CFD modeling of airplane wings.
The thing is traditional sources of funding suck, and gov't labs give researchers a much better environment than the endlessly political academia. Moreover, while the contractor we work with has something like a 30% odd markup for grants, the nearest university (that I got my PhD from) takes a whopping 56% of grant money as "overhead," I imagine to pay the salaries of the President, coaches, and superstar medical faculty salaries, as well as the new development all along the nearby street.
I'm happy for my job, I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something.
- geoka9 8y ago> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something. Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm from an ex-Eastern Bloc country which I was all too happy to escape. I'd rather the US (and the rest of the Western world) made bombs than only Russia and China did. Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force is a much nicer alternative to a Russian one.
- bshipp 8y agoHaving a military is kind of like having house insurance. you wish you didn't have to spend the money on it, you hope you never have to actually use it, but it would be very irresponsible not to have it.
- awakeasleep 8y agoIts more like buying a very expensive hammer, and “everything looks like a nail” See: afganistan, expanding africom, iraq, etc
- acct1771 8y agoAs long as you realize everyone feels that exact way.
- throwaaaway1231 8y agoEveryone does, we know.
- asdffdsa 8y agoie we spend a third of all our tax revenue on housing insurance
- leetcrew 8y agowhere is this "third" figure coming from?
- gweinberg 8y agoRight here: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... except it's actually 1/6.
- asdffdsa 8y agoit's a poor proxy for "a lot"
- leetcrew 8y agoI figured. I admit I tend to be pedantic about the US military spending figure because, while huge, it is not nearly as large a portion of govt spending as most people think.
- sdenton4 8y agoSometimes my kids act up, so I smash a hole in the fence and call in my home insurance, which kills all the neighbors (and some of the kids).
- paulddraper 8y agoYou're talking to an audience that didn't see WWII, and mostly didn't see the Cold War. The ugly truth is that there are plenty of bad guys or people who would be bad guys (some of them in the U.S. admittedly), and a lot of them won't stop without force or threat of force. I know this isn't a universal opinion but I believe that smarter military technology has a better chance of ending/stopping/preventing war than starting it.
- Razengan 8y ago> smarter military technology has a better chance of ending/stopping/preventing war A global surveillance network and insect-sized drones that precisely assasinate "enemy" leaders. Why bother with infantry and big guns etc.?
- drdeca 8y agoI think it is better for exercises of large power to be noticeable, because if it can be noticed, then there is at least some hope that misuse could be opposed.
- colechristensen 8y agoGood vs. bad does not usually fit the narrative in war. WWI and earlier major wars are hard to figure who was the "bad guy". Many of them lack any clear moral authority and fit more as teams competing for resources.
- stevenjohns 8y ago> Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force is a much nicer alternative to a Russian one. In this case you're only speaking for yourself. Most Asians, from the Middle East through to the South East, would kindly disagree.
- joejerryronnie 8y agoGood to know you speak for “most asians”.
- stevenjohns 8y agoI think the political situation in many of those countries speaks volumes. There are very few countries or peoples which have a genuinely positive view of Western occupation. Most countries that have a positive view of "Western" nations above Russia are the ones that are bribed (weapon contracts, free defense, release of political pressure) or bullied (application of political pressure) to have it. If you spend some time looking at the divisive, genocidal campaigns of the Americans, British and French across Western, Southern and South-Eastern Asia it's not hard to see why.
- RhysU 8y ago> There are very few countries or peoples which have a genuinely positive view of Western occupation. On the other hand, let's consider how popular inter-Asian occupation was.
- stevenjohns 8y agoOr let's not, because this discussion doesn't have anything to do with how they view each other as neighbors - it's about perceptions towards "Western" occupation vs. Russian occupation.
- RhysU 8y agoWell, it felt like a complaint about Western vs non-Western occupation. Let's restrict non-Western to Russian as you suggest. You go first. How about you opine on Russian vs Western occupation?
- throwaaaway1231 8y agoAs someone who also is a military researcher, I may be able to help. I have worked on things that if the USA went to war, I know that I have directly contributed to that war. I truly hate that my research will contribute to killing. I wish that it wasn't necessary. But as events like Crimea annexation and the South China Sea shows, if the USA is not there, then other nations are very happy to use their might to boss others around. I truly do think the USA is a force for good, and I want that to be there for my following generations.
- wallace_f 8y agoI agree with you, but it's not so black and white. The atomic bomb is a notable example, and consider Eisenhower and many other military leaders said "there was no reason to use that awful thing." I realize my high school education, and most othet's, led me to believe this wasn't the case. I'm not trying to say it's wrong, but it deserves a lot of skepticism.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- colechristensen 8y agoReading a biography of Oppenheimer explores much of this. One thing is clear, the bomb was used on an essentially defeated enemy. From another angle though, it was necessary to push back Stalin and could be considered not as the last blow of WWII but the first blow in the cold war. It is difficult to question the possible outcomes if different choices were made but you can be sure that the last 80 years could have been much different and much worse. The bomb did make certain kinds of war impossible, and it is not clear if that would be true if they had not been used when they were.
- ethelward 8y ago> One thing is clear, the bomb was used on an essentially defeated enemy. The bomb were used on an enemy that was sooo defeated that there was a coup attempt by the military between the two bombs to prevent the emperor from capitulating.
- vasili111 8y agoI am from the same boat and tottaly agree with you. Many people dont understand how real Russian threat is.
- geomark 8y agoI used to work for a defense contractor and I remember the boogie man of the Soviet Union and how the intelligence community was constantly saying there was likely to be a breakout in new Soviet technology. So our budgets remained fat to fund lots of new spook technology programs. Right up to the day that the Soviet Union collapsed. I started looking with a more critical eye at the supposed threats.
