[killjoywashere]

A non-trivial bit of the problem is the highly fashionable attitude of refusing to do work that helps the Department of Defense. The fact that skilled labor is a limited resource for both nations, which means refusing to help is at least similar to aiding foreign powers, which are statistically dictatorships of one kind or another, seems to not factor into the set of moral ethoses that such folks espouse.

Remember, it's not just China. It's North Korea, Russia, Iran, Isreal; any country facing significant military threats is interested in US weapons technology.

You live in a constitutional democracy on a planet where the mean, median, and mode country is a dictatorship? And don't want to defend that government? Really?

[mikeash]

“And don't want to defend that government?“

Well, here’s the problem. How much of what the DoD does is actually defending our government, versus going off and killing far-away people who pose no threat to us for various murky reasons?

Do I want to contribute to keeping foreign armies off our soil? Sure! Do I want to contribute to drones blowing up weddings? Not really.

Maybe if our government would stop abusing our military so horribly, it would find more American experts willing to support that military.

[killjoywashere]

The issue is that what you end up defending is the right of more malicious actors to acquire technology from the US below cost through low-cost, high-yield hacking.

[mikeash]

Do I? Or do I just not help to murder civilians on the other side of the planet? How can you be so sure that I’d only be helping the good side of the DoD?

[treebeard901]

From my point of view, both of you are right and wrong. Being a conscientious objector to war is not the same thing as aiding an enemy. However, Defending against hacking is different from providing for offensive weapons. In other words, defending government institutions takes precedence over the policies of government institutions. The policies are decided at the ballot box.

[killjoywashere]

Let's assume there is no good side of the DoD. Let's assume that the military is 100% teeth-gnashing devil dogs with nuclear weapons. Which is what they aspire to, I assure you.

Two things, 1) whether they have a $700 budget or $700B budget, the DoD executes the orders of elected civilians.

2) Don't you still want to make it as expensive as humanly possible for other countries to get the plans to those weapons? Even if you live in Paraguay, rouge states with nuclear weapons increase the cost of international economic collaboration and thus decrease your quality of life. Securing the US Government's weapons information is in your best interest.

[mikeash]

You didn’t answer my questions at all.

[killjoywashere]

I did answer your questions. Perhaps I didn't convince you to reject your previously held views, but I did answer your questions.

> How can you be so sure that I’d only be helping the good side of the DoD?

I answered this by asserting your premise, the DoD has a good side, is unnecessary. I further allowed for the possibility you're not even American.

> Do I [end up defending the right of more malicious actors to acquire technology from the US below cost through low-cost, high-yield hacking]?

I answered this by posing the leading counter-question, "Don't you still want to make it as expensive as humanly possible for other countries to get the plans to those weapons?" And that appear to be the fairly strong position it is, considering I rejected your requirement of there being anything good about the DoD, and further rejected any implication that you're even American.

[madengr]

Most drone strikes blow people who’d gladly saw your head off.

[mikeash]

Even if true, they can’t.

[rhegart]

I would do it as well. These days only one opinion is safely allowed to be stated. If you work in the Bay and you disagree with Google’s protest against working for DoD, you’ll be socially outcast. People who are apathetic just go with the flow and burgeon the numbers of in my opinion a minority.

It’s difficukt to have an actual discussion, it gets dumbed down to the most basic dumbest arguments. You support war you are bad. This anti intellectualism is spread everywhere and in my opinion caused a very promising metoo movement to falter. They refused to differentiate between 2 evils. Al Franken is not Harvey Weinstein. Louis CK is not Roy Moore. USA is not China. Arguing with the majority in the Bay about this simple fact is like arguing with toddlers.

[lawrenceyan]

Your opinion is extremely arrogant, perhaps even more so than it is misinformed. The reasons for why you see a dearth of technical skilled labor entering the government workforce is a complex issue and is nowhere that black and white.

