emberrider

It's also that tech workers simply don't need the money. They aren't going to starve if they leave Microsoft or Google over some project dispute; they'll find another job in two seconds.

Nuclear weapons weren't necessary for that job, but the outcome was the same: the removal of the Afghani government through military force.

They're strongly incentivized to play by the game when the alternative is annihilation. For 70 or so years, that kept everyone safe.

I don't think they're entirely new, but consider that the average tech employee is in their late 20s or early 30s and the only major exercises of US military power they've seen were in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US has squandered its goodwill among that group by engaging in wars of aggression that were only marginally necessary. They didn't experience the cold war when the threat of nuclear annihilation was hovering over everyone (until very recently; it seems to be returning). Couple that with the highly employee favored labor market dynamics in tech and it's not surprising people don't want to take military applications up.

Also, it has to be said: it's a verdict on US leadership. The man in the oval office isn't someone I'd feel comfortable arming, nor was Bush. Even Obama had the thing with the drone strikes. When US Presidents demonstrate carelessness and unpredictability in their use of force, it turns reasonable, peace-loving people off.

Because defending themselves would necessarily require acquiring their own nuclear deterrent, and the US correctly realized that a world where every country had nukes was a world where they'd eventually be used. Alliances like NATO reduced the risk of human extinction while pulling countries closer into the US orbit. It's ridiculous to look at that from an ROI perspective; the ROI is not dying in a nuclear war.