| > In earlier days, employees generally would see this as just doing their jobs in developing technology that their employers wanted developed and would not concern themselves about ultimate uses and applications. This is a false history. In the 1960s the U.S. was full of young people questioning whether they should just do as they were told and be a good, dutiful employee. Since then there has been a massive campaign to roll back what was called “Vietnam syndrome” — the idea that you should consider the morality of your actions and contributions to society, not mere legality. Hence all the passionate Hollywood WWII dramatizations, the Greatest Generation, etc., portraying war as a tough but noble effort in which we must all unquestioningly sacrifice for the greater good — de-emphasizing much of the horrendous atrocities that have been perpetrated by the U.S. military in Vietnam, Iraq, support for murderous dictatorships in Central America, Indonesia, and so on. Noam Chomsky has written extensively on this. One essay in particular is called The Backroom Boys — a reference to the chemical engineers at Dow who developed napalm within the relative peace and equanimity of a laboratory. > Whatever this is, and however it might be defensible in "sending a message" or whatever, it is a sure way to put a company at a competitive disadvantage while accomplishing nothing practically… If it does become that way, a new form of puritanism will hold full sway to the detriment of all. Whatever your opinion of the anti-war activists of the 1960s, puritans they were not. |
Is that what is typically meant by "Vietnam syndrome"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Syndrome
Also, isn't it a stretch to say Hollywood movies about WWII propagandize the idea one should only consider the legality of one's actions rather than the morality? If anything I would think most films attempt (in a sappy and trite way) to defend the rightness of the Allied cause.