This sort of utilitarian argument is missing the point, which is that well-paid in-demand workers want to feel good about their work, and the business of war isn't going to invoke those feelings.

This is like the wayfair walkouts earlier this year. It's not that wayfair employees wanted children in border camps to go without beds, but the employees personally did not want their workplace to be in the business of furnishing border camps.

edit:

> For me, it’s hard to understand why tech employees would not want to help their fellow Americans survive on the battlefield and accomplish their missions in the safest and least damaging way possible. Not because our wars are a good or bad idea, but because, although not everyone does the fighting, these wars belong to all of us.

> While I did choose to dedicate my life to our common defense, I did not and do not choose when and where to go to war. Each time I went to war, it was because my fellow Americans — including engineers in Silicon Valley — chose, through our democratic institutions, to send me there.

Honestly this whole thing is a bit tone deaf. Trust in our democratic institutions is (from my understanding) at an all time low. For your average engineer I think your choice of workplace is the greatest leverage to making the world a better place, and it certainly becomes part of your identity. In a nation of "not my president", who wants to be told that "these wars belong to all of us"?

As I've gotten older, I've come around to the idea that perhaps there was some nobility to fully entering World War II. But every subsequent military conflict has been motivated by economic empire building. If "fellow Americans" want to "survive", the straightforward answer is to not sign up for an organization that attacks and occupies foreign lands.

Every "reduced risk" for the military is an increased incentive to launch a new war.

And preemptively responding to "But what about real threats that could need to be defended against (eg China)" - if this is your bigger concern, then you need to figure out how to mitigate the moral hazards that have eroded trust in the institution.

An interesting take on the other side of this issue.

There exists a crucial distinction between supporting "war" and supporting "service members".

That being said, it feels like the author is ignoring non-trivial aspect of this issue: growing the military industrial complex is almost certainly a long-term net-negative.

If a growing number of powerful corporate entities find war profitable, we may find ourselves in a growing number of wars.

This is such a valid point. We owe so much of our privileged opportunity to those who have served and continue to serve. They are an absolute thin line protecting us against people who want to do us harm. I think it's appropriate to leverage our gains in technology to help keep these brave Americans alive.

It's not like they're fighting for the survival of the US. Much of the fighting is due to some stupid idea in the head of some politician, or even in the service of corporate profits, and a lot of innocent lives get sacrificed on those altars.

If you want to support those brave service men and women, it's better to support better medical care for veterans. It's bizarre that that's been such a long running problem in such a warlike country. But that's something that takes care of the actual people involved rather than the questionable corporate/political motives behind some wars.

1. That "thin" line runs up a $686 billion tab every year. It's one of the thickest lines in the US budget.

2. Tech workers help pay a lot of that tab by working in productive sectors that generate the profits needed to keep the war industry going.

3. A very tiny percentage of the service members are ever deployed. Of those, only a tiny percentage ever see combat. Those that don't see combat are paid very well for their time. Why does this matter? Because $686 BILLION pays for a lot of software engineers.

IMO: if the military needs more technical expertise, then:

1. Get good management! Open up leadership positions to non-officers or, god forbid, civilians. No more officers who majored in Theology at bible colleges or History at an academy running "Cyber" teams. The business world stopped hiring blank slate MBAs to manage software projects a LONG time ago. Time for the military to catch up.

2. Especially in the Army, stop running pointless rural jobs programs and reallocate that headcount to salaries for skilled professionals in more productive locales.

We're spending 680 BILLION employing enormous numbers of people to run around in circles (sometimes literally). There's more than enough money to pay people for their work and more than enough patriotic talent willing to take the jobs. What's needed is competent management and headcount.

Dear DoD and IC, U.S. Tech Workers need your help. US tech workers are under constant attack from foreign adversaries and rogue groups, both foreign and domestic. Get the house in order and make protecting the base priority one and all else will follow.

I think it’s ok not to want to contribute to building tools of war.