5 ms·

Is it a realistic expectation that we have no one working on smart bombs/weapons technology in general? I’d love to be in the utopia world where there is no wa

Is it a realistic expectation that we have no one working on smart bombs/weapons technology in general? I’d love to be in the utopia world where there is no war and the entire planet gets along. But even the US has political bipolar disorder, so we’re a looooong way from global peace. I do think we spend an absurd and inappropriate amount on defense, but as long as we are forced to develop weapons due to the global geopolitical climate, I’d consider it preferable to work on making them more targeted. My problem is I don’t like or agree with the people picking the targets, but that’s a whole other argument.

munificent 6y ago
I don't believe it is unethical to work on weapons technology any more than I believe it is unethical to be member of the armed forces. We live in a world with bad actors, so some amount of work on defense is necessary for survival. However, I also believe you are responsible for the consequences of the technology you create. If you decide to work on smart bombs and because of a bad government those end up killing innocent civilians, some of that blood is on your hands. If you're willing to accept the risk of that, I respect your choice. Personally, I would rather avoid that by not working on that category of technology at all. It's not the kind of mark I want to leave on the world. I do appreciate that I only have the luxury of this choice because I live in a country where others do choose to work on defense so that I can be protected.
- godelski 6y ago
  > However, I also believe you are responsible for the consequences of the technology you create. I agree with this to an extent, but at the same time, technologies you develop can go well beyond what you intended them to be. Do you think Ritchie knew C would be used the way it is today? It is used in UAVs, smart missiles, and more. Building faster algorithms also means faster weapons. Everyone working at SpaceX is directly or indirectly working on missile technology. You can do this with practically any technology, even as simple as building a better screw. Building materials that are stronger, lighter, and cheaper reduce the prices of homes, but it also has applications in war. Studying diseases and vaccines directly impacts biological warfare research. It is easy to say you're responsible when you're working on things like smart bombs. But it isn't easy if you're researching fertilizer. The thing that arguably has saved the most lives yet how many lives have bombs and bullets taken? > Personally, I would rather avoid that by not working on that category of technology at all. So what I'm saying is you're working on that tech, just how removed are you? I also don't think there's a cognitive dissonance. You can be pro putting nitrogen in soil and anti explosive nitrates. But saying the two aren't related is naive.
  - mongrol-smush 6y ago
    Not to mention https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizer-runoff-overwhelms-streams/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizer-runoff...
    - godelski 6y ago
      Going even further, those researchers are at ORNL, which is a DOE lab. (ORNL itself isn't a weapons lab, but other DOE labs are)
  - tomp 6y ago
    It's easy to extend this further. Engaging in any kind of commerce (i.e. beyond growing food for yourself and your family) means paying taxes, which means funding governments and armies.
- sneak 6y ago
  It seems to me that your second paragraph directly and immediately contradicts your first. I don’t think both of those can be true simultaneously, unless you somehow consider “having blood on your hands” to be ethical.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    If you're working on weapon systems that will be used to attack, say, Nazi Germany, and you know or expect that they will also kill innocent civilians, then you are de-facto endorsing that murdering[0] innocent civilians is worth it to stop Nazi Germany, which is a resonable, if debatable, position. If you're working on weapon systems that (you know or expect) will be just be directly used for murdering[1] innocent civilians, then you're endorsing murdering innocent civilians. If you don't know where on that scale things are, then you're reasoning under uncertainty, and your ethics are going to have to deal with that. 0: technically most of those would actually be manslaughter, going by the usual definitions, but a: not all, b: that's not a verb. 1: nope, just murder
