🚀 go-pugleaf

Tim Klein asks:

>....  How do those who work with military computers justify to themselves 
> the knowledge that they are creating weapons?

So, maybe I *won't* title this "Confessions of a former Weapons
Manufacturer Employee"... :-)

But frankly, it's hard to tell what your question *really* is. I assume
you are saying, "It must be distasteful to work on weapon systems, since
the systems involve death and destruction. Why do you do it anyway?
Do you know and care about the implications of what you're doing?"

Personally, I think it *is* distasteful to work on such systems, but
my distaste has more to do with the bureaucracy of my former employer
and the Alice-in-Wonderland world of defense procurement: where they
seem to do everything in their power to prevent you from doing things
right.

> When I graduated from college, I did not consider career opportunities in
> military organizations because I didn't want to be in a business whose
> objectives involved killing people.

I think that most happy, successful workers at defense contractors are
people with military experience or at least a higher level of respect for
the military than you show. People whose leanings are primarily
pacifistic aren't going to be happy with such work. I expect that for
most people the justification, as it were, for working on weapon
systems is similar to justifications people have for working in
the military or law enforcement. Not all people "approve" of such
work, and some people even assert that it's all unnecesary. Not
everyone believes that. It's a free country, as they say.

I used to work for FMC, Naval Systems Division, Minneapolis. Just
before the USS Vincennes shot down that Airbus, they were engaging
Iranian gunboats with their 5" Mk45 guns built by FMC/NSD. The SM2
missiles that took out the Airbus were fired using a Mk26 launcher,
also built by FMC/NSD.

Every Thursday morning, a small group of protesters would assemble
outside our building, carrying signs objecting to the work we did there.
As I told a friend there, "It doesn't hurt to have someone reminding us
that we aren't just building toasters." I know that almost every
time I saw them I thought about what I was doing and its real meaning.

The actual work on weapon systems can be fascinating and demanding -- you
can't ask for better technical challenges. The balancing of cost versus
capabilitiy, and even life versus death makes it stimulating, at least
when there's funded work to do.

The only problem is that you don't really know if you did things right
until the equipment gets tested in actual use: live combat, destroying
property, killing people. But I don't think anyone in the defense
community "wants" war, despite contrary opinions by outsiders. War
means friends threatened at least, possibly maimed, maybe killed.
And all that nice equipment gets ripped up, too, stuff that people
spent years designing and building. The satisfaction of a "successful
test" isn't enough for anyone to want war.

Personally, I feel more like, "Thank god the Patriot system got built
and works even better than planned," rather than "It sure is nice to
test the system against live missiles." When those SM2 missiles took out
that Airbus, there was some bitter satisfaction that the Mk26 launchers
worked, but nobody craved so costly a test. I'll be interested to see
how FMC's Bradley fighting vehicles do, since the press has had so much
fun lambasting them over the past several years. But I'm mostly praying
that the conflict folds up before that bloody encounter takes place.

Rick.