there is a misunderstanding of the MIC, they profit of weapons, not death. they dont like war, it means instability, supplychains get stressed and stuff gets expansive, asswell as their stuff gets destroyed and may shows ineffective. they like the idea of war. they want country A and B have and armsrace and get the expansive fancy stuff but never fire at each other. nor every corpo is vault tec.
Yes, I spent the last 20 years developing a very particular kind of chemical agent that is tailor made to dissolve an eight-year-old's testicles. But I assure you we only intend to use it in self-defense.
I have no idea how the Israelis got seventy of them.
If I worked for a defence contractor, I would make the most accurate weapons in the world. Why? Because when the people who fired those weapons are up in court and they go "Oh well I didn't MEAN to hit that hospital, the bomb just didn't hit its intended target", the prosecutor can go "Nonsense! Those are the most accurate weapons in the world. They ONLY hit what you intended to hit with as much force as you wanted to hit it with!".
The weapons are gonna get built, I'd rather there be no ambiguity in how they get used. It's not like WW2 where Bomber Command was like "Here's the dockyards we want to blow up, and a bajillion tonnes of bombs to blow it up with", and then the bombers flatten half a city just trying to hit the docks and miss every single time because it's cloudy, or hit an entirely different city because they got lost on the way!. You only have to look at Russia's "throw enough artillery shells at the area until it's completely flat" approach to war to know what happens when you haven't got precision munitions, or not enough of them.
I worked in the analysis tool division of a company that built civilian and military jets when I was fresh out of engineering school.
I didn't feel too bad about it because I was making commercial aircraft quieter and more efficient with my work. Then, the Iraq war started up and they told me I had to work on the engine for the F22. I started looking for a new job that day.
Now I work in planetary defense and don't feel guilty about it...
I'd say depends on which one and what lobby work they have done. If it is from the US or Russia, it is probably a big no-no.
If it is a European or South American defense contractor or weapons manufacturer, it varies.
I completely lost respect for an intern when I found out he was going to a weapons company next.
damn it's true
The education system functions to indoctrinate, privilege, and filter.
If there's one thing that I learned from grad school, it's that talented people will be made dependent and subservient to death and doom for money... But more importantly because that's the social system they've been funneled into. They don't see any alternatives.
Would it be like a spectrum with weapons being a cardinal sin, and cotton swabs and morphine a thing you can only do on lent? Would weapon makers be in a lower circle, logistics in the middle, and those on the periphery of the military apparatus go to purgatory?
I used to be opposed to working in the defense industry. Based on my experiences, I have reached the conclusion that the only ethical outcome is the extinction of humanity before we make this planet uninhabitable for all other life. The sooner the better. Maybe raccoons won't have billionaires, fascists, microplastics, etc. We should give them that chance. That's why I work for a defense contractor now.
The number of people defending Lockheed Martin here is staggering, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the apparent makeup of Lemmy's population
I'll make this very, very simple: working for a well-known defense contractor who brags about making bombs is bad. Working for Lockheed Martin is unethical.
Working for a large corporation (Microsoft) that funds or supports wars (Israel) is also bad, but not as bad as Lockheed Martin, the company that actually builds the bombs that are bought with the dollars that Microsoft sends to Israel
Working for any company that could theoretically contribute economically to a war is bad, but not as bad as the previous two examples and is more or less unavoidable for working people
Paying any kind of tax (especially in the US) ultimately funds wars, and so isn't good either, but it's not as bad as any of the three above options, and no one can avoid it (except billionaires of course)
I had a friend in a difficult position, deciding between high pay at Buy N Large or the opportunity to work on insanely cool shit for Death Inc.
Ultimately he chose Death Inc, and the reasoning was along the lines of "This might kill a hundred people, but at least it'll kill them specifically. I can't even conceptualize the harm Amazon et al. do on a global scale to entire populations without even trying".
Made me think. I didn't have a very good answer to that.
This is one of the few reasons I dislike living in the area I do, defense contractors are basically the only ones nearby hiring for engineering roles. Luckily I work remotely, but if that ever changed and I couldn't find another remote position, I'd probably have to move. I'm not about to sell my soul.
