Forum menu
I know someone who’s vocal on the “I stand with Ukraine” thing, but previously was very opinionated that working in the weapons or related systems (e.g. radar) was bad.
I was one of these people, I was just plain wrong. No cognitive dissonance required.
It’s more a question of where do you go before that. Yes, it’s the nuclear deterrent which is keeping Russia out of the Baltics and Poland, but nuking Buenos Aires would have been a bit of an overreaction to the Falklands conflict for example, or flattening Bhagdhad as a way of getting the Iraqis out of Kuwait
I’ll give you the Falklands but Kuwait was purely about oil supply. Just make everyone a nuclear power and bingo! No more war or no more humans 😉
none of the big powers have gone to war with each other for a while.
🤔
Who from the big powers has had an open war recently? The Russia/Ukraine situation is horrendous and there was Afghanistan but no major powers have gone directly to war with one another since WW2.
So Kevlar then, is working on something so widely used acceptable, given a small amount of it (relatively) is used militarily?
So much tech is dual use, it's almost impossible to not be working in tech and it not have potential military / defence applications. Up to you to decide if not actively working on defence applications means you aren't in the chain, and how far removed you need to be to feel comfortable.
It also works the other way, lots of defence spending is on tech innovation which isn't specifically on things that go bang, and which contributes to improvement in non military use. I hope those that are vehemently opposed will be turning off their GPS systems forthwith, etc.
I'm not aware of any specific research into baked goods though.
I’m not aware of any specific research into baked goods though.
Weren't Smarties developed as a way to get more calories to our troops during WWII? (Obvs not baked, but still in that class of sweet foodstuffs...)
I also used to work in automotive which felt similarly unethical. They’d talk a lot about a goal of zero deaths on the road but it all went out the window when they had contracts and deadlines. I was working on the semi-autonomous safety tech. It was woefully undertested and felt like it could make the roads more dangerous.
Tesla?
The 8 or 9 companies i've directly or indirectly worked for have *all* delayed launches due to some safety issues, some of then exceedingly minor. And everyone is pushing back semi/full autonomous driving tech. Except Tesla!
was very opinionated that working in the weapons or related systems (e.g. radar) was bad.
Working in defence falls into the "someone's got to do it" category.
As mentioned there are some specific weapons with the potential to be particularly problematic, but the real issue is who they get sold to.
Hence the (IMO justified) protests about sales to Saudi and Israel.
Although if he did he’d bore you to death – never met a duller person.
Being lacking in empathy and an appreciation of what your "product" does would tend to make one less than scintillating company!
but no major powers have gone directly to war with one another since WW2.
They do call the Korean War the forgotten conflict
They do call the Korean War the forgotten conflict
I wouldn’t class either as major powers.
Part of the moral maze is not just being part of the organisation that brings such weapons into existence, where you can then try and say its for defence rather than attack. But also the morality questions around where these things are being sold. Defence companies have shareholders and zero qualms about selling to pretty much any nasty regime that they can get away with.
There are a few industries, I wouldn’t consider. They don’t align with my values.
- Defence. Been approached for a role and declined to take it further. I refuse to work producing weapons or supporting systems.
- Gambling. Too many issues with gambling and despite companies talking about ‘setting limits’ they clearly don’t want people to.
- Alcohol. See Defence. I have no personal issues with alcohol, I choose not to drink now because it affects my medication. Once again, too many questionable behaviours from businesses that sell alcohol.
- Tobacco. Never smoked and refuse to be involved in an industry that profits from an addiction and harms health.
Who from the big powers has had an open war recently? The Russia/Ukraine situation is horrendous and there was Afghanistan but no major powers have gone directly to war with one another since WW2
The Korean War and Vietnam war were definitely wars by proxy. The Chinese government had a huge part in both - fighting American and British armed forces in the former and American and Australian in the latter.
There are a few industries, I wouldn’t consider.
Nice to be able to pick and choose. But what about medical? Previous company I worked for had a pharma branch in Turkey that did testing on animals...
You'll be familiar with the Hubble Space Telescope? Magnificent images and pushed optical astronomy forward in leaps and bounds. Scientific marvel. Ever wondered what you might see if you were to turn it around and point it at the ground? US spy satellites have been diffraction limited to about 10cm (so not quite facial recognition) since 1971. The only image released to the public thus far was by Trump. Most novel technologies will have the propensity for application in defence via some mechanism or other.
Previous company I worked for had a pharma branch in Turkey that did testing on animals…
Any Pharma developing new molecules for human use will need to conduct animal toxicology testing. It's the law.
I wouldn’t class either as major powers.
The Americans fighting both China and Russia In Korea count as the major powers directly fighting in my book.
The Korean War and Vietnam war were definitely wars by proxy.
The Korean war was definitely not, both China - up to 3 million ground troops involved and Russia - Squadrons of MiG 15 pilots were committed to the conflict and fought ACM combat with allied forces. The Russians admitted in the 90's I think that there were about 3000 Soviet armed forces personal stationed in North Vietnam during the war, and there are persistent rumours that Russian pilots flew armed combat missions, and anyway the US being directly involved removes it from the 'proxy war' list.
