3 ms·

Perhaps it's more attractive to work for a defense company when your country actually knows how to win a war.

by _dain_ 5y ago

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
The US knows how to win battles and knows how to win wars. It is willing to go to great lengths and expense for the former, but only the expense part for the latter. Something to do with election cycles, a fickle public & and lousy communications strategies when it comes to expectation setting. So, I sorta agree? None of this has anything to do with why my 22 year old nephew (most recent example) is going to Wall Street instead of DARPA.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  Sounds like defense companies need to redirect some of that money they’re making through never ending war into salaries then. On another note, sure DARPA may be working on some cool projects, but I have a feeling a vast amount of work in defense working for Boeing/Raytheon/Booz Allen/etc. in a slow, environment, below market rate, working on some legacy system or a just working on software to support business processes. Maybe if you’re lucky you can work on some cool new weapon that will get sold to the Saudis and support the very war in the article itself! I go to DARPA’s website, look under Work With Us > Opportunities, see some cool projects that are just proposals with a bunch of bureaucratic looking documents with no idea or notion how to get involved with them. I’m sure, I could find the website of a well known Wall Street firm, and find their open positions, with enough information what roles they have, etc.
dillondoyle 5y ago
Are you talking about the US/nato coalition? I think the definition of what winning is has been the #1 issue the past 20 years and that has been demoralizing in some ways. Winning was sold as a bunch of different moving targets, often farcically unbelievable like the taliban participating in Democracy. So yeah we lost on that one. Never stood a chance of winning if that's what winning is. I don't think there's any question in these lopsided conflicts us/nato could have absolutely decimated the other side. But that didn't seem to be what winning was pitched as. To me that's why it feels like we lost. I'm more confident - though still worried - about an actual big conflict against CCP/totalitarian alliance. Our reliance on tech scares me the most.
- _dain_ 5y ago
  Fight a war against the country you sent all your manufacturing to, what could go wrong?
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    yeah!!! i think it's really scary. Same with TSMC and having just one litho company. My biggest fear is having so many billions in planes and bombs and ships and everything else that seems like they won't work if they get hacked. and i assume everything will get hacked in an all out war. This is also why I think Russia has the confidence to potentially do such a large scale invasion. Europe needs their natural gas. Just another reason to spend to get to almost 100% renewables asap.

Perhaps it's more attractive to work for a defense company when your country actually knows how to win a war.

by _dain_ 5y ago

Perhaps it's more attractive to work for a defense company when your country actually knows how to win a war.

The US knows how to win battles and knows how to win wars. It is willing to go to great lengths and expense for the former, but only the expense part for the latter. Something to do with election cycles, a fickle public & and lousy communications strategies when it comes to expectation setting. So, I sorta agree? None of this has anything to do with why my 22 year old nephew (most recent example) is going to Wall Street instead of DARPA.

the_only_law 5y ago
Sounds like defense companies need to redirect some of that money they’re making through never ending war into salaries then. On another note, sure DARPA may be working on some cool projects, but I have a feeling a vast amount of work in defense working for Boeing/Raytheon/Booz Allen/etc. in a slow, environment, below market rate, working on some legacy system or a just working on software to support business processes. Maybe if you’re lucky you can work on some cool new weapon that will get sold to the Saudis and support the very war in the article itself! I go to DARPA’s website, look under Work With Us > Opportunities, see some cool projects that are just proposals with a bunch of bureaucratic looking documents with no idea or notion how to get involved with them. I’m sure, I could find the website of a well known Wall Street firm, and find their open positions, with enough information what roles they have, etc.

dillondoyle 5y ago

Are you talking about the US/nato coalition? I think the definition of what winning is has been the #1 issue the past 20 years and that has been demoralizing in some ways. Winning was sold as a bunch of different moving targets, often farcically unbelievable like the taliban participating in Democracy. So yeah we lost on that one. Never stood a chance of winning if that's what winning is. I don't think there's any question in these lopsided conflicts us/nato could have absolutely decimated the other side. But that didn't seem to be what winning was pitched as. To me that's why it feels like we lost. I'm more confident - though still worried - about an actual big conflict against CCP/totalitarian alliance. Our reliance on tech scares me the most.

_dain_ 5y ago
Fight a war against the country you sent all your manufacturing to, what could go wrong?
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  yeah!!! i think it's really scary. Same with TSMC and having just one litho company. My biggest fear is having so many billions in planes and bombs and ships and everything else that seems like they won't work if they get hacked. and i assume everything will get hacked in an all out war. This is also why I think Russia has the confidence to potentially do such a large scale invasion. Europe needs their natural gas. Just another reason to spend to get to almost 100% renewables asap.