Some people will think creating weapons for defense is an ethical thing to do. I prefer not to do that but I think the point is valid and there is no clear way to determine what’s ethical and what isn't.

Such people are welcome to the freedom of their consciences.

There is a distinction between personal ethics and professional ethics. In my opinion, that position crosses the line and lands squarely in the realm of personal ethics.

What's unethical is to have your countrymen in a fight with substandard equipment that you could have helped them improve.

War is an ever-present possibility - do you want your neighbor's kids (or yours, if they join the service) dying or being maimed because you didn't help with what you know?

1000 years ago, if you were a blacksmith and the Vikings were coming, would you make swords or ornamental railings?

People who think "it's unethical to make weapons" always assume that someone else is making the weapons, which makes them feel good about themselves (not sure why) - they're willing to sacrifice themselves and their neighbor's children for their ethics.

I'm not. I make weapons, and I think the 'ethical' stance on defense is really just virtue-signalling.

/Edited. ;)

>What's unethical is to have your countrymen in a fight with substandard equipment that you could have helped them improve.

if the fight's imminent or already on, sure. but most of the time weapons are made long before there is the anticipation of a fight.

if nation A has a weapon that lets them fight without risking their soldiers as much as nation B, nation A will always be more willing to enter armed conflict, especially against the less-endowed nation B. so the act of making a better weapon lowers the threshold for using force.

that's one big reason why drones are exceptionally effective weapon systems. surveillance and airstrikes in enemy territory are prone to being shot down and the pilots killed or taken prisoner to be used as a bargaining chip for peace, but drones aren't. the political toll of a drone being shot down is practically zero in comparison, so drone wars can continue indefinitely without domestic outcry.

It takes 10-20 years to field a capable modern weapons platform. It would be ridiculous to wait for the fight to be joined before developing your platforms.

The air Force joke is "it isn't your Dad's air Force, but it might be his plane." Service lifetimes of some craft are past 50 years.

I don't mind a done war that field tests all of our systems, kills a slew of bad people, and costs us no blood. That's a good deal to me.

“think the limp-wristed 'ethical' stance on defense is really just virtue-signalling for other limp-wristed selfish people.”

You are making some good points and you are damaging them with your last paragraph.

Removed last paragraph, thanks for the feedback.

Regardless of how this country uses or misuses their weapons, I have to say this is really impressive: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/dod-cia-develope...

I used to think like this. But these days I believe we've lost our moral high ground, beginning with OIF and continuing with countless unethical, shady things people in power are doing in the name of the red herring that is "national security." I've lost faith in this country's ability to wisely wield the technology it has.

Maybe it was always this way and I just had a rosy outlook early in life, but it seems at some recent point we became the bad guys. I don't want to make weapons, or anything really, for the bad guys.

I suspect that if people could rely on that the weapons they make are used defensively, many more would be willing to make weapons. In many countries, you can't rely on that, and making tools that reduce risk increase the leaderships willingness to use force more offensively.

And of course there's a large unclear area where one persons long-term defensive measure is another persons justified intervention, and another persons war of aggression.

Agreed about risk reduction leading to increased use of force, that's totally the case - look at drones.

However while the frequency might increase, the scale and impact is at an all-time low.

WW1: 40 million dead. Drones: "According to the Long War Journal, which follows US anti-terror developments, as of mid-2011, drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilian". Hard to argue with those numbers for a 5 year period. Roughly 20 people a year die by being crushed by their TV's and furniture in the US a year - we don't stop selling furniture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._...

I mean how can you NOT support several thousand dead militants, with that minor a civilian cost? I'd happily accept a far higher civilian cost for the decimation of militants, but our guys are exceedingly professional and their precision is legendary.

Mistakes happen, sure, but in comparison to the 20th century, we're doing great!

We're doing so good, maybe we should argue that we need MORE precision weapons, given how much they've reduced overall conflict and the fact that large governments are no longer as willing to go toe-to-toe because of them.

This isn't total war. Technically it's not even a war, but a "Military Operation Other Than War" (MOOTW). We're not fighting against a coalition of countries; we're fighting a few thousand dudes in caves with AK-47s and rusty Russian ordnance. Of course there will be fewer casualties. Yet still we've managed to kill upwards of 100,000 people, mostly innocents, across 18 years of occupation, in retaliation for a lucky strike that killed 3,000 Americans. You're right--that's actually a lower number for direct casualties than I expected. But I seethe knowing this is what my "defense" tax dollars fund.

Those drones just make it easier to continue killing people tagged as "militants" (a very flexible word in the hands of our government, I'm sure) while removing deterrents, like the idea that our children could be sent off to die in such a campaign. So now we have robots killing people the government doesn't care about, simply because they have been identified as the "enemy." I think I've seen this movie before.

Mostly innocents? That's not supported by the numbers I was looking at.

Could you point me to these numbers? It looked to me like killing a whole slew of extremists for extremely minimal collateral damage.

I wasn't referring to drone strikes in particular. I pulled the numbers from from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war... and might have misread the 30k wounded as additional deaths. So "most" could be wrong, but the numbers have a way of reflecting the best possible outcome for us.

I'll try to be more precise in future rants.

As for drone strikes: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/11/14/...

Personal I think a country needs to produce defense weapons but I would draw a line at selling to unstable countries for profit. Defense should not be a profit center

Whole hearted agreement about selling to unstable countries for profit.

