
Tech’s Military Dilemma - LinuxBender
https://newrepublic.com/article/148870/techs-military-dilemma-silicon-valley
======
opportune
I like how most comments here ignore that if the US military / intelligence
apparatus simply stopped engaging in morally dubious or bankrupt operations,
most people would have no problem helping them create weapons. Would I create
weapons if I knew they would only be used in defense or other highly ethical
ways? Of course. But you’re kidding yourself if you think the current US
military and its contractors won’t use those weapons to drone innocent people
in Yemen and sell those weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia.

This is a two sided debate but all I see here is people arguing whether tech
workers should or should not care about personal politics. The other side is
whether the US cares enough about having good technology that they’re willing
to act more morally. Perhaps neglecting that possibility shows we don’t even
think there’s a chance of that happening

~~~
jonnybgood
> But you’re kidding yourself if you think the current US military and its
> contractors won’t use those weapons to drone innocent people in Yemen

The US military actually doesn’t want that to happen. It invests huge amount
of resources in developing processes and tech to minimize collateral damage
and civilian deaths. Winning hearts and minds is just as important to the
mission as dropping bombs on ISIS and Al Qeada.

~~~
opportune
Even if the US military itself doesn't, the US has allies who don't seem to
care as much about innocent people being hurt:
[https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/08/yemen-us-made-bombs-
used...](https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/08/yemen-us-made-bombs-used-
unlawful-airstrikes)

That doesn't even touch on the fact that the US involves itself in many
conflicts where the enemy combatants are pretty much "innocent" relative to
the US, and continually approves arms sales to despotic dictators installed
via US-backed regime change. A lot of the unethical actions of the US are
outsourced

------
telltruth
A lot of great tech has came out of military projects like GPS and virtually
all of space technology. Arguably, a lot of these tech would not have been
developed otherwise because either there was no commercial use case or capital
requirements would have been too high. A lot of research is funded by programs
like DARPA. There are several military projects that can actually prevent wars
and save lives (drone surveillance in war zone being one). I think companies
need to take balanced look.

~~~
toomanybeersies
That's not because the military technology was intrinsically good though, but
rather a side effect of the massive budgets that governments will give towards
military R&D.

If the government threw just as much money into civilian research, we'd likely
get just as much good, without finding more efficient ways to kill each other.

For instance, Australia has CSIRO [1], which is sort of like DARPA, but
without the military bent. They've managed to invent all sorts of cool new
stuff.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO)

~~~
ryacko
Intel corporation is still larger than DARPA and DARPA is much more diffuse.
The impact shouldn't be that great.

~~~
jackpirate
A better comparison would be Intel Research and DARPA or Intel and the whole
DOD. By either of those measures the military budget is much bigger.

------
Nasrudith
If the source is looked at as a labor movement it would be a deeply atypical
example of the bloc. Normally labor movements are all about guaranteeing good
conditions and pay but such efforts have historically received chilly
receptions despite obvious grounds for appealing to them like long hours and
poor work-life balance. They appear to generally desire a competitive
workforce and to reap the benefits of success. There are elements of that in
other professions with guilds but those have operated in at times naked self-
interest. It isn't even quite 'organized' labor per say - at least not yet.
Even Free Software fundamentalists haven't signed on charters refusing to work
with proprietary software for instance.

Instead ethics are what finally seem to have pushed tech workers to unify
against their employer's raw immediate financial interests in spite of often
having shares to benefit from them. It doesn't even seem to map consistently
to either 'mainstream' or 'geek' ethics perfectly either although growing
disillusionment with the government appears to be part of it.

I suppose the tech political mainstream also can be considered 'misfit' in
other ways not fitting entirely in the typical left or right bounds.

~~~
knuththetruth
It’s deeply atypical of the US labor movement because the Taft-Hartley act was
specifically designed to curb union power and, correspondingly, class
consciousness and class solidarity. This combined with the vicious (not to
mention deeply anti-Semitic) purge of socialists and communists was intended
to narrowly circumscribe what union membership meant and furthered.[0] It’s
far different in Europe, where labor unions are much more expressly engaged
with the formation of political parties that serve their interests[1]

If tech workers are waking up to their class position as labor, learning the
power inherent in collective action, refusing to help further US imperialism,
that’s something to be celebrated. And if anything, it’s a brilliant
recognition of their position relative to other laborers (highly paid and
benefitted), that they first use their power for the sake of ethics before
pursuing their self-interest.

[0] [https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/taft-hartley-unions-right-
to-...](https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/taft-hartley-unions-right-to-work)

[1] It’s a bit hard to explain in an HN post, but essentially, the way that
labor-oriented political parties are constituted and have their priorities
decided in the US is backwards from those in Europe (top-down vs bottom-up).
Seth Ackerman outlines this in this podcast episode, if you have time to
listen:

[https://www.blubrry.com/thedig/35556305/a-new-party-of-a-
new...](https://www.blubrry.com/thedig/35556305/a-new-party-of-a-new-kind/)

~~~
gt_
Not a chance. Like the comment below mentions, Snowden probable expected there
were others like him. Nope. Not a one. Very few people have that sort of
conviction.

But mainly, technical work is just different in nature. It’s a lot more
competitive and the hierarchy is more fluid. There’s not an obvious floor like
there is with factory workers, where there are a few managers and
administrators for hundreds of workers. And the work is almost never manual.
Technical workers are also constantly concerned with implementation and that
sh were their attention goes. I don’t ever see this actually happening.

