Engineers (or people in general): would you work for a defense company

[Rumpltzer]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer
I work for a very large company that makes avionics, aircraft, ships, satellites, various defense systems, etc. I work in a research branch of the company, and we also make very specialized semiconductor components for all of the above.

When people ask my wife what I do, it's hard for her to describe it. She's not technically inclined at all, and no one really knows what we're doing to begin with. She told me that she was telling her friends and family in Taiwan that I make satellites (which I really don't), but she's recently changed it to, "he makes weapons."

I kind of like that. I think it's funny.

I told one of my co-workers about this, and he says that there's a minor correction that needs to be made. He suggests that we don't actually make the things that kill. We make the things that allow others to kill more efficiently.

Clearly, I have no problem with it.


However, I'll claim that I'm more in it for the science. The government has a lot of money for "defense". They give it to us to help evolve their toys. Along the way, we discover all kinds of neat stuff. Eventually, that neat stuff trickles out into the world as the Internet, cellular and satellite communication, GPS systems, and crap like that.

This company doesn't happen to be L-3 Communications does it?

This company builds ships and satellites and aerial drones.

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Does a sniper for the army count?

I guess. You are working for THE defense company.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer


I told one of my co-workers about this, and he says that there's a minor correction that needs to be made. He suggests that we don't actually make the things that kill. We make the things that allow others to kill more efficiently..

Sounds like a BASF commercial

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer
This company builds ships and satellites and aerial drones.

General Dynamics?

 

[nellienelson1]

i do no quams, i like the quote above tho, we do commercial stuff as well (a380) its good fun thats what i look for

 

[Jassi]

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer

I told one of my co-workers about this, and he says that there's a minor correction that needs to be made. He suggests that we don't actually make the things that kill. We make the things that allow others to kill more efficiently.

The problem with that logic is that Engineers (as well as scientists) have made wars easy. It used to be that to kill a person, you had to get a knife or a sword and get your hands bloody. It didnt stop war but it sure as hell made sure that war was dirty and messy for both sides. Now, some soldiers sitting in a command center can launch a bomb from a UAV, kill a lot of people and not even see the bloodshed caused by their actions. We have made that possible and the argument that defense research leads to other innovations has a flaw IMHO.

The reason so many technological advancements have originated from defense research is because of the willingness of governments to spend money on these research projects. If funds were available regardless of whether the projects had defense applications or not, there is no question in my mind that the results would have been the same.

 

[nellienelson1]

Originally posted by: Jassi

Originally posted by: Rumpltzer

I told one of my co-workers about this, and he says that there's a minor correction that needs to be made. He suggests that we don't actually make the things that kill. We make the things that allow others to kill more efficiently.

The problem with that logic is that Engineers (as well as scientists) have made wars easy. It used to be that to kill a person, you had to get a knife or a sword and get your hands bloody. It didnt stop war but it sure as hell made sure that war was dirty and messy for both sides. Now, some soldiers sitting in a command center can launch a bomb from a UAV, kill a lot of people and not even see the bloodshed caused by their actions. We have made that possible and the argument that defense research leads to other innovations has a flaw IMHO.

The reason so many technological advancements have originated from defense research is because of the willingness of governments to spend money on these research projects. If funds were available regardless of whether the projects had defense applications or not, there is no question in my mind that the results would have been the same.

i would be inclined to disagree, there wouldnt be as much drive to improve the product (appart from intel/amd i hear you hollar but they still have some appilcations) so the move wouldnt be as quick, look at the innovation before ww1 then during then after, i'm sure it would be quickest during

 

[Jassi]

Originally posted by: nellienelson1

i would be inclined to disagree, there wouldnt be as much drive to improve the product (appart from intel/amd i hear you hollar but they still have some appilcations) so the move wouldnt be as quick, look at the innovation before ww1 then during then after, i'm sure it would be quickest during

I would credit the surge in innovation to the realization by the governments that technology can aid them in the war effort. I hope that by now we have come to see that technology has many more uses in civilian applications than in military applications. This alone justifies moving away putting so much money in to military applications of technology, we get a better rate of return on civilian applications.

For example, how many airplanes in the USAF have seen combat? Not many when you compare to the size of the fleet. Although it is tough, I would argue that the rest were a waste of money.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Jassi

For example, how many airplanes in the USAF have seen combat? Not many when you compare to the size of the fleet. Although it is tough, I would argue that the rest were a waste of money.

The problem with that logic is that when you really need them, they're not there.

