5 ms·

The defense industry isn't just "defense" against bad people. Is it better to optimize the colors of buttons, or work on projects that could potentially kill in

The defense industry isn't just "defense" against bad people. Is it better to optimize the colors of buttons, or work on projects that could potentially kill innocent civilians?

psunavy03 2y ago
Wars suck. But sometimes the result of not fighting a war sucks more. Sure, military projects could POTENTIALLY kill innocent civilians. But that's not a guarantee, modern Western militaries go out of their way to minimize that, and again sometimes the result of not fighting a war would cause even more innocent people to suffer or die. The idea that "this one bad thing could happen, therefore I will do nothing that could remotely cause this one bad thing" is childish reasoning.
- nerdponx 2y ago
  There are plenty of things that people can and do in private industry that are significantly more harmful than making some incremental improvement in a weapons platform.
nyolfen 2y ago
"cars don't just transport you, they also kill people in wrecks sometimes"
bmitc 2y ago
There are lots of things in the public sector that also kill people, unfortunately. While often less indirect or over time, companies simply trying to make a buck (be capitalist) have led to products, processes, trends, etc. that have killed a lot of people over time. I think the conclusion is that there is very little justified technology development that actually betters society, except for things that actually save people from dying. Things like healthcare, utilities, civil engineering, defense, etc. However, almost all of those industries are mired in bureaucracy and are the ultimate examples of such.
- basil-rash 2y ago
  The catch with all those things that "actually save people from dying" is that they happen to be the same things that "could potentially kill innocent civilians". Any pharmaceutical researcher, surgeon, civil engineer, utility worker, and yes – defense contractor, has the ability to kill innocent civilians. But they by and large continue to do their work on a belief that by doing X job to the best of their ability, they will have a positive impact on the world that will leave it in a better place than if either nobody did the job, or someone with less experience than themselves executed it poorly. Regarding defense specifically, there is no shortage of ways for maniacal dictators to raze entire cities to the ground under the justification that "bad guys were in the tunnels". That is, in effect, a solved problem – many times over. Accordingly, that is not where the research money is being spent. Rather, the goal of most new "Defense" is to achieve those same mission goals (kill the bad guys) with as little civilian casualties as possible, or to protect our own assets against such attacks as well as possible.
gantron 2y ago
I'd argue that working on the right projects reduces the likelihood of collateral damage. Take for example the R9X [0]. Instead of an explosive warhead it has a set of blades on the tip. The US has used it to assassinate single people in the passenger seat of a car while leaving the driver untouched. I'd rather this than dropping bombs on terrorists that come with a blast radius that takes out everyone else nearby. This seems net-good to me. There are certainly people alive today because of the R9X team's work.

The defense industry isn't just "defense" against bad people. Is it better to optimize the colors of buttons, or work on projects that could potentially kill innocent civilians?

psunavy03 2y ago

Wars suck. But sometimes the result of not fighting a war sucks more. Sure, military projects could POTENTIALLY kill innocent civilians. But that's not a guarantee, modern Western militaries go out of their way to minimize that, and again sometimes the result of not fighting a war would cause even more innocent people to suffer or die. The idea that "this one bad thing could happen, therefore I will do nothing that could remotely cause this one bad thing" is childish reasoning.

nerdponx 2y ago
There are plenty of things that people can and do in private industry that are significantly more harmful than making some incremental improvement in a weapons platform.

nyolfen 2y ago

"cars don't just transport you, they also kill people in wrecks sometimes"

bmitc 2y ago

There are lots of things in the public sector that also kill people, unfortunately. While often less indirect or over time, companies simply trying to make a buck (be capitalist) have led to products, processes, trends, etc. that have killed a lot of people over time. I think the conclusion is that there is very little justified technology development that actually betters society, except for things that actually save people from dying. Things like healthcare, utilities, civil engineering, defense, etc. However, almost all of those industries are mired in bureaucracy and are the ultimate examples of such.

basil-rash 2y ago
The catch with all those things that "actually save people from dying" is that they happen to be the same things that "could potentially kill innocent civilians". Any pharmaceutical researcher, surgeon, civil engineer, utility worker, and yes – defense contractor, has the ability to kill innocent civilians. But they by and large continue to do their work on a belief that by doing X job to the best of their ability, they will have a positive impact on the world that will leave it in a better place than if either nobody did the job, or someone with less experience than themselves executed it poorly. Regarding defense specifically, there is no shortage of ways for maniacal dictators to raze entire cities to the ground under the justification that "bad guys were in the tunnels". That is, in effect, a solved problem – many times over. Accordingly, that is not where the research money is being spent. Rather, the goal of most new "Defense" is to achieve those same mission goals (kill the bad guys) with as little civilian casualties as possible, or to protect our own assets against such attacks as well as possible.

gantron 2y ago

I'd argue that working on the right projects reduces the likelihood of collateral damage. Take for example the R9X [0]. Instead of an explosive warhead it has a set of blades on the tip. The US has used it to assassinate single people in the passenger seat of a car while leaving the driver untouched. I'd rather this than dropping bombs on terrorists that come with a blast radius that takes out everyone else nearby. This seems net-good to me. There are certainly people alive today because of the R9X team's work.