~~~
knuththetruth
Actually, lots of people have that conviction. Over a thousand people inside
Google signed on against the company’s collaboration with the military, there
was all kinds of internal outcry and contention at internal forums, they
pushed strongly back against executives bald-faced lies. It already happened:

[https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-
military...](https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military-
tech-workers)

And here’s the thing about labor struggle: the reason why Capital owners try
to quash it before it gets started is because it’s transformative. Once people
see the power they have when they act collectively, what really turns the
wheels at work and in society, they’re changed.

~~~
buth_lika
> Once people see the power they have when they act collectively

Also, once people see things under the facade, such as

> “Letting you ask that question is the voice that you have. Very few
> companies would allow you to do that.”

------
thebooktocome
It's pretty gross how the author alluded to IBM's involvement on the allied
side in WWII but neglects to mention the nature of those contracts: the
management of concentration camps on both sides.

------
alrs
Grounding Pinochet: [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/nae-pasaran-chile-
coup-sc...](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/nae-pasaran-chile-coup-
scotland-solidarity)

~~~
pjc50
That was what I thought of immediately.
[https://www.scottishdocinstitute.com/films/nae-pasaran-
featu...](https://www.scottishdocinstitute.com/films/nae-pasaran-feature/)

------
growlist
'People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand
ready to do violence on their behalf.'

Orwell

~~~
boomboomsubban
Though that wasn't his quote, he says something broadly similar about an
extreme form of pacifism where all fighting is intolerable. It doesn't really
apply here as it's hard to argue that our safety is really threatened if the
US wasn't involved in various wars.

~~~
growlist
If this satisfies you better then: "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only
because others are committing violence on their behalf."

I suppose the problem with taking a position that says 'I'm not going to work
for the military because I disagree with current US foreign policy' is that
if/when an existential threat does arise the US might find itself far behind
its foe, no?

~~~
boomboomsubban
When you quote someone, it's best to do it accurately.

>that if/when an existential threat does arise the US might find itself far
behind its foe, no?

No, or unlikely. Any foreseeable threat is mutually assured destruction, and
someone would need to discover a way to disable all nukes they don't control
simultaneously for the US to be behind their for. Not only does that seem
implausible, actively pursuing the technology would likely cause war.

~~~
growlist
Who's to say your opponent will always be sane, or have something to lose?
It's remarkably blasé to just say meh, MAD. Also there are many threats that
could significantly degrade the US without destroying it, for example anti-
satellite, cyber, to name a couple of obvious examples.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Nothing you've mentioned changes the fact that every truly existential threat
ends up being mutually assured destruction. It's true even with desperate,
insane foes that try a non nuclear attack first.

------
golergka
This article, and some comments, assume that certain political stance is
shared between all the tech workers. Meanwhile, I know quite a lot of people
in tech of many different countries who would be enthusiastic to work for the
military, and would gladly accept lower salaries for the honor.

~~~
swebs
>I know quite a lot of people in tech of many different countries who would be
enthusiastic to work for the military, and would gladly accept lower salaries
for the honor.

Their respective militaries, or the American military?

~~~
golergka
Their respective - which includes american as well.

------
asdfwombatman
If there is a major war, there will be no dilemma. The country with the best
tech will win, the latter will suffer in a way we can not predict.

------
jriot
It is amusing to read people's opinion on the military yet work for Google,
Facebook, Twitter etc... Who put profits above everything else, without
concern for privacy, security or their users. While the US military isn't a
beacon of ethics, it has done far more good for our country than any tech
company.

------
ramoz
This is a subtle argument that tech firms who enable the military are profit
mongers. That is a serious accusation, completely non-empathetic, coming from
someone with experience that merely grants him an overview of the foreign-
affairs landscape, and the military's role in that.

------
pdfernhout
One 1930s essay to read before creating war-focused technology: "War Is A
Racket By Marine Major General Smedley Butler"
[https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html](https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html)
"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the
most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in
scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is
not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group
knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at
the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. ...
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket;
not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the
international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and
speak out. ..."

------
vonnik
People in tech tend to take extreme positions in the debate about supplying
tech to the military. But the extreme positions -- whether they be pacifist
and assume all military engagement is bad, or militarist and stick to "my
country right or wrong" \-- ignore the real issues.

Even the author seems to present a false dichotomy: either tech is benevolent
to society or it is driven entirely by the profit motive. Tech can have
several motives at once, and one of them may include ensuring the national
security of the country that allows large tech companies to operate smoothly
and peacefully in a relatively uncorrupt and democratic society.