  - munificent 6y ago
    The "if" is significant. If you work on weapons that turn out to be used to stop legitimately bad actors with minimal collateral damage, then your hands are as clean as anyone's can be in war. I don't generally believe in black and white, so I'm making no claims that anything is 100% ethical, 100% unethical, 100% blood on your hands, etc. I think it's possible for good people to work on weapons and still sleep soundly at night. I also think it's possible for good people to work on weapons and end up regretting the consequences of that choice.
alex_young 6y ago
Maybe you can’t convince everyone else to behave ethically, but you can hold yourself to that standard. Working on bomb tech is over a line for me personally.
- taywrobel 6y ago
  Sure, I get that. And I think it’s a position shared by a lot of people. Probably the majority of people. But it’s an ugly necessity of modern politics. We could absolutely stop all weapons production in the US, I’d just ask for some time to learn Mandarin first.
- jacoblambda 6y ago
  As someone involved with the industry, this is my take. The work defence contractors do and will continue to do is a measurable positive in the world. This work generally falls into three categories: First is projects that make the lives of armed forces personnel easier. There is no moral or ethical hazard with these projects. They simply are making it so that pre-existing work, often non-combat work, is less tedious. Second is projects that actively protect the lives of armed forces personnel and assets. Why would somebody have any reason to feel anything but pride in their work when they know that the only things it could ever do is save lives. Third is the arguably morally shaky stuff. Weapons technology would fall under this category. The thing people seem to miss about this category however is what new projects' goals are. Very rarely is it ever to create a more lethal weapon. Almost all development of this kind focuses on either making existing technology cheaper, more precise, or have increased range. In the first case, you could argue that it makes the weapons more likely to be used which is fair however if a weapon system is in active use already, it is unlikely that a cheaper version would do anything other than bring down operating costs. In the second case, these projects are actively making these weapons safer. Look at the Hellfire R9X as a prime example. This weapon sole purpose is to minimise casualties and minimise damage to the surrounding area. Finally the third and last case I mentioned. Increasing range is important for force projection reasons but the most immediate benefit is that it allows armed forces personnel to be further from danger. These people would be in this fight regardless but now they are able to operate from a safer distance instead. Weapons tech gets a bad rap for obvious reasons but I see that as mostly having been a relic of a past era. Nowadays there isn't really any reason to make more lethal weapons. We already have those and you can see a steady trend in new military technology towards lower risks, costs, damage to the surroundings, and minimising civilian casualties. Additionally, in my experience, you generally have a choice whether you work on a project or not. Leadership fully understands what they do as an organisation and get that some people may not be comfortable with doing certain projects. If you can't conscientiously work on a certain type of project, simply say so and leadership will take that into account when planning personnel assignments for projects. TL;DR Armed conflict and existing weapons will never go away. What we as a society(namely the modern purpose of defence contractors) can do instead is make armed conflict less dangerous to those caught in the crossfire and those who risk life and limb to defend our countries.
mellow2020 6y ago
> My problem is I don’t like or agree with the people picking the targets, but that’s a whole other argument. People pretend they can't possibly know how things will get used, but this has never been true, and never been less true than today. http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N16/weisen.16n.html http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N16/weisen.16n.html

