8 ms·

Maybe this goes against the beliefs of 90% of the programmers and engineers that /you/ interact with, but I really don't think that it's 90% of /all/ programmer

by skwirl 12y ago

Maybe this goes against the beliefs of 90% of the programmers and engineers that /you/ interact with, but I really don't think that it's 90% of /all/ programmers and engineers. Go join the hundreds of thousands of engineers in the defense industry and you'll understand.

spacefight 12y ago
Yeah, you'll understand. But it's not understandable, that the hundreds of thousands of engineers in the defense industry can sleep well at night.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I used to do software for the defense industry. I sleep great at night. I was happy contributing to the military superiority that allows the U.S. to stay on top, and yields to us the benefits of that position. That doesn't mean that there aren't limits to what I think is okay, but overall I think the U.S. military is still a net positive for the world, especially because of the security we provide for Europe that has enabled that continent to break its historical cycle of bloodshed and live in relative peace the last half-century. And as a practical matter--I don't think there is any other major country that would be as benevolent as the U.S. has been were it to be on top. Many have proven so (Germany, the U.K., etc).
  - insuffi 12y ago
    Hah! Benevolent! I'm glad you get to sleep well at night, while U.S. military terrorizes the world, and creates wars in order to finance itself. You're either ignorant or amoral. edit: eh. I feel like it needs reminding - I realize that in terms of geopolitics there needs to be a superpower. Every century has had a superpower that in all likelihood abused the weaker countries. My issue is with the way OP describes the issue: US being benevolent and great, bringing in fruits to US economy, completely ignoring repercussions worldwide, and OP has absolutely no problem with it.
    - EC1 12y ago
      You can't generalize the entirety of the military. He could have easily been working on software for the military that doesn't actually have anything to do with killing people. Did you think of that?
      - detcader 12y ago
        You can generalize about the incentives of the politicians who control the military. I'd be interested in discussing parts of the military that aren't related to U.S. imperialism. Care to bring one up?
        coldtea 12y ago
        Sure: some PR work they do to cover the former. E.g helping out in some crisis situations et cetera.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana.
      - insuffi 12y ago
        My comment still stands. As long as America has peace, you're in total agreement with the practice of terrorizing other countries.
        rayiner 12y ago
        It's not just peace in America. It's peace in Europe and Asia too. What do you think the political situation would be vis-a-vis U.K. versus Germany versus France or Japan versus China if the U.S. military didn't have supremacy over everyone? History suggests it would be a lot less peaceful than it is now.
        insuffi 12y ago
  - things 12y ago
    They may not be pushing a particular ideology, but to call it benevolent is a stretch. Business is often the main interest. Read "War is a racket" [1] by General Smedley Butler to see how far back this goes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
  - detcader 12y ago
    Until Guantanamo is closed the U.S. military will will always "be a net negative" from a human rights perspective.
  - ionised 12y ago
    In no way is the US benevolent. It acts in it's own best interests as any other country does or has done. Sometimes those interests align and countries work together, as it is now in most of the western world. It's also in US interests to maintain military bases in Europe and the Middle East and Asia since two of the worst wars the world has ever seen utterly annihilated those regions and led to the countries there being in no fit state to do it themselves. It also gives them footholds all over the world for the purposes of expanding territory. Other countries have done this, the US does this, other countries will do it in the future. The US is far from the worst country out there but let's not start throwing around the word 'benevolent' because it's profoundly untrue. Being the best of a bad bunch does not make you somehow good.
  - dodders 12y ago
    Stating that the US military has... "enabled that continent to break its historical cycle of bloodshed and live in relative peace the last half-century" is a huge oversimplification. Undoubtedly the US military is one, if not a major force in the post WWII security, but many other factors have contributed to this, such as Khrouchtchev's policies of co-existence; the emergence of China as a nuclear power that forced Russia to side with the US and the European Union that bound France and Germany economically, making future pan-European wars much less likely. Lets not also forget the European conflicts since 1945 despite all of the above - Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia; Turkey invading Cyprus; Bosnian war; the Chechen crisis; Kosovo; Russia-Georgia and the Crimea.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I concede it's a huge oversimplification.
      - lawnchair_larry 12y ago
        Did you not realize that when you said it, or were you being intentionally manipulative?
storrgie 12y ago
I think its a bad idea to characterize the entire defence industry as amoral implementors. Many that I've interacted with are very conscious about extrapolating to the conceptual uses of their creations.
- noblethrasher 12y ago
  Amoral means that they don't even consider the morality of the situation. I doubt any of those engineers are like that; indeed, they likely believe in the justness of what they're doing.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  There was a great quote from the Scott Meyers video the other day at DConf, "If we don't do our job right, people could LIVE!"
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > There was a great quote from the Scott Meyers video the other day at DConf, "If we don't do our job right, people could LIVE!" He left out the next part though: "And if those people LIVE, others will DIE!" I mean, you want to talk about ironic: Consider the atomic bombing of Japan. To the extent that it contributed in any meaningful way whatsoever to avoiding a land invasion of Japanese (American, Soviet, or both) it saved more Japanese lives than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, to say nothing of the Allied servicemembers staring down the barrel of the Japanese gun.
    - aidenn0 12y ago
      There is still a moral question of killing civillians versus killing volunteer soldiers versus killing conscripted soldiers. Then you need to remember there were two bombings of Japan. Was the second one necessary to prevent a land invasion of Japan? Furthermore it seems likely that a combined soviet/american land invasion would have prompted nearly as quick of a surrender as the atomic bombings. Of course we can play these "what-if" games all day; the people at the time needed to make a decision, and I don't think it was all that bad of a decision with the information they had. When the use of deadly force is appropriate is the biggest open question in ethics IMO.

