How do you reconcile having worked in this capacity mentally? Not being snarky or judgemental, genuinely curious as to the mindset of someone who has been in this position.

▲

jdgoesmarching 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As an Army veteran, I try to be accountable for the role I played in an imperial occupying force and use that to inform my decisions in life.

People have a hard time admitting they’ve done bad things that caused pain. I’ve done bad things and I try to not do bad things now. Reconciled.

▲

palmotea 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> How do you reconcile having worked in this capacity mentally? Not being snarky or judgemental, genuinely curious as to the mindset of someone who has been in this position.

I don't work at defense contractor, but it would probably help to imagine the situation Ukraine is in. If no one in the West was comfortable working in this capacity, it would all be Russian territory now (and more besides).

▲

12_throw_away 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Reading this, I was surprised to learn that I now consider the idea of working on old-school conventional weapons almost, like, quaint.

What with all the ways our new military/techno-industrial complex is working to automate murder, surveillance and terror at scale ... it makes me nostalgic for that old-fashioned artisanal state-sanctioned murder, made in small batches by real humans.

	▲	Terr_ 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That reminds me of a sci-fi quote, where one of the main characters is discussing a murderous antagonist, putting their evil into a broader context: > "He was just a little villain. An old-fashioned craftsman, making crimes one-off. The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in that future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." -- Shards of Honor (1986) by Lois McMaster Bujold
	▲	colechristensen 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You may have gotten caught up in the hype. It's still intelligence, logistics, bullets, missiles, and airplanes (etc.) The beginnings of "automated murder" were anti-aircraft weapons that implemented a kind of mechanical computer that beat humans in predicting where aircraft were going to be (you have to shoot at where the plane is going to be when your bullets get there). Look up Norbert Wiener. For a century it's been automation assisted, none of this is new, it's just been improving consistently. They had UAVs in WWI for gods sake. (flying things without people in them, used in war)
	▲	cindyllm 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

elzbardico 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's usually a bit more accountability in using a missile than using palantir systems. At least legally, a missile could only be used in defense or in a war authorized by the congress.

Until recently, most of the population believed that the vast majority of America's military actions were somewhat just and legal, for noble reasons.

Dark stuff like Palantir was never like that.

▲

kelnos 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> At least legally, a missile could only be used in defense or in a war authorized by the congress.

Some Iranians might disagree with you on that point. They can't, though, as they're dead, killed by missiles used not in defense and not in a war authorized by Congress.

> Until recently, most of the population believed that the vast majority of America's military actions were somewhat just and legal, for noble reasons.

That's naive. The US has been using its military for unjust actions (of dubious legality, often "made legal" after the fact) longer than I've been on this Earth.

	▲	elzbardico 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Please not that I qualified both statements. "At least legally" It doesn't matter if this is true for this situation, as an employee you only need to have been convinced this is true. "Most of the population believed" - Again, even if they were mistaken, if they believed it, and let me tell you, a lot of the people STILL believes it, that belief is enough to enure you'll have a good night of sleep after a shift in a Lockheed office or factory.

▲

convolvatron 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have been in the same position. Maybe I was naive but I believed that weapons design wasn't the most moral thing in the world, but sadly necessary, and I actually trusted the military to .. I guess act in legitimate and legal ways. That if those weapons were used in a conflict, it would be defensive and defendable morally.

Of course that was before the inexplicable adventurism in the Middle East.

▲

colechristensen 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pragmatism. We live in the real world, one where threat of violence and actual violence is indeed sometimes necessary. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was peaceful and we could all get along happy and free? Sure, but that's not the world we live in and sticking my head in the sand and leaving the necessary dirty work to other people would bring me no more peace than helping do the necessary things as well as possible.

The most weaponlike thing I worked on was a sniper rifle program, and to me precision weapons are one of those best you can do in an imperfect world kinds of things.

▲

dmitrygr 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"If we do not design better weapons, those countries who do will subjugate us. I'd rather that not happen."

Edit: I honestly and directly answered the question and am getting downvoted for it? Lovely