4 ms·
I think I may be misunderstanding exactly what you're discussing then. Is the point in your original comment that the DOD uses off the shelf commercial technolo
by atlasunshrugged 4y ago
I think I may be misunderstanding exactly what you're discussing then. Is the point in your original comment that the DOD uses off the shelf commercial technologies of all sorts for their work and that people who work at startups unknowingly contribute to this? I mean sure, but I can also tell you that the government struggles with buying products commercial off the shelf, this is again a reason you see the push for OTAs and collaborating more closely with the private sector instead of primes.
Also, not sure if calling it "the murder machine" is necessary or useful for a discussion. Many people, myself included, believe that a strong military is necessary for the United States to ensure its own survival and apply its protective cordon around NATO, Korea, Japan, etc. and despite its flaws has probably led to much less overall destruction and death than if the U.S. had a very weak military and could not deter more global conflicts.
- 01100011 4y ago> "the murder machine" Sorry this is my way of saying I think this is what many unsuspecting valley engineers, who in some cases lean quite leftish, would term it if they knew they were contributing to it. Case in point, I worked at a defense comm company and when a fellow engineer overheard a use case in drones they literally wept. That engineer left shortly thereafter for the valley. I use colorful language sometimes for my own amusement. My point is that not every piece used by the military industrial complex(specifically agencies with 3-9 letters) comes from standard procurement channels. Sure, when you're building F-35s or whatever. But this assumes every big government project is a big government project. Some are one-offs. I'm intentionally obtuse here for a myriad of reasons and I've said about all I can.