4 ms·
I wonder how the engineers and scientists who contributed to that less-lethal weapon feel about it.
by neilv 2y ago
I wonder how the engineers and scientists who contributed to that less-lethal weapon feel about it.
- aaomidi 2y ago[flagged]
- neilv 2y agoThere are "dual-use" systems, and there are systems that are only weapons. There's also technologies and basic research, but those are different matters. I'm first interested in the more straightforward situation of the people who worked on a less-lethal weapon system, which they might've anticipated would be used in exactly this way. What do they think about that?
- tonyhart7 2y agotheir first thought was maybe that used again riot or violence in the first place not necessarily to attack people I mean its just moral Highground at this point, same can be said for Oppenheimer if he didn't do it maybe war that more costly would occur
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoCan you have the moral high ground if you're using violence against your people?
- tonyhart7 2y agowell if they turn out out to be violence and can be destructive (they called riot), yes they can
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoI don't think so. If the authorities are willing to point something that permanently damages hearing at thousands of people in the name of "crowd control" or "protecting property" then they don't deserve to be the authorities anymore. In the grand scheme of things, property just isn't that important. Also, did you watch the video? They were just standing there.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> If the authorities are willing to point something that permanently damages hearing at thousands of people in the name of "crowd control" or "protecting property" then they don't deserve to be the authorities anymore There are absolutely riots where deploying such a weapon would be justified. On one hand, you have loss of hearing. On the other hand, you have the possibility of loss of life. It has to come from the perspective of protecting the people, including those who are rioting, which is a difficult judgement call to make in any case.
- immibis 2y agoWhich means some undercover cops throw a few stones whenever they want it to be a riot.
- g-b-r 2y ago> I'm first interested in the more straightforward situation of the people who worked on a less-lethal weapon system, which they might've anticipated would be used in exactly this way. What do they think about that? It seems easy to justify it as "it will take the place of lethal weapons", as with tazers
- heraldgeezer 2y ago[flagged]
- codedokode 2y ago"Well I am not breaking any laws so this won't be used against me. And I need money anyway"
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago[flagged]
- neilv 2y ago(Just to be clear, I think weapons in general can be used for good, as well as for bad.) From your perspective, can you guess how you'd feel building a less-lethal weapons system like is the subject of this post, given what you think the typical uses of it would be?
- perching_aix 2y ago@2OEH8eoCRo0 > I've worked on lethal weapons. I feel great! Assuming that "I feel great" was with respect to having worked on lethal weapons, can you elaborate a bit? Do you consider your work to be supporting good cause(s) and feel it was well motivated for you to work on them, or do you just have no moral grievances working on lethal weapons (for whatever psychological reason)?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- avaika 2y agoThis has to be about people who pushes the button. Not about the people who invents the technology. Otherwise you might want to stop all the kitchen knifes production, cause people occasionally use those to kill each other.
- kubectl_h 2y agoIt should be about the entity who brings something like this to a market and profits off it. In this case a corporation.
- giraffe_lady 2y agoNo there is a very clear difference of responsibility between creating an instrument that can be turned towards harm and one that is designed to cause it. Someone designed, engineered, and built these tools knowing this is what they were to be used for.
- ncallaway 2y agoOkay, but if the tool is a weapon and is designed specifically to inflict harm on humans, then I think that analogy completely breaks down.
- energy123 2y agoIf you're an engineer or a scientist, you really should have a more developed understanding of causality than just "proximate cause is the only cause" mindset that we all learn before we reach 5 years old.
- Jach 2y agoProbably enjoyed working on cool sci-fi shit. Invisible weapons are pretty cool -- though I think conceptually the heat ray class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System?useskin=v...) is cooler than the LRAD class. How they're used or should be used? An unimportant question in the face of coolness. Then there's just basic pride in good engineering or craftsmanship that can help spark joy in whatever one is working on, from weapons to some hairy enterprise legacy ball of mud you're slowly making improvements to. A silly quote I've always liked, from Nathaniel Borenstein: "It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a "DestroyBaghdad" procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a "DestroyCity" procedure, to which "Baghdad" could be given as a parameter."
- blacksmith_tb 2y ago"However, it is my judgment in these things that when you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb."[1] 1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer
- gobliztkytkach 2y ago[flagged]
- lovelearning 2y agoI think their comment is criticizing the mindsets of weapons engineers, not justifying it.
- gobliztkytkach 2y ago[flagged]
- gessha 2y agoReminds me of a meme about how as an aerospace graduate, after a year and a thousand rejections, you just need to “live, laugh, Lockheed Martin”
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y agoJust like HN crowd enjoy working on cool AI toys, now widely used to suppress people in china, iran, russia and soon the trumpland.
- mrguyorama 2y agoEach one of them who INSISTED we should "Just talk about the tech, not the politics" and that "You can't hold someone ethically responsible for creating a weapon, you must hate ONLY the people who use them"
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cue_the_strings 2y agoI will always have more respect for prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers and thieves than people working in "defense". Even an exceptionally violent and prolific gangster could never come close to contributing to the suffering of as many people as your regular MIC employee, no matter where they're employed. If I were to try to imagine how I could realistically inflict the most suffering on the world, the clear answer would just be "get a defense job", I really couldn't do any worse than that no matter how hard I tried. Maybe starting a defense company would be worse. Team work makes the dream work, as they say.