Anyway OP's question: If you're questioning it, or worrying about it this line of work is probs not for you.
Any Pharma developing new molecules for human use will need to conduct animal toxicology testing. It’s the law.
It's the line between developing drugs to cure illnesses or animal testing so people don't get a nasty rash when they put too much foundation on.
It’s more a question of where do you go before that. Yes, it’s the nuclear deterrent which is keeping Russia out of the Baltics and Poland
Ukraine did have nuclear weapons post -collapse of the USSR, but gave them up with the understanding that Russia wouldn't attack them.
The Korean war was definitely not, both China – up to 3 million ground troops involved and Russia – Squadrons of MiG 15 pilots were committed to the conflict and fought ACM combat with allied forces. The Russians admitted in the 90’s I think that there were about 3000 Soviet armed forces personal stationed in North Vietnam during the war, and there are persistent rumours that Russian pilots flew armed combat missions, and anyway the US being directly involved removes it from the ‘proxy war’ list.
China was not really assessed as a superpower back then (Erroneously in my view.). The Soviet Union as you mention, was. Again as you mention, the Soviet Union had troops stationed in North Korea and the rumours about flying combat missions - are very persistent - and actually . I would disagree in how you use the term ‘proxy war’, only one side needs to be a proxy.
Again as you mention, the Soviet Union had troops stationed in North Korea and the rumours about flying combat missions – are very persistent
Just to clarify, the Soviet did very much fly combat missions in the Korean War, the rumours I was talking about are their involvement in Vietnam. They were certainly in country and flew training and test flying (post servicing), along with the Chinese.
Without the defence industry a lot of classic movies and newer movies would be really boring
The Korean War and Vietnam war were definitely wars by proxy. The Chinese government had a huge part in both – fighting American and British armed forces in the former and American and Australian in the latter.
Bunch of Grandads in here! I said recently. I wasn’t even born when both those wars happened and I’m middle aged 😂 also neither fulfils the criteria of world power vs world power. There’s a middleman in each because direct conflict since WW2 simply isn’t a viable option.
It falls into the if you need to ask category? for me it was simple , engineering problems to be solved , I know when I worked at one place that has been known to test on people let alone animals , they hired a young lady who didnt realise how things happened or what division she had just signed up for , i suppose you are at least aware .I am a lifer in various guises and roles now in deterrence I see it as the ultimate defensive weapon you could probably say , I have no issues with what I do as someone else above said if its not you someone else will.
Another interesting tidbit is that jts called defence department when it was previously the war office is suppose it helps with the optics
as someone else above said if its not you someone else will
I don't recall that exactly that was said. All sorts of evil can be justified with that reasoning. It assumes the evil (e.g. a massacre of PoWs) is inevitable, so you may as well take part and benefit in carrying it out.
What was said (and probably what you're referring to just missing a few words?), is that if we don't develop these things, someone else will, and then use them to our detriment. This says that the evil against us is preventable, and you can contribute to preventing it by working on weapons.
I have no issues with what I do as someone else above said if its not you someone else will.
That’s a really shit excuse for really shitty behaviour. A lot of bad things have happened throughout history due to that attitude. Makes me a bit sad to read people think like that. Total naivety on my behalf but if fewer people thought that way we’d be much better off overall.
' All sorts of evil can be justified with that reasoning'
call it reasoning- but its ping pong, you hit me,so i hit you back
'I have no issues with what I do as someone else above said if its not you someone else will.'
we all have to live with that though
'That’s a really shit excuse for really shitty behaviour'
dont want it to be my fault- how am i to live if i need wages to survive and the only jobs are for weapons company?
Like in so many other 3rd world companies, if gov wont supply other opportunities for the people, they have to resort to things nobody wants to pay the bills
OR what?
maybe sunak etc financing a utopian society on the sly, for those that fall between the rails, with their ill gotten gains?
FWIW, which is probably **** all, I used to hate working in a plastics factory. Shit job, shit pay. But yes I really didn't enjoy aiding and abetting pollution. "Surely we've made enough ****ing buckets now" was a frequent inner exasperation. Also in the same factory, baby baths and munitions cases.
sirromj
i empathize. there seems to be sweet fa that one can do without hurting some1 or overreacting
best do nothing until its all over
You’ll be familiar with the Hubble Space Telescope? Magnificent images and pushed optical astronomy forward in leaps and bounds. Scientific marvel. Ever wondered what you might see if you were to turn it around and point it at the ground?
It’s arguably the other way around, but whilst the HST (1990) and the KH11s (1976) look similar, they’re very, very different and the visual similarities are driven by the confines of the Space Shuttle’s Payload bay.
I’ve spent a reasonable amount of time making really expensive pointy things even more expensive and pointy. The way I see it, the more they cost, the more they think twice about using them or even buying them in the first place, but in extremis, the technology and capability is there. It can be built and if required, used, given or even sold.
