I have an opportunity to join a designer / manufacturer of the above.
Now I wouldn't say I'm a pacifist but a tiny inner voice enquired if I'd be entirely comfortable with working towards the end product and what the end product does during "final commissioning."
How do you square this internally?
TiA
You go and look at pictures of Gaza and take a shake to yourself.
What do you mean by "defence weapons"?
Weapons? Eg bombs, guns etc that can be used for defence but might be sent to [insert controversial war zone here]?
Or specifically defence related, eg Patriot, Iron Dome, Phalanx etc?
It would make a difference to me, as would the ethics and history of the company itself.
I turned two jobs down in that field, the money wasn't all that and it'd have had to be *very* good to make me go.
One job as a senior designer for Missile systems at GKN and the other was Design lead on an aircraft payload and launch systems team for BAE Systems (Typhoon and Taranis IIRC).
Got 40% more money to go and destroy the environment, rather than killing people directly.
If they are, they wouldn’t be allowed to say on an internet forum 😉
Or they'd have to kill us.
If you have an tiny inner voice already its possibly not the role for you. I guess you can rationalise it by telling yourself the weapons will only be used on 'bad people'. They will only be used for defence and not attack etc. If your tiny voice believes any of that rubbish is up to you.
Horrible things but as we've found out, entirely necessary.
@ossify - specifically missile systems and military grade laser systems.
Doubtful many would be able to say publicly. You may get a DM.
The ethics are rightly a concern as are the environmental concerns and the often overlooked part; screwing the taxpayer out large sums of money via the ineptitude of MOD procurement. 😂
I briefly worked for a defence contractor when I left the Army but the organisational culture was toxic, decided a clean break was much healthier for the soul.
But to your specific point; if there's any doubt, there's no doubt.
If you have an inner voice then it might not be for you.
I used to work in medical R&D some of the tech was also suitable for military use and ended up in Tanks and Helicopters.
Same when I worked for a computer firm started out building PC's we ended up building plotters for submarines.
So just because it for defence today it could be repurposed in the future.
Derek_Starship – specifically missile systems and military grade laser systems.
Username checks out
You are Captain James T Kirk and I claim my £5
Username checks out
You are Captain James T Kirk and I claim my £5
I had an interview where the CEO was very clear in considering yourself part of the 'kill-chain'. It made me think, I reflected and declined their offer and their increased offer. I now work in medical devices - so actively trying to help not end people. It is/was important to me.
I always wondered where your username came from 😄
What do you mean by “defence weapons”?
It makes little difference - guidance, control, target identification, separation mechanisms, dynamics are equally applied to all. You may not be working on an interceptor, but you can bet your ass that the same technology used in that missile will be being used elsewhere.
It always makes me more than a little uncomfortable listening to Americans talking about the cost-exchange ratio, more colloquially known as the cost/kill ratio.
When I was interviewed for my job in Pharma Research a standard question was "How do you feel about animal research?". Obviously one has to have thought about it prior to deciding to apply, but this was a standard filter question. Times have moved on but the principle is still there. I would imagine the same for working in Defence. "How do you feel about the product of your work being used for it's ultimate purpose?". If you do not have an answer, or you are not convinced yourself, it's probably not for you. As an aside, I would expect most novel technologies to have some military application at some point - Pharmacology aside as we've rightly banned chemical weapons (but I have previously seen molecules that would be terrifying).
You go and look at pictures of Gaza and take a shake to yourself
Is one side of it. Ukraine being the other, unfortunately they need the technology now, we hopefully won't need it in the future but having it makes it much less likely to be required. It would be nice of we didn't need it but that's the world we live in
Not a chance.
As a family, we had some pretty hard times in the 90s after my electrical engineer dad was made redundant. He was offered multiple jobs in defence/military but turned them down for ideological reasons. I'd have no qualms doing the same, and my family are all of the same view.
Or they’d have to kill us.
Language, Timothy!
Or they'd have to *defend* us
They do ask you if you have any of these qualms when they interview you, or put you through for the undoubted security clearance you'd have to have. So if you have them, it's best to find a different job. Like in a shop that sells organic candles or something.
My brother-in-law works for BAE on the munitions side. He can't talk about it though!
Although if he did he'd bore you to death - never met a duller person.
Or specifically defence related, eg Patriot, Iron Dome, Phalanx etc?
I guess you can rationalise it by telling yourself the weapons will only be used on ‘bad people’. They will only be used for defence and not attack etc. If your tiny voice believes any of that rubbish is up to you.
As has been said above, there's no defensive system that's not involved in killing people. Patriot, Iron Dome and Phalanx are principally there to protect and allow deployment of offensive systems. Even issuing our own troops with body armour isn't a purely defensive decision, it allows them to remain combat effective, which includes them remaining capable of killing people. So Kevlar then, is working on something so widely used acceptable, given a small amount of it (relatively) is used militarily?
It's down to individual conscience of course but it's no mean feat to stay completely pure!
I've worked on military systems. As Ukraine shows, you either stay up to date with the latest weapon tech, or someone else who has may well just invade you...
And yes they will get used for evil by someone somewhere, but that applies to any pretty much anything.
they will get used for evil by someone somewhere, but that applies to any pretty much anything
Just spat my tea out at this.
My job mainly involves trying to help people get into more healthy habits.
Is that as likely to be used for evil as weapons systems are?
How about the factory down the road from me that makes flooring? Or the bakery up the other way?
So much untapped potential for evil.
Weapons are fun, is the lasers more directed energy weapons, or targeting, ah, doesn't matter, either will be cool, who wouldn't enjoy working with lasers or explosives!
