15 ms·

Some people will think creating weapons for defense is an ethical thing to do. I prefer not to do that but I think the point is valid and there is no clear way

Some people will think creating weapons for defense is an ethical thing to do. I prefer not to do that but I think the point is valid and there is no clear way to determine what’s ethical and what isn't.

Kalium 8y ago
Such people are welcome to the freedom of their consciences. There is a distinction between personal ethics and professional ethics. In my opinion, that position crosses the line and lands squarely in the realm of personal ethics.
matz1 8y ago
You define what the ethics is. If you think creating weapon for defense is not preferable to you then you better work on convincing or forcing other to follow.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Edited some mistake. My point is everyone have different ethics. You must fight for your preference if you want yours to be the winning ethics. There no one true "correct" ethics
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      I guess we agree then. Determining what’s ethical is personal and it will be hard to crater a universal code.
analognoise 8y ago
What's unethical is to have your countrymen in a fight with substandard equipment that you could have helped them improve. War is an ever-present possibility - do you want your neighbor's kids (or yours, if they join the service) dying or being maimed because you didn't help with what you know? 1000 years ago, if you were a blacksmith and the Vikings were coming, would you make swords or ornamental railings? People who think "it's unethical to make weapons" always assume that someone else is making the weapons, which makes them feel good about themselves (not sure why) - they're willing to sacrifice themselves and their neighbor's children for their ethics. I'm not. I make weapons, and I think the 'ethical' stance on defense is really just virtue-signalling. /Edited. ;)
- detaro 8y ago
  I suspect that if people could rely on that the weapons they make are used defensively, many more would be willing to make weapons. In many countries, you can't rely on that, and making tools that reduce risk increase the leaderships willingness to use force more offensively. And of course there's a large unclear area where one persons long-term defensive measure is another persons justified intervention, and another persons war of aggression.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Personal I think a country needs to produce defense weapons but I would draw a line at selling to unstable countries for profit. Defense should not be a profit center
    - analognoise 8y ago
      Whole hearted agreement about selling to unstable countries for profit. But selling to our friends/allies? I like the French, I'd be overjoyed if they thought my weapons were so chic/dangerous that they'd protect their countrymen in their most perilous times. Same thing if the Germans, Canadians, Japanese, etc bought my wares. Why not? Saudi Arabia... not a fan, I don't think that's wise at all, I think that's going to come back to bite us in the ass and that it's a mistake in progress. The system isn't perfect, I admit.
  - analognoise 8y ago
    Agreed about risk reduction leading to increased use of force, that's totally the case - look at drones. However while the frequency might increase, the scale and impact is at an all-time low. WW1: 40 million dead. Drones: "According to the Long War Journal, which follows US anti-terror developments, as of mid-2011, drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilian". Hard to argue with those numbers for a 5 year period. Roughly 20 people a year die by being crushed by their TV's and furniture in the US a year - we don't stop selling furniture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes#Total_numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._... I mean how can you NOT support several thousand dead militants, with that minor a civilian cost? I'd happily accept a far higher civilian cost for the decimation of militants, but our guys are exceedingly professional and their precision is legendary. Mistakes happen, sure, but in comparison to the 20th century, we're doing great! We're doing so good, maybe we should argue that we need MORE precision weapons, given how much they've reduced overall conflict and the fact that large governments are no longer as willing to go toe-to-toe because of them.

Kalium 8y ago

Such people are welcome to the freedom of their consciences. There is a distinction between personal ethics and professional ethics. In my opinion, that position crosses the line and lands squarely in the realm of personal ethics.

matz1 8y ago

You define what the ethics is. If you think creating weapon for defense is not preferable to you then you better work on convincing or forcing other to follow.

maxxxxx 8y ago
I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
- matz1 8y ago
  Edited some mistake. My point is everyone have different ethics. You must fight for your preference if you want yours to be the winning ethics. There no one true "correct" ethics
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I guess we agree then. Determining what’s ethical is personal and it will be hard to crater a universal code.

analognoise 8y ago

What's unethical is to have your countrymen in a fight with substandard equipment that you could have helped them improve. War is an ever-present possibility - do you want your neighbor's kids (or yours, if they join the service) dying or being maimed because you didn't help with what you know? 1000 years ago, if you were a blacksmith and the Vikings were coming, would you make swords or ornamental railings? People who think "it's unethical to make weapons" always assume that someone else is making the weapons, which makes them feel good about themselves (not sure why) - they're willing to sacrifice themselves and their neighbor's children for their ethics. I'm not. I make weapons, and I think the 'ethical' stance on defense is really just virtue-signalling. /Edited. ;)

detaro 8y ago
I suspect that if people could rely on that the weapons they make are used defensively, many more would be willing to make weapons. In many countries, you can't rely on that, and making tools that reduce risk increase the leaderships willingness to use force more offensively. And of course there's a large unclear area where one persons long-term defensive measure is another persons justified intervention, and another persons war of aggression.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Personal I think a country needs to produce defense weapons but I would draw a line at selling to unstable countries for profit. Defense should not be a profit center
  - analognoise 8y ago
    Whole hearted agreement about selling to unstable countries for profit. But selling to our friends/allies? I like the French, I'd be overjoyed if they thought my weapons were so chic/dangerous that they'd protect their countrymen in their most perilous times. Same thing if the Germans, Canadians, Japanese, etc bought my wares. Why not? Saudi Arabia... not a fan, I don't think that's wise at all, I think that's going to come back to bite us in the ass and that it's a mistake in progress. The system isn't perfect, I admit.
- analognoise 8y ago
  Agreed about risk reduction leading to increased use of force, that's totally the case - look at drones. However while the frequency might increase, the scale and impact is at an all-time low. WW1: 40 million dead. Drones: "According to the Long War Journal, which follows US anti-terror developments, as of mid-2011, drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilian". Hard to argue with those numbers for a 5 year period. Roughly 20 people a year die by being crushed by their TV's and furniture in the US a year - we don't stop selling furniture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes#Total_numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._... I mean how can you NOT support several thousand dead militants, with that minor a civilian cost? I'd happily accept a far higher civilian cost for the decimation of militants, but our guys are exceedingly professional and their precision is legendary. Mistakes happen, sure, but in comparison to the 20th century, we're doing great! We're doing so good, maybe we should argue that we need MORE precision weapons, given how much they've reduced overall conflict and the fact that large governments are no longer as willing to go toe-to-toe because of them.