But selling to our friends/allies? I like the French, I'd be overjoyed if they thought my weapons were so chic/dangerous that they'd protect their countrymen in their most perilous times. Same thing if the Germans, Canadians, Japanese, etc bought my wares. Why not?

Saudi Arabia... not a fan, I don't think that's wise at all, I think that's going to come back to bite us in the ass and that it's a mistake in progress.

The system isn't perfect, I admit.

You define what the ethics is. If you think creating weapon for defense is not preferable to you then you better work on convincing or forcing other to follow.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

Edited some mistake. My point is everyone have different ethics. You must fight for your preference if you want yours to be the winning ethics.

There no one true "correct" ethics

I guess we agree then. Determining what’s ethical is personal and it will be hard to crater a universal code.

If you’re a lawyer representing a mass murderer you must still represent the interests of the client. To not do so would see you disbarred.

So professional ethics can run counter to what a polite member of society would normally wish to do.

Although I believe lawyers are still required to disclose to the authorities any information concerning their clients' intention to commit a crime in the future - so the obligation to represent a client's interests is not unlimited.

>>Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail.

I think this is an oversimplification. A lot of doctors deal with non-life threatening diseases and ailments, and some even deal with purely cosmetic stuff (e.g. plastic surgeons). Similarly, a lot of lawyers deal with issues that don't directly carry a risk of a jail sentence, e.g. workers compensation.

Making missile guidance software is wholly unethical and is what we should be striving to prevent engineers from working on.

I want to put aside the question of whether this claim is true for a second, and just point out that it is - obviously, as proven by the response here - controversial among engineers. On that basis alone, it's never going to be part of an effective professional code of conduct. A code which starts with that condition will not be widely adopted. A popular code which tries to add it will fail, or be mired in controversy and lose members. A licensing regime which attempts to keep people who disagree out of the industry will be broken by (government-abetted) defectors or competing licensing.

The number of doctors or prospective doctors who deny the medical code of ethics is very nearly zero. Almost all debate around it centers on subtle questions like defining 'harm' in self-determination cases (e.g. assisted suicide). The number of lawyers who would reject a given the legal code of ethics is perhaps larger, but the code is accordingly narrower. Lawyers are for instance free (and in fact obligated) to support "not guilty" pleas by clients they know are guilty. The boldest parts of the code (e.g. that lawyers cannot actively lie on behalf of clients, or mingle personal business with professional work) are also the the parts which are regularly broken.

Striving to avert something you consider immoral is a sensible decision, even if other people dispute that ethic. But doing so with a professional code of ethics is not only a doomed task, it's one which dooms the rest of the code in the process.

I bet the civilians who do not become collateral damage because the missile that was supposed to hit a military base did so due to good guidance software instead of missing and hitting their town would disagree.

When a situation has escalated to the point that someone is launching missiles, it has usually reached the point where destroying the target is more important to them then the risk of collateral damage. If the guidance software is not good enough to give a small margin of error, they will launch several missiles to ensure that one is likely to hit the target, which pretty much guarantees a lot of damage throughout the margin of error of the guidance software.

How about getting rid of those bloodthirsty decision makers, and in the meantime not supporting their violent rampaging.

While I appreciate your sentiment, and would describe myself as a pacifist as well, I am unable to say that self-defense is unethical. However, even in 10th grade, when we first entered Afghanistan, I found the concept of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq appalling, unjustifiable, expensive, unproductive, and without a way out. Nearly two decades later and that all seems to be true.

That said, I wouldn't find myself saying "don't retaliate" if there was an actual force striking the country.

Being unable to categorically rule out self defense, springing from/combined with, being unable to control others means that we may need to defend ourselves, and if we must, we should be capable.

I don't know if I could work for the military, directly or as a contractor, but I'm not ready to say that every member in uniform and every contractor is amoral for doing so.

Anyway, my point is even if you convinced your entire country to never take up offensive arms, would you be able to also convince everyone else to as well? Would you be willing to tell your countrymen not to take up defensive arms?

The alternative to guided missiles isn’t peace, it’s carpet bombing.

The planes needed to drop those bombs have software too.

It's perfectly possible to build very devistating weapons without computers. For example Little Boy & Enola Gay; and Fat Man and Bockscar. The Uranium, Plutonium, and Hydrogen bombs we're built without and do not contain computer. Ditto for the P38, B29, F104, &c.

Software makes our world go round, but it's not a necessity.

This person gets it.

That’s ridiculous. Letting ISIS exist is unethical. Allowing the North Korean government to exist is unethical. Allowing Nazis to attack Poland was unethical. Germans occupying France was unethical. Letting Somali warlords steal UN food aid was unethical. Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait was unethical. Creating weapons to defend against and prevent such things? Not only ethical, but honorable. Would you have us fight evil with our bare hands? Because you’ve essentially said that all weapons are unethical. The problem is that evil, such as ISIS, the Taliban, Nazis, the Khmer Rouge: they don’t care about ethics. Not doing everything possible to defend against such a scourge is itself unethical. Pacifism is unethical when the failure to act allows evil to prevail.

No, that is ridiculous. Missals made in the US are used to fight illegal wars in the middle east and sold to dictators committing genocide. Stop drinking the nationalism kool-aide, we aren't the good guys.