Lots of scientific breakthroughs come via defence and space…
‘I have no issues with what I do as someone else above said if its not you someone else will.’
we all have to live with that though
And that’s how the Native American population was decimated, how the atrocities in WW2 happened and why we’re a bit ****ed on the climate front.
There are a few industries, I wouldn’t consider. They don’t align with my values.
Defence. Been approached for a role and declined to take it further. I refuse to work producing weapons or supporting systems.
Thanks for sharing and your reasoning. I respect your choices.
What do you think about the weapons we have available to give to Ukraine? Are you fine with it as long as it's other people doing the work to design and produce them?
Generally I think people have all sorts of opinions and weapons and the military, until someone else turns their weapons and military against them and their friends. Then, suddenly there's nothing else more important.
And that’s how the Native American population was decimated, how the atrocities in WW2 happened and why we’re a bit **** on the climate front.
He can't be to blame for all that, the poor guy would need to be 250 years old!
What do you think about the weapons we have available to give to Ukraine? Are you fine with it as long as it’s other people doing the work tohe arms ramce design and produce them?
But that goes both ways. What about the weapons that Russia are using against Ukraine? How much of the arms race is down to both sides having willing participants? It's naive to think one side could just stop or one person not doing it makes a difference but you have to start the process somewhere and do what you can as an individual, much like climate change.
How much of the arms race is down to both sides having willing participants?
And how much does near peer capability limit wars of aggression? Had Russia considered Ukraine a near peer, they wouldn't have invaded. Russia assumed it would be over in weeks. Had Ukraine had the same level of capability they have now, it wouldn't have even been considered.
Defence technologies stop wars.
Defence technologies stop wars.
But, once again, that goes both ways as they also start wars
"He can’t be to blame for all that, the poor guy would need to be 250 years old"
I laughed out loud,
Man starts wars not technology as you have probably seen over tha past 30 years technological superiority does not necesarily win conflicts directly.
Frightningly however it has been reported that autonomous systems can now function with no human intervention and prosecute their end goal , the actual technology of that makes you think far more deeply
But that goes both ways. What about the weapons that Russia are using against Ukraine?
That factor is out of our control.
How much of the arms race is down to both sides having willing participants?
The other side will always have participants - naturally willing, willing for high incentives, or forced to.
It’s naive to think one side could just stop or one person not doing it makes a difference but you have to start the process somewhere and do what you can as an individual, much like climate change.
What would be a reasonable milestone of progress in your view from this starting somewhere?
HST (1990) and the KH11s (1976) look similar, they’re very, very different
Optically, they are more than similar (although the focal plane route is different), of course the radius of the mirror is dictated by the shuttle bay, but optical science is optical science and mirror manufacture is better at scale. Detector science has obvious Defence pull through and the laws of Physics don't respect utility. Many of my fellow Physicists were sponsored by and/or worked at the MoD.
And surely everyone has watched the charming Boston Dynamics videos. Have any been released where Spot the robot dog is fully armed. Whilst they pledged not to weaponise their robots, this is a natural progression, likely by others.
All technologies can have Defence applications. Not necessarily by primary intent. The ones I work on are prohibited by international agreement.
But, once again, that goes both ways as they also start wars
It's mostly politicians and/or despots who start wars. Defence tech is a tool of those tasked with waging war, irrelevant of who started it.
Optically, they are more than similar (although the focal plane route is different), of course the radius of the mirror is dictated by the shuttle bay, but optical science is optical science and mirror manufacture is better at scale. Detector science has obvious Defence pull through and the laws of Physics don’t respect utility. Many of my fellow Physicists were sponsored by and/or worked at the MoD.
Well, in that they share a similar architecture based up well proven principles, sure. But the primary and secondary for Hubble are quite different (from what I learned at NASA) to the NRO and the image processing software and thermal control is very different. GNC for Hubble is also very different as retasking isn’t a priority where’s as stability control and partial oscillation is.
As for large scale mirror manufacture being simpler, I’d have to take your word for that but with the caveat that they did get it wrong for Hubble. Not much (2-3 microns) but more than enough to make a difference.
Hiya,
I worked in defence systems for five years I would advise that you don't. It will effect you, when you find out what they are used for and what you have done. It had effects on my mental well being and because of what I worked in some friends I lost. Just don't do it...
Br
JeZ
FWIW, the jobs i was offered actually *in* the industry of death and destruction followed on from a good few years trying to use tech that was already being used for death and destruction and applying it to commercial applications.
Successfully i might add.
Thanks for sharing and your reasoning. I respect your choices.
What do you think about the weapons we have available to give to Ukraine? Are you fine with it as long as it’s other people doing the work to design and produce them?
Generally I think people have all sorts of opinions and weapons and the military, until someone else turns their weapons and military against them and their friends. Then, suddenly there’s nothing else more important.
Happy to discuss - but on another thread, not this one.