[rapjr9]

I left the electronic warfare industry even though I'd helped build a program from nothing to a product bringing in $100M (probably billions since I left) because I didn't want to be in the war industry any longer where the entire legacy of my lifes work could be measured in destruction. Worked as a software engineer in industry for a while, gradually moving up in salary, then went into contracting. Contracting seemed too uncertain in the rural area I lived in, so though it was bringing in a lot of money I took a job as a software engineer in a college CS department, supporting various research projects. The college job was dead end, there were almost no other people doing anything similar to me, and there was no path to advance (unless I wanted to get a PhD, no thanks, didn't want to be a slave for 4+ years at even lower pay), but the work was very interesting. So I stayed with it for 20 years. Maybe I worked on some things that will change the world, maybe it was all futile. I wasn't happy about the pay, but some of the benefits were great, I have some minor hopes of getting some future income from patents, some of the profs were not great to work with, but some were and the work in general held my interest. I learned a lot, though it was difficult, every single project was very different from the last project and often required learning new skills. I built a Beowulf cluster, electronically herded cows, did a lot of work in wireless sensor systems, help design and build a smart watch for medical applications, and much more.

[PeterisP]

Ironically, I'm thinking about perhaps moving to the electronic warfare industry, as with the continuing war nearby and the major impact that EW and drones have on the lives and deaths of infantry defending me and my family, I feel some sense duty that this could the most valuable practical contribution I can make, bringing more impact than going to the trenches myself (which is also an option, me being in the reserves).

[rapjr9]

At the time I joined, 35 years ago, they were very willing to teach new people. Schools don't teach electronic warfare so they were used to doing training and people taking a year or more to get up to speed. A background in physics helped a lot, as well as knowing electronics. There are a variety of kinds of jobs in the industry though, from marketing to R&D to computer simulations to management to handling secret documents, and more. Having a tolerance for strong language helps also, I worked at times with some Marines doing microwave systems. EW systems are some of the most closely held secrets so expect a very thorough background check.

[philco]

rapjr9 - I commend you for using your talents to help the world instead of hurting it. From one human to another, thank you.

[senordevnyc]

I commend them for following their conscience, but I would also commend someone for going to work for the defense industry because they thought it was the best way to protect people. I don't think there are any easy moral answers when it comes to defense.

[joshcsimmons]

Why? He was building tools. Tools can be used to defend or to attack.

[rapjr9]

The tools I built were used to defend aircraft. So they were protective. But the aircraft have missions, which are often destructive, but not always. The company I worked for got bought by Lockheed Martin, which very definitely makes weapons of destruction. So that was a factor in my leaving.

[squarepizza]

'In accepting an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame a few years ago, General David Sarnoff made this statement: "We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value."

That is the voice of the current somnambulism.

Suppose we were to say, "Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value." Or, "The smallpox virus is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value." Again, "Firearms are in themselves neither good nor bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value." That is, if the slugs reach the right people firearms are good. If the TV tube fires the right ammunition at the right people it is good.

I am not being perverse. There is simply nothing in the Sarnoff statement that will bear scrutiny, for it ignores the nature of the medium.'

[senordevnyc]

Since you didn't provide the author, it's Marshall McLuhan, from Understanding Media. Here's a link: http://topologicalmedialab.net/xinwei/classes/readings/McLuh...

For the record, I disagree with McLuhan, but perhaps I don't fully understand his argument.

[squarepizza]

If you disagree with the statement, "guns don't kill people, people do," then you agree with McLuhan's maxim of the medium being the message and that there is no such thing as an unbiased tool.

You can use a hammer to screw and a screw to hammer, but the biases for their respective uses are embedded in their affordances. McLuhan argues that the same can be said for any tool, whether it's a binky or a bomb.

[b112]

The next day, raging hordes of enemy troops breach the walls, we are all killed, the end.

(There is always another point of view.)

[euroderf]

I was mostly OK working in defense. Good money. Until Reagan took office. His nonsense spooked me. The politics of the day drove me away. No more gravy train. Trading peace of mind for money and job security.