munificent 6y ago

I don't believe it is unethical to work on weapons technology any more than I believe it is unethical to be member of the armed forces. We live in a world with bad actors, so some amount of work on defense is necessary for survival. However, I also believe you are responsible for the consequences of the technology you create. If you decide to work on smart bombs and because of a bad government those end up killing innocent civilians, some of that blood is on your hands. If you're willing to accept the risk of that, I respect your choice. Personally, I would rather avoid that by not working on that category of technology at all. It's not the kind of mark I want to leave on the world. I do appreciate that I only have the luxury of this choice because I live in a country where others do choose to work on defense so that I can be protected.

godelski 6y ago
> However, I also believe you are responsible for the consequences of the technology you create. I agree with this to an extent, but at the same time, technologies you develop can go well beyond what you intended them to be. Do you think Ritchie knew C would be used the way it is today? It is used in UAVs, smart missiles, and more. Building faster algorithms also means faster weapons. Everyone working at SpaceX is directly or indirectly working on missile technology. You can do this with practically any technology, even as simple as building a better screw. Building materials that are stronger, lighter, and cheaper reduce the prices of homes, but it also has applications in war. Studying diseases and vaccines directly impacts biological warfare research. It is easy to say you're responsible when you're working on things like smart bombs. But it isn't easy if you're researching fertilizer. The thing that arguably has saved the most lives yet how many lives have bombs and bullets taken? > Personally, I would rather avoid that by not working on that category of technology at all. So what I'm saying is you're working on that tech, just how removed are you? I also don't think there's a cognitive dissonance. You can be pro putting nitrogen in soil and anti explosive nitrates. But saying the two aren't related is naive.
- mongrol-smush 6y ago
  Not to mention https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizer-runoff-overwhelms-streams/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizer-runoff...
  - godelski 6y ago
    Going even further, those researchers are at ORNL, which is a DOE lab. (ORNL itself isn't a weapons lab, but other DOE labs are)
- tomp 6y ago
  It's easy to extend this further. Engaging in any kind of commerce (i.e. beyond growing food for yourself and your family) means paying taxes, which means funding governments and armies.
sneak 6y ago
It seems to me that your second paragraph directly and immediately contradicts your first. I don’t think both of those can be true simultaneously, unless you somehow consider “having blood on your hands” to be ethical.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  If you're working on weapon systems that will be used to attack, say, Nazi Germany, and you know or expect that they will also kill innocent civilians, then you are de-facto endorsing that murdering[0] innocent civilians is worth it to stop Nazi Germany, which is a resonable, if debatable, position. If you're working on weapon systems that (you know or expect) will be just be directly used for murdering[1] innocent civilians, then you're endorsing murdering innocent civilians. If you don't know where on that scale things are, then you're reasoning under uncertainty, and your ethics are going to have to deal with that. 0: technically most of those would actually be manslaughter, going by the usual definitions, but a: not all, b: that's not a verb. 1: nope, just murder
- munificent 6y ago
  The "if" is significant. If you work on weapons that turn out to be used to stop legitimately bad actors with minimal collateral damage, then your hands are as clean as anyone's can be in war. I don't generally believe in black and white, so I'm making no claims that anything is 100% ethical, 100% unethical, 100% blood on your hands, etc. I think it's possible for good people to work on weapons and still sleep soundly at night. I also think it's possible for good people to work on weapons and end up regretting the consequences of that choice.

alex_young 6y ago

Maybe you can’t convince everyone else to behave ethically, but you can hold yourself to that standard. Working on bomb tech is over a line for me personally.

taywrobel 6y ago
Sure, I get that. And I think it’s a position shared by a lot of people. Probably the majority of people. But it’s an ugly necessity of modern politics. We could absolutely stop all weapons production in the US, I’d just ask for some time to learn Mandarin first.
jacoblambda 6y ago
As someone involved with the industry, this is my take. The work defence contractors do and will continue to do is a measurable positive in the world. This work generally falls into three categories: First is projects that make the lives of armed forces personnel easier. There is no moral or ethical hazard with these projects. They simply are making it so that pre-existing work, often non-combat work, is less tedious. Second is projects that actively protect the lives of armed forces personnel and assets. Why would somebody have any reason to feel anything but pride in their work when they know that the only things it could ever do is save lives. Third is the arguably morally shaky stuff. Weapons technology would fall under this category. The thing people seem to miss about this category however is what new projects' goals are. Very rarely is it ever to create a more lethal weapon. Almost all development of this kind focuses on either making existing technology cheaper, more precise, or have increased range. In the first case, you could argue that it makes the weapons more likely to be used which is fair however if a weapon system is in active use already, it is unlikely that a cheaper version would do anything other than bring down operating costs. In the second case, these projects are actively making these weapons safer. Look at the Hellfire R9X as a prime example. This weapon sole purpose is to minimise casualties and minimise damage to the surrounding area. Finally the third and last case I mentioned. Increasing range is important for force projection reasons but the most immediate benefit is that it allows armed forces personnel to be further from danger. These people would be in this fight regardless but now they are able to operate from a safer distance instead. Weapons tech gets a bad rap for obvious reasons but I see that as mostly having been a relic of a past era. Nowadays there isn't really any reason to make more lethal weapons. We already have those and you can see a steady trend in new military technology towards lower risks, costs, damage to the surroundings, and minimising civilian casualties. Additionally, in my experience, you generally have a choice whether you work on a project or not. Leadership fully understands what they do as an organisation and get that some people may not be comfortable with doing certain projects. If you can't conscientiously work on a certain type of project, simply say so and leadership will take that into account when planning personnel assignments for projects. TL;DR Armed conflict and existing weapons will never go away. What we as a society(namely the modern purpose of defence contractors) can do instead is make armed conflict less dangerous to those caught in the crossfire and those who risk life and limb to defend our countries.

mellow2020 6y ago

> My problem is I don’t like or agree with the people picking the targets, but that’s a whole other argument. People pretend they can't possibly know how things will get used, but this has never been true, and never been less true than today. http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N16/weisen.16n.html http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N16/weisen.16n.html