theturret

Fair point. I don’t think that simply working at a defense-tech would or should give someone sway over political decisions.

Which might be also good: von Neumann advocated for a U.S. nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union.

In the context of this thread my claim is simply that smarter people will yield smarter solutions that balance the tradeoffs mentioned earlier. The choice to use those weapons still lies with our elected leaders.

Yes, and the same can be said for the civilian workforce. The Pentagon’s labs and technical expertise are being hollowed out, and I worry we’re being left with an acquisition corps that’s incapable of holding its own in technical conversations with profit-maximizing contractors.

“Would you like the undercarriage coating for your new Abrams?”

As I said in another comment, I think it’s important to debate what these companies are doing, how they’re doing it, and whether the United States’ actions are morally and legally justified.

But I also think we need to get more smart people interested and working in national security. That’s the way you get the best balance between effective security and the minimum negative side effects to civil liberties or collateral damage, by having the smartest people inside these companies coming up with the best tech while also shaping the conversation from the inside.

It’s easier to just dunk on the big bad company (and maybe they are bad!) but I don’t think that solves anything. National security should be something more people participate in, not less.

You’re probably right about the book either way, but I think the comparison has an obvious limitation. At best, Meta’s mission is “social connection.” Held up in an equally charitable light, a defense contractor is “protecting American interests.” The positive case is so much more stark that it’s probably easier to convince yourself of.

But I also think that’s partly because it’s actually true. (I concede I work in defense and am biased.)

There’s certainly a necessary debate to be had about whether these companies are doing the right things, whether they’re going about it the right way, and whether the United States’ actions are moral and legal.

But it’s very hard to argue that national security itself isn’t necessary. Whereas you can much more easily argue that a social-media-based ad company has no reason to exist in the first place.

I agree with the point you’re making about the misaligned incentives of current prime contractors, and share some of your cynicism.

But I fear a shooting war with a peer adversary could get so horrific so quickly that we wouldn’t have time to respond in the way you say.

It would of course be better to deter conflict in the first place. But as we’ve seen in Ukraine deterrence is not just about having the absolute most high-tech weapons on Day 0, but the ability to sustain production of good enough capabilities over the long haul. And that’s the real harm the current system has created.

Realigning our industrial base to sustain a fight would take too long to happen after a conflict starts, and without it we can’t credibly deter one.