If you don't want to hire me because of this fact, I am perfectly fine with that. In fact, that is exactly what I and the OP would want. I do not blame you for working on military projects. You are free to do that, and I think no less of you for it. But by the same token, the OP and I are free to not wanting to work on military projects.
If you want to judge people for their personal preferences, that is your choice to make. They might reciprocate, though.
If you couldn't guess, my point is - if you want to change the system(in this case - the US military hegemony) you need to start by...not participating in it, even if people call you a freeloader for it.
Hegemony is essentially a zero sum game. If your goal is to displace the US from that position, then who do you think you'll be left with?
>>Was that regime interested in keeping the people safe, or just keeping itself in power
That just demonstrates a lack of political knowledge on your behalf, but I'll give you a break on that, like you requested. Communist government wasn't all bad, there's a reason why plenty of people yearn for return of the "good old days" - it has succeeded in many of the "for the people" goals, but failed spectacularly at others. Just like US succeeds in certain areas(freedom of speech) but fails completely at others(making sure everyone has access to healthcare and education). It's not as far fetched comparison as you'd imagine.
>>If your goal is to displace the US from that position, then who do you think you'll be left with?
Hopefully someone who doesn't get us into random wars we have no interest in. Like, EU could finally go for the full unity, get a proper army and stand on its own without US interventionism.
Changing the status quo is a political action. The military largely isn't political, they are a tool of the politicians, a loaded gun that the politicians point and sometimes shoot. The focus on the military is simply incorrect.
> Communist government wasn't all bad, there's a reason why plenty of people yearn for return of the "good old days" - it has succeeded in many of the "for the people" goals, but failed spectacularly at others
Very debatable, but your argument is simply invalid. Many also yearn for "the good old days of racial segregation", but that doesn't somehow imply racial segregation succeeded at some things that we ought to admire.
Interesting that you think the US military's operations over the last 100 years have been about protecting its citizens instead of protecting the financial interests of the 0.1% ruling class.
Let me know when you find a job where you know your work will never be misused.
Meantime, your comment completely ignores the irony inherent in having been made over a network that was created by people you reflexively refuse to work for.
Picture this: we're deep in the Cold War era, and Ronny Raygun is the president. The Star Wars initiative is in full swing. Nuclear mishaps and near-misses are still an all-too-frequent occurrence. Nena's red balloons are ready to fly. The President has just gone on the air and promised to "Outlaw Russia," and that "The bombing starts in five minutes." Some officers from the Pentagon approach your company's management and ask them to bid on a project that will involve launching dozens of military satellites equipped with atomic clocks, designed to locate any person, place, or thing on Earth at meter-scale accuracy.
Do you threaten to quit the company, lecture everyone who will listen about the potential for misuse of such dangerous technology... and miss out on the chance to contribute to GPS?
Or, how about a few years earlier, when they ask you to work on a colossal air-defense computer system using technology that hasn't even been invented yet. They want to use computers to vector fighters to intercept approaching Soviet bombers, and to target missiles to kill the ones the fighters miss. It's obvious to anyone not in uniform that the whole idea is insanely stupid, wasteful, and destabilizing. They want to spend $50 billion to develop a system that guarantees one whole 'nine' of uptime, that can be trivially jammed or disrupted, and that will literally be obsolete the day they turn it on since it can't deal with ballistic missiles.
So you tell them, "No, I don't want to work on SAGE. Peace out and fuck off." As it turns out, the system is indeed useless at its stated purpose. The spinoffs, on the other hand, not only revolutionize the entire IT industry, but create it. The next thirty years' worth of progress in computer architecture, memory and storage, networking, display and human interaction, and fault-tolerance is traceable directly to this boondoggle. All of these things would probably have taken decades longer to evolve without military funding and backing. Nobody dies as a result, but a bunch of your coworkers do get to play with a lot of cool toys.
Then there's the whole ARPAnet thing, funded by DoD to survive nuclear holocaust, asteroid strikes, plague, fire, and famine... any threat imaginable by anyone other than telecom-industry lobbyists.
Even the very wise cannot see all ends, and that goes for modern-day hippies too.