| What's unethical is to have your countrymen in a fight with substandard equipment that you could have helped them improve. War is an ever-present possibility - do you want your neighbor's kids (or yours, if they join the service) dying or being maimed because you didn't help with what you know? 1000 years ago, if you were a blacksmith and the Vikings were coming, would you make swords or ornamental railings? People who think "it's unethical to make weapons" always assume that someone else is making the weapons, which makes them feel good about themselves (not sure why) - they're willing to sacrifice themselves and their neighbor's children for their ethics. I'm not. I make weapons, and I think the 'ethical' stance on defense is really just virtue-signalling. /Edited. ;) |
if the fight's imminent or already on, sure. but most of the time weapons are made long before there is the anticipation of a fight.
if nation A has a weapon that lets them fight without risking their soldiers as much as nation B, nation A will always be more willing to enter armed conflict, especially against the less-endowed nation B. so the act of making a better weapon lowers the threshold for using force.
that's one big reason why drones are exceptionally effective weapon systems. surveillance and airstrikes in enemy territory are prone to being shot down and the pilots killed or taken prisoner to be used as a bargaining chip for peace, but drones aren't. the political toll of a drone being shot down is practically zero in comparison, so drone wars can continue indefinitely without domestic outcry.