[dougabug]

But you presumably rely on your own nation’s military to help protect and safeguard your rights, freedoms, even your life. Without drone and anti-tank / aircraft missiles, Ukraine would already be lost, and Putin would be on to his next conquest. If we agree to allow our own soldiers to risk their lives to defend us, then we are morally obligated to provide them with the best protection we can provide for them. That’s a choice: we could choose to not support our soldiers, but then we should forego the right to be protected by them.

[maybeOneDay]

Sure. I do not argue that we should abolish the military and all defence industry. I _do_ argue that the military industrial complex is by and large profit driven and motivated by greed not the desire to protect its citizens. I do believe that anyone working for, for example, BAE systems is on average making the world a (much) worse place. I don't believe the individuals involved are necessarily morally bankrupt themselves.

[dougabug]

You agree that there should be a military and a defense industry, but anyone working on weapons R&D is a malevolent actor (ie “making the world a much worse place)? This seems illogical.

The effectiveness of a military is tightly bound to its long term R&D armaments. Without highly effective arms, and proper training and tactics, casualties suffered by our armed forces in combat would be far higher (as the Russians are discovering).

If you accept that the military exists at least in part to protect you, then investment in arms development follows as an obligation to those sent into harms way on your behalf.

[maybeOneDay]

I agree there should be a military and a defense industry which is _different_ from our current system. I believe anyone working for the _current_ system is likely to be causing harm greater than the good they also cause.

Malevolent implies intent. I'm sure that there are non evil people who are working for BAE. I'm also sure that the vast majority of them have facilitated far more innocent death than worthy defense of life.

> casualties suffered by our armed forces in combat would be far higher

I have not supported any of the military action my nation has taken in my lifetime and any casualties are primarily a result of the greed (for power, votes, or wealth) of those in power. The lack of equipment has acutely caused casualties, but the existence of the military industrial complex has caused the wars in which they take place.

I'm not saying I have the great solution to end all war and create world peace. But I can't see a reason other than naivety, apathy, or propaganda that someone could work for BAE and think they are doing good in the world.

[dougabug]

Your position seems logically and morally indefensible. You accept that you individually and your society as a whole need both a (presumably effective) military and a defense industry. The latter must necessarily engage in significant defense research in order for the former to perform its role.

You say that you want the system to better than the current system. Well, who doesn’t want that? Germany would like to stop buying Russian gas, when it works for them. You draw benefit today from the imperfect system we have today. You could choose to abandon any claim to protection from the existing armed forces of your nation, or you can admit that you are a direct beneficiary of that system, and that it exists to protect you and others like you.

The people protecting you from a Russian invasion don’t deserve Javelin missiles to stop the advance of Russian tanks, or explosive reactive armor to keep them from being blown to bits by enemy shaped charges? Troops being sent now to garrison Poland and other NATO countries against a Russian assault are there on behalf of citizens of all NATO countries.