Does tech make money off of defense? Of course. That should come as news to no
one. The DoD is the Fortune 1, the largest customer in the world. There's
nothing wrong with selling to them per se. And there's nothing inherently
wrong with being "compliant", even though the author seems to consider that a
fault.[0][1] We should assume that all major tech companies are fully
compliant. The exist in a matrix of laws they must obey.

One of the important questions we should be asking is: Do we want the US
defense establishment to run on good, modern tech or crappy, outdated tech?
Large sections of it still run on VAX and Cobol, and they will for the
foreseeable future.

It's my personal belief that society is engaged in a global asymmetric war
against militant groups, in a technological context where individual actors
have access to more and more powerful weapons of destruction. I would hope
that the organizations in charge of defending civilians would have the best
technology at their disposal to detect and prevent attacks.

It's also clear that Western liberal society in particular is under attack by
hostile state actors intent on destabilizing the EU and the US democratic
system. The field of battle is online, and if you don't have good tech in that
fight, you lose.

I'm not saying the US military is right all the time, or undeserving of
criticism. But I would ask people who think good technology should not be
supplied to the US military: what outcome do you want? Have you considered the
scenario where West liberal democracy loses, and we replace the imperfect
system we have with a much worse, authoritarian system without democratic
feedback loops. Because that's the endgame if we lose, and we lose without
good tech.

[0] "Major companies had complied with—and profited from—government demands
for unwarranted data collection."

[1] "...tech companies will be forced to choose whether they can feasibly
continue to preach the values of liberal-minded innovation and independence
from big government while serving as its well-paid and compliant partners."

------
newnewpdro
Related:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo)

------
austincheney
This subject quite simply comes down to people wanting to express personal
politics in the office and forming collectives or trends around a given
opinion.

(I am not saying anything for or against the politics motive.)

~~~
nsnick
Not expressing an opinion against immoral things is also a political act. You
are saying that profits should come before everything else.

~~~
dang
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological arguments. By
the time the discussion gets this generic, there's nothing left but flamewar.
And it's always the same.

Also, re "you are saying", there's an HN guideline that asks you not to argue
this way: " _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what
someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize._" That's because
arguing this way consistently leads to more boring comments, and it's easy
enough not to do if you remember the rule.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
nsnick
My statement very directly refutes the assertion that they are "bringing
politics into the office", when in fact politics are already there.

Summarizing arguments is necessary when people obfuscate the true argument
they are making. Dog whistles are a great example of this. If you can't all an
argument out for what it is, you can't refute it at all.

~~~
dang
When you 'call out' an argument that no one was actually making, you're
lowering discussion quality by quite a bit. Making it personal ("you are
saying $stupid-offensive-thing") doubles the damage. That's why we have that
guideline, so please follow it.

------
pdfernhout
From an essay I wrote in 2010: [https://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-
is-a-key-to-tra...](https://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-
transcending-militarism.html)

Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism

Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to
force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not
just create industrial robots to do the work instead?

Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to
fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in
nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar
panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building
space habitats for more land?

Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they
are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-
fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech
to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and
agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?

These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not
so deadly serious. ...

Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA,
as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in
many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than
any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the
implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform
the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible
just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs
through shared computing. ...

There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century
security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of
abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity,
competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an
amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based
approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure.
Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a
mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military
robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as
Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to
build a world that is abundant and secure for all.

So, while in the past, we had "nothing to fear but fear itself", the thing to
fear these days is ironically ... irony. :-) ...

The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding
infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that
these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with
fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the
military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity.
That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the
mainstream.

We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way.
Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm
safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long
supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both
lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms
like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's
safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized
local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or
bombs and would still would keep working"). [See for example the book "Brittle
Power"] ...

Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security.
The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone.
...

------
crunchlibrarian
It's not a "dilemma", you either support violence or you oppose it.

All this hemming and hawing because people want to be polite and keep their
jobs is silly, just be honest with yourself about your worldview.

------
basicplus2
Everyone has their price..

~~~
56chan4
And its not restricted to tech, everything can be used for good or bad so
invariably everything could have a military application in the right
situation. Perhaps a better argument would be, should innovation and
creativity be banned to avoid its use in Military applications? Still one
thing I learned from a psychology study, is we have longer lasting memories if
they were fearful, perhaps its a survival trait of the brain, which probably
means we should all smoke pot, get paranoid and then go to school as what we
learn will stay fresh in the memory for longer.

~~~
stult
If history is a guide, the research will go on and these protest movements
will have only a superficial effect. Just compare Draper Laboratories to
Lincoln Labs. Both were MIT-owned partnerships focused on military research.
MIT divested of Draper and it was spun off on its own during Vietnam, while
they still hold their stake in Lincoln today. Why the difference? Because
Draper is in downtown Cambridge, where students could easily protest, and
Lincoln is way off in the Boston suburbs. In any case, both labs continue to
carry out military research and maintain very close relationships with MIT and
its graduates. As long as the military continues to pay well, researchers and
tech specialists will continue to work for them.