- imrelaxed 8y agoeastern block expat also, agree whole heartedly. People who complain about the US have no idea how much worse it would be to have Russia in such a position of power instead.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- effie 8y agoDo you think that negative attitude would change if you told them you are working on math problems? I don't think much, the attitude is there for a deep reason. If people do not identify with actions of their military, they won't like that you're helping the military. If they do identify, they would support you even if were working on actual bombs.
- mswen 8y agoI am reminded of a reception at the HPC User Forum back around 2002. There were a number of people in the room from various national labs and intelligence agencies. I was part of the firm that organized and hosted these meetings. I overhear a guy from NSA kidding a guy from Lawrence Livermore Labs with the following line. "At least I don't design weapons of mass destruction, all I do is read emails" In truth neither one of these guys did the activities stated, both really were doing system design, optimization and resource allocation with super computers so that the intelligence analysts could rapidly search billions of emails for trigger words, cryptographers could break encryption or weapons designers could model the characteristics of nuclear weapons since we were in a weapons testing ban. But to echo your point the amount of resources available at national labs and intelligence agencies. The supercomputing resources they had available dwarfed anything available in industry or academia at the time. Today, one might argue that industry and in particular places like Google and Facebook have computing infrastructure and support that was previously only available at national labs. So now the Google or Facebook guy in a similar meeting will be saying "I only do the analytics that enable us to target people with ads and messages to which they are most vulnerable."
- throwaaaway1231 8y agoYou say he is joking, but that person does know. I work at a research lab and at our yearly reviews, we have to day how our work directly contributes to a war fighting capacity. If that person thinks they do not contribute they are very seriously naïve or they are filling themselves. Military labs do not try to make euphemisms for what they do, they want to make sure they directly contribute to a war fighting capability.
- whatshisface 8y agoThere are varying degrees of "military lab," my favorite example being the National Ignition Facility.
- throwaaaway1231 8y agoHeh, can you say more about it? That is true. I am military and I work in a true military lab, so I probably have a different perspective
- austincheney 8y agoYour post is very puzzling. You, on one hand, sound exceptionally well educated but on the other hand describe a social circle that seems exceedingly ignorant or uninformed. Knowing the profound disconnect why would that make you embarrassed?
- jlarocco 8y agoThat's not a very charitable response. Obviously the OP's social circle will know better than that because they know him (or her) and what they actually work on. Among the general public there's a real stereotype about DOD work. When I mention to strangers that I work for a defense contractor, they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs or something like that. Not every time, but often enough that I'm used to explaining that I only work on mapping software.
- reificator 8y ago> they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs > I only work on mapping software In fairness, those maps are likely used to ensure the bombs go where they should.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoBetter that they go where they should, than that they go where they shouldn't. The more accurate the mapping, the smaller the bomb can be, and the less collateral damage (presuming that the targeting information is correct).
- 8note 8y agothat assumes the bomber isn't intending to maximize collateral damage
- reificator 8y ago> Better that they go where they should, than that they go where they shouldn't True, at least when you're not the one being bombed.
- mattigames 8y agoYeah, traditional sources suck, in America; universities should be way more tightly controlled, in a decent society taking 56% of grant money should put some people in jail. In the year 2019 working for the US military should feel embarrassing, after the Iraq fiasco, support to journalist-killer Saudi crown prince; support to genociders that use child soldiers such as Idriss Déby (Chad), plus many other mistakes makes it reasonable to feel ashamed of working for the US military complex.
- rangerpolitic 8y agoWe should all feel ashamed for being human. After all, some human, somewhere is doing something horrible at this very moment. Shame on you humans. Shame on you.
- RhysU 8y agoThere is danger in inaction. Note that US soil isn't often annexed. This damned thread has triggered all my pent up jingoism. "America makes prodigious mistakes, America has colossal faults, but one thing cannot be denied: America is always on the move. She may be going to Hell, of course, but at least she isn't standing still. " -- e.e. cummings If you take orders for a living, your job is to be on the move. Not to be right. Ain't no one who matters who has time for being 100% in the right.
- austincheney 8y agoEverybody who is not self employed takes orders for a living.
- mattigames 8y agoThe problem is that "being 100% in the right" doesn't seem to be their goal, not even a secondary one.
- galaxyLogic 8y agoLet us not blame the military. The military just works for the government. And the government works for we the people.
- Fomite 8y agoFor the record, given I'm at a university with 56% overhead, this is: - Often less than corporate research. I know because I've also worked with them. - Pays for things like startup packages for new faculty, administrative support, things shared by multiple groups, etc. (as well as, without a doubt, some waste, but I mean, private research companies have that too). - Is negotiated in advance with the government. - Is often less than the cost of doing research.
- kriro 8y agoFor comparison, German federal government research grants (from the BMBF) explicitly have a 20% markup that is reserved for non-research stuff. Typically this goes to the university to cover the offices of the employees who work on the project and into a fund for other stuff (grant application overhead etc). The rest is all used for salaries and project specific investments. Theoretically that's pretty good. However if you look at a lot of the research projects you kind of scratch your head at the actual output (which imo is the real problem).
- LeanderK 8y ago>However if you look at a lot of the research projects you kind of scratch your head at the actual output (which imo is the real problem). Can you elaborate? What do you mean?
- freyir 8y agoWhile working in defense R&D, I did my most interesting work and met some of my best colleagues. Eventually I moved to SV and its greener grass: a better salary and a clearer conscience. The truth is, I miss the interesting work, the competent managers, and having an office. Working to keep people addicted to their screens didn’t do wonders for my conscience or the state of the world.
- HAL9000Ti 8y agoBut you do make bombs