I'm not in a weapons system type role but personally I wouldn't have a problem with it, having sophisticated weapons can be a deterrent in itself. I've got nothing against pacifism but it's not a luxury we can all afford in the real world. It's the same with AI - the West can talk about ethics and safeguards all day long but unless every country agrees to the same limitations then you're just going to end up in a weaker position along with the consequences that brings.
The design and manufacturing side of things is so far removed from the politics and the actual killing that I personally wouldn't have a problem working in defence.
There's loads of industries and jobs that someone somewhere will considered 'evil' but most people are just trying to get by and I wouldn't judge anyone for simply working in defence in order to earn a living.
There’s loads of industries and jobs that someone somewhere will considered ‘evil’ but most people are just trying to get by and I wouldn’t judge anyone for simply working in defence in order to earn a living.
Depends on the position. If you are genuinely just getting by then fair enough. Just like I have sympathy for people that have to work in shitty conditions for Amazon or Sports Direct, I certainly don't blame them for propping up the evil empire.
If you do have the luxury of choosing jobs, which it sounds like the OP has, then it can be a moral decision and if you can choose the better option then good for you. I work with a number of charities and there are often talented people there who have taken a substantial pay cut to do job that they feel makes a positive difference.
is the lasers more directed energy weapons, or targeting, ah, doesn’t matter, either will be cool, who wouldn’t enjoy working with lasers or explosives!
the vast majority are rangefinders - not so exciting
who wouldn’t enjoy working with lasers or explosives!
Having worked extensively with things that can go bang in my previous career as a lab chemist, I can assure you that the paperwork and H&S surrounding such things is very tedious and indeed making anything go bang was very much frowned upon. In fact, you have to go through many safety protocols to ensure that they don't go bang.
If you want an exciting career with things that go bang, go and be a pyrotechnical engineer in the film industry.
I can assure you that the paperwork and H&S surrounding such things is very tedious
Untold amounts of hours spent planning, mitigating and then writing documents to do something that is over in a heartbeat and to make sure everybody still has all the bits they should and there are no extra holes.
Absolute ball ache when you're the accountable adult and you don't even get to make things blow up, it's all paperwork so someone else gets to do the fun bit.
Do not miss that in the slightest.
Just spat my tea out at this.
My job mainly involves trying to help people get into more healthy habits.
Is that as likely to be used for evil as weapons systems are?
How about the factory down the road from me that makes flooring? Or the bakery up the other way?
So much untapped potential for evil.
Didn't see any fatties in the SS. You're creating potential effective fascists and you don't even know it. 😉
Just jokes. I hope he meant tech.
If you want an exciting career with things that go bang, go and be a pyrotechnical engineer in the film industry.
Boring, might as well just sell fireworks.
My job mainly involves trying to help people get into more healthy habits.
A lot of the weapons companies offer good healthcare and have onsite gyms, so could be best of both worlds for the OP.
If you’re asking the question OP then I think you already know the answer. I like it when it gets called defence. Can’t they just be honest and call it killing equipment or something. It reminds me of when some company made guns with smaller triggers for “women” not for child soldiers, no siree! If you’re going to be a **** the least you can do is be honest about it.
or someone else who has may well just invade you…
For the UK, France, Germany, China, The Americans,Australia none of that applies because they're not going to be invaded.
So what is it for 😕
To be sold to countries where oppression of the people, either at home, or in neighbouring countries, or to prop up tin-pot dictators working for one of the above.
I'm not judging anyone who doesn't share the same outlook as me, but if you have to justify a potential role with a weapons manufacturer with
then I'm not sure that deep down you'd ever feel at peace with it.good healthcare and ...onsite gyms
Or they’d have to kill us.
And could probably do so
For the UK, France, Germany, China, The Americans,Australia none of that applies because they’re not going to be invaded.
So what is it for 😕
Why are those countries more secure than others? Is it due to ad-hoc buying of defence technologies or that they’re a significant part of those country’s capability to defend themselves?
Sure, many of those technologies can and will be sold onto others, but not all are dic(tator)s. If you have a problem with that part, that’s a problem which can be solved via legislation without killing the underlying capability to develop it…you (we) might just have to pay more for that security.
I’m starting to think nobody would invade us because we’re a bit shit. Surely the only deterrent needed is nuclear. Where do you go after that? Mutually assured destruction is pretty much a stalemate and why none of the big powers have gone to war with each other for a while.
I used to work on helicopter defence systems. Of course, such systems could be used to enable the helicopters to do more attacking, so the difference between 'defence' and 'attack' is a little ambigious. It was interesting work though.
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.
I've no idea how to justify any of this. It all felt quite indirectly linked to any wrong doing. I don't think I'd actually want to work on any cluster bombs or land mines or anything like that.
I’m starting to think nobody would invade us because we’re a bit shit. Surely the only deterrent needed is nuclear. Where do you go after that?
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
none of the big powers have gone to war with each other for a while.
🤔
Military-grade lasers don't kill people. Rappers do? Ask any politician, and they'll tell you it's true.
[img]
[/img]
I'd be happy to work on a weapon which is used to kill "bad people", especially if in doing so it stops them killing "good people". See - Ukraine.
I'd be happy to work on a more effective and accurate weapon that enables finely targeted death and destruction, avoiding collateral damage. See - GPS guided bombs, and that bladed non-explosive assassination missile.
I don't have full trust that weapons I'd work on would always be used "for good" by my government, or that they'd be cautious about selling them to bad people.
On balance, it's crucially important that good people have plenty of excellent weapons, to ensure they're never needed. That's the world we live in unfortunately.
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. He's a decent chap and I wouldn't bring it up, but I do wonder if he still holds that belief, and if so, how he reconciles both.
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.
