As has been pointed out repeatedly in other comments, we live in a post-nuclear era where military strength is, itself, the defense. In this particular case, it's less relevant, but since we are generalizing I'm pointing it out.

As for improving military training and tactical hardware, yes it will most likely be used for offensive purposes. The absence of the technology wouldn't stop those offensives though; the absence would just result in less-well-trained less-well-equipped troops in the same situation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, bad training and lack of information is likely to lead to more deaths.

While I think it's wonderful employees of major tech companies are trying to drive more ethical choices, this was an odd choice for a line in the sand.

> we live in a post-nuclear era

That's a bold statement to make, particularly in the context of the US pulling out of INF and JCPA (Iran deal), especially when accounting for the reality that nuclear weapons "modernization" is still steadily going on [0]. That's not something you'd expect to see in the "post-nuclear era".

Particularly not with a US president who clearly does not understand nuclear weapons and would just love to sell and use them.

[0] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...

Post-nuclear as in: following the invention and use of nuclear weapons.

If not US forces, my country Georgia would be occupied by Russia back in 2008. People in world and espessially EU did not understand how lucky they are that US millitary exist and they do not live under Russian occupation.

Also fear to be millitary contractor for your own country seems pathologic to me.

Yeah, instead we have US occupation in many other countries. And US military bases all around the world. Yahoo!

I wish to see US military base in my country. This will be one of the best days in my life.

There have been 15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_U.S._territ...