by skwirl 12y ago

spacefight 12y ago

Yeah, you'll understand. But it's not understandable, that the hundreds of thousands of engineers in the defense industry can sleep well at night.

rayiner 12y ago
I used to do software for the defense industry. I sleep great at night. I was happy contributing to the military superiority that allows the U.S. to stay on top, and yields to us the benefits of that position. That doesn't mean that there aren't limits to what I think is okay, but overall I think the U.S. military is still a net positive for the world, especially because of the security we provide for Europe that has enabled that continent to break its historical cycle of bloodshed and live in relative peace the last half-century. And as a practical matter--I don't think there is any other major country that would be as benevolent as the U.S. has been were it to be on top. Many have proven so (Germany, the U.K., etc).
- insuffi 12y ago
  Hah! Benevolent! I'm glad you get to sleep well at night, while U.S. military terrorizes the world, and creates wars in order to finance itself. You're either ignorant or amoral. edit: eh. I feel like it needs reminding - I realize that in terms of geopolitics there needs to be a superpower. Every century has had a superpower that in all likelihood abused the weaker countries. My issue is with the way OP describes the issue: US being benevolent and great, bringing in fruits to US economy, completely ignoring repercussions worldwide, and OP has absolutely no problem with it.
  - EC1 12y ago
    You can't generalize the entirety of the military. He could have easily been working on software for the military that doesn't actually have anything to do with killing people. Did you think of that?
    - detcader 12y ago
      You can generalize about the incentives of the politicians who control the military. I'd be interested in discussing parts of the military that aren't related to U.S. imperialism. Care to bring one up?
      - coldtea 12y ago
        Sure: some PR work they do to cover the former. E.g helping out in some crisis situations et cetera.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana.
    - insuffi 12y ago
      My comment still stands. As long as America has peace, you're in total agreement with the practice of terrorizing other countries.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        It's not just peace in America. It's peace in Europe and Asia too. What do you think the political situation would be vis-a-vis U.K. versus Germany versus France or Japan versus China if the U.S. military didn't have supremacy over everyone? History suggests it would be a lot less peaceful than it is now.
        insuffi 12y ago
- things 12y ago
  They may not be pushing a particular ideology, but to call it benevolent is a stretch. Business is often the main interest. Read "War is a racket" [1] by General Smedley Butler to see how far back this goes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
- detcader 12y ago
  Until Guantanamo is closed the U.S. military will will always "be a net negative" from a human rights perspective.
- ionised 12y ago
  In no way is the US benevolent. It acts in it's own best interests as any other country does or has done. Sometimes those interests align and countries work together, as it is now in most of the western world. It's also in US interests to maintain military bases in Europe and the Middle East and Asia since two of the worst wars the world has ever seen utterly annihilated those regions and led to the countries there being in no fit state to do it themselves. It also gives them footholds all over the world for the purposes of expanding territory. Other countries have done this, the US does this, other countries will do it in the future. The US is far from the worst country out there but let's not start throwing around the word 'benevolent' because it's profoundly untrue. Being the best of a bad bunch does not make you somehow good.
- dodders 12y ago
  Stating that the US military has... "enabled that continent to break its historical cycle of bloodshed and live in relative peace the last half-century" is a huge oversimplification. Undoubtedly the US military is one, if not a major force in the post WWII security, but many other factors have contributed to this, such as Khrouchtchev's policies of co-existence; the emergence of China as a nuclear power that forced Russia to side with the US and the European Union that bound France and Germany economically, making future pan-European wars much less likely. Lets not also forget the European conflicts since 1945 despite all of the above - Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia; Turkey invading Cyprus; Bosnian war; the Chechen crisis; Kosovo; Russia-Georgia and the Crimea.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I concede it's a huge oversimplification.
    - lawnchair_larry 12y ago
      Did you not realize that when you said it, or were you being intentionally manipulative?

storrgie 12y ago

I think its a bad idea to characterize the entire defence industry as amoral implementors. Many that I've interacted with are very conscious about extrapolating to the conceptual uses of their creations.

noblethrasher 12y ago
Amoral means that they don't even consider the morality of the situation. I doubt any of those engineers are like that; indeed, they likely believe in the justness of what they're doing.
throwawayaway 12y ago
There was a great quote from the Scott Meyers video the other day at DConf, "If we don't do our job right, people could LIVE!"
- mpyne 12y ago
  > There was a great quote from the Scott Meyers video the other day at DConf, "If we don't do our job right, people could LIVE!" He left out the next part though: "And if those people LIVE, others will DIE!" I mean, you want to talk about ironic: Consider the atomic bombing of Japan. To the extent that it contributed in any meaningful way whatsoever to avoiding a land invasion of Japanese (American, Soviet, or both) it saved more Japanese lives than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, to say nothing of the Allied servicemembers staring down the barrel of the Japanese gun.
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    There is still a moral question of killing civillians versus killing volunteer soldiers versus killing conscripted soldiers. Then you need to remember there were two bombings of Japan. Was the second one necessary to prevent a land invasion of Japan? Furthermore it seems likely that a combined soviet/american land invasion would have prompted nearly as quick of a surrender as the atomic bombings. Of course we can play these "what-if" games all day; the people at the time needed to make a decision, and I don't think it was all that bad of a decision with the information they had. When the use of deadly force is appropriate is the biggest open question in ethics IMO.