Since you mention military weaponry specifically though, the primary problem is in many academics/researchers being adverse to contributing to military projects. But can you really blame them? For many, they have spent the better part of their lives in cultivating their respective fields, and you expect them to be perfectly happy spending that on making it easier to kill people? People want to meaningfully contribute to making the world a better place, and I guarantee you'll find it very difficult to convince that computer scientist building a drone with better targeting capabilities for it's missiles to better kill people will result in fulfilling such a goal, no matter how you try to phrase it.

[killjoywashere]

Ah, no, strong cybersecurity for the US Government would make the cost of killing people higher.

[lawrenceyan]

Please refer to a comment I've previously made on this topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18557389

[icanhazcoins]

Additionally, I find it intellectually lazy to believe that assisting the military is morally wrong. What I think people (and in particular Americans) fail to consider is that if you really do feel that the political system is so corrupted that the will of the people has been subverted, what that actually morally requires you to do is to overthrow it. You cannot say "Oh well I didn't vote for the guy who started the war so I guess I'm ok". You are responsible for everything that happens and is happening, and if you really believe that the system is so badly broken that we are involved in illegitimate wars then you need to take responsibility for that and stop it. Stop paying your taxes, organize your community against it. Be willing to sacrifice to make it happen. By not doing this, you are disregarding the sacrifice that so many people make in support of the system (members of the military, administrators, etc).

It's reprehensible to disregard the sacrifices of others so callously yet be willing to sacrifice nothing yourself.

[mindslight]

> I find it intellectually lazy to believe that assisting the military is morally wrong

Even if you view the military as an amoral tool, then it's still immoral to contribute to its strength while it is under immoral control.

> You are responsible for everything that happens and is happening, and if you really believe that the system is so badly broken that we are involved in illegitimate wars then you need to take responsibility for that and stop it. Stop paying your taxes, organize your community against it. Be willing to sacrifice to make it happen

So I'm on board with this ethos, but then the question becomes to do what ?

If you act in a direct violent manner (which includes not rendering unto Caesar), the system attacks and contains you.

If you act in an economic manner (earning less to pay less taxes), you're heading away from the attractor of competition. The end result is living like the Amish, which while individually sustainable, has clearly not caught on.

If you make small actions under the idea they accumulate, then you get stuck in simulations (eg ethical consumption, voting).

If you narrow your focus to one topic, then you end up just fighting your fellow plebs with different priorities (eg SJWs).

I have long thought about this and still have come up with little. Cryptocurrency seemed promising, but then Bitcoin came along and vaccinated the state. With no straightforward answer it sort of feels like you're throwing out a straw man. While I'm all for kicking people to not compromise so readily, everybody compromises constantly. It is nonsensical to pick on someone who has partially compromised as being inconsistent for not having fully compromised. I would rather have them hold on to their ideology and still be looking for new doors.

[killjoywashere]

> then the question becomes to do what?

If you write code and know anything about security, one of the biggest impacts you could make would be in securing US government systems. Even if you are German or Brazilian, securing US Government systems would make the world safer than securing your own government.

[mindslight]

You must have severely misread my comment. Securing USG's systems is certainly not going to prevent the US military [industrial complex] from attacking arbitrary countries for fun and profit.

[thenanyu]

I would happily do this work if it was accessible and lucrative. I think plenty of SV nerds would. I don't doubt that there is a significant contingent that are politically opposed like you describe, but I don't think the compensation can match what is being offered these days for talent.

[RhodesianHunter]

Exactly what I was going to say.

I have no moral issues with (most) code related DOD work, but it just doesn't pay comparably.

[ryanmarsh]

It is accessible and quite lucrative. My biggest customer was the US Navy. We did great things.

[reaperducer]

OTOH, the military has the ability to manufacture whatever labor it needs.

Out of potato peelers? You, you, and you grab some spuds.

Out of computer engineers? You, you, and you head to training.

[killjoywashere]

ah, remarkably less so than you might think.

[nitwit005]

The general issues of compensation and the beurocratic aspects of the work seem to be much larger issues than any lack of patriotism.

I'd note that the civilian side of the government has similar struggles.

[threatofrain]

An even more non-trivial part of that is the difference in pay