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.