4 ms·
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 wor
by 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.
- GeneralMayhem 6y agoEven those first two can have fairly foreseeable negative effects, though. Not necessarily net negative, mind you, but negative. If (e.g.) American soldiers have less tedium in their downtime (e.g., because paperwork is automated) and are safer (e.g. because their body armor is better), it could very reasonably lead to missions or even whole wars being undertaken that would otherwise be unconscionable. It's kind of like boxing gloves or football pads - on the face of it, it makes things safer, but because everyone knows it's "safer", they're willing to push it further. Not judging your decision (although I personally prefer not working for defense/defense contractors), just pointing out that "it only makes soldiers safer!" isn't an ironclad rebuttal.
- deathgrips 6y agoThat's the point of armies, to be as lethal and effective as possible. A protracted war benefits no one, and a powerful army acts as a deterrent. I think that if you think your country has the right to self-defense, you have a moral obligation to make it as lethal as possible. Ethics is not an excuse for inaction or abandonment of responsibility.
- GeneralMayhem 6y agoI think this calculus becomes slightly different when you're talking about a nation that will never be in an existential defensive war. A protracted war benefits no one, but knowing that a war would be protracted might benefit the side that would otherwise be the loser by serving as a deterrent to the winner.
- deathgrips 6y agoA protracted war benefits the military of the weaker side but I doubt their people would like it. Also, I can't recall the last time the United States was deterred from entering war because it would last too long.
- Legogris 6y agoIf one considers the whole operation of armed forces to be unethical, it's easy to find ethical and moral hazards with the first two points as well. Analogy: Would you consider it unethical to provide tools and services that make the lives of human traffickers easier? To actively protect assets of drug lords distributing contaminated opiates and meth? Slave- and drug trade are about as likely to go away as armed conflict.