We might not need to use all those jets because we have them. Who wants to attack a country with that many weapons?

It's sort of like a big muscular guy and a wimp. At first thought, you see the wimp getting picked on while the muscular guy never gets picked on. One could naively argue that the muscular guy doesn't need all those muscles since he doesn't get picked on. If anyone needed strength, it would be the wimp. But in reality, having all those muscle is the entire reason the muscular guy doesn't get picked on, while the reason the wimp gets picked on all the time is because he's an easy target.

Get rid of our military since we don't "need" it... then see how quickly the wolves come in. As you can see, our military equipment has 2 functions- to use when you need to use it, and as a deterrent so you don't need to use it.

 

[habib89]

yup.. if they paid me the money, i dont' think i would have a problem making weapons.. first off, i'm not the one deploying them... if i took part in making a bomber, it's not my fault the government wants to use them to bomb another country .. and without my help, they're going to make them anyway.. things like the atom bomb however, i might think about... if i knew i held a crutial role in building the device.. if not, someone else is gonna make the money anyway

 

[shimsham]

yes. feeding my family and providing an education for my children would trump any and all worries about my work maybe being used to kill people.

 

[Pocatello]

Working to control population growth, I'm all for that.

 

[Aztech]

Originally posted by: shimsham
yes. feeding my family and providing an education for my children would trump any and all worries about my work maybe being used to kill people.

Well it's not like they're mutually exclusive. You could get a job somewhere else and still take care of your family.

 

[sharkeeper]

I'm 3000 miles from home, I'm so tired and I'm all alone,
It's a good thing that I'm single, wish I could swing all nite long,
but I got a job with a price on my head so I must get away,
It's one hell of a lifestyle but then it brings in the pay,
Nowhere to hang my gun (No time to say hello)
And every mother's son (He wants to see you swing)
I take the job again (And you will never know)
I dread the moment when (The telephone will ring)
DANGER MONEY
DANGER MONEY
DANGER MONEY
DANGER MONEY
I got a Luger strapped to my thigh, I got a Magnum as well,
I got my cold eyes for comfort, I can be hotter than hell
I'm a professional man, I could see you in seconds flat
I can show you no mercy, well they don't pay me for that.
A fine political mess (and someone's got to go)
Just leave name, time and address (in plain sealed envelope)
I get out just in time (and no-one tells the tale)
And all that's left is mine (but how do you feel?)
DANGER MONEY
DANGER MONEY
I'm a soldier of fortune, I've got the will to survive,
But when the brass tacks are down I'm lucky to be alive,
When I think back on my past, well I'd do the same thing again,
I got a bug now for the danger, just take the money and run.
I start this whole machine (And when the bullets fly)
I'm nowhere to be seen (You're too afraid to die)
It's on the news tonight (They wonder who you are)
I'm on another flight (but you're going nowhere)
DANGER MONEY
DANGER MONEY

 

[BurnItDwn]

If I didn't already have a good stable job, I'd do it. The only concern I'd have is that my job might dissapear if there are any military spending cuts, or if some other company gets the bid on some future projects or something. My only concern I guess, would be job security.

 

[GiLtY]

Originally posted by: yllus
Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. So I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never had a problem with get killed.

Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some guy from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile my buddy from Southie realizes the only reason he was over there was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price.

And of course the oil companies used the skirmish to scare up oil prices so they could turn a quick buck. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And naturally they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic.

So my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what do I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better.

Why not just shoot my buddy, take his job and give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.

That reminds me of the scene in "Good Will Hunting"

--GiLtY

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Jassi
The problem with that logic is that Engineers (as well as scientists) have made wars easy. It used to be that to kill a person, you had to get a knife or a sword and get your hands bloody. It didnt stop war but it sure as hell made sure that war was dirty and messy for both sides. Now, some soldiers sitting in a command center can launch a bomb from a UAV, kill a lot of people and not even see the bloodshed caused by their actions. We have made that possible and the argument that defense research leads to other innovations has a flaw IMHO.

The reason so many technological advancements have originated from defense research is because of the willingness of governments to spend money on these research projects. If funds were available regardless of whether the projects had defense applications or not, there is no question in my mind that the results would have been the same.

Just to play devil's advocate here...would you rather be disemboweled in a sword fight, and hang around in agony for hours to days until infection or blood loss gets you, or be vaporized by a nuke?

Granted, not everyone is killed instantly on the battlefield, but even people with severe injuries get MUCH better medical treatment, prostetics, etc.