Tell that to the Bosniacs, Iraqis who lost everything due to ISIS and were pushed back with coalition air cover help, Kuwait's existence today... etc (and this is coming from an Iraqi)
The HackerNews "Defense Company Bad" trope doesn't hold up to reality as much as HN likes to believe. Life's not as black and white as you might think
https://www.wired.com/story/terror-industrial-complex-isis-m...
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/how-isis-islamic-state-isil-got-i...
For those who dont want to read more into the articles, this is a good summary "Decades of free-flowing arms into Iraq meant that when IS took control of these areas, they were like children in a sweetshop."
And it's especially beside the point because ISIS only ever had small arms, some light weapons, and captured vehicles. None of the complicated weapon systems that the these defense companies produce as their bread and butter. There are plenty of things to criticize them on, but acting like they profited off captured ISIS humvees and M4s is absurd.
And so he said that thing, which sticks with me still.
I saw a headline saying that we should treat Google as a "public good."
You could at least think of all corporations as public goods. And so there's an argument to be made that society and its individuals have the right and responsibility to ensure their health and fitness for purpose.
Someone has to work at the waste treatment plant.
edit: elaborating on the point
They have a significant part in lobbying for war, for weapons export, for more spending on military spending and so on.
Defense companies also strongly coordinate with Israel and the Israel lobby to make sure continuous money flows to Israel and Israel can be a first class buyer of US weapons.
They have strong ties to government and make absurd amount of money on many of these projects despite routinely going over budget by absolutely insane amounts.
Yes, companies that build weapons to some extend need to exist but the defense contractors are not ethical in the least and I would not work for them. Maybe in the civilian part of the company, possibly but even that would require a lot of thinking.
Agree to most of the point, but note that AQI predates the 2003 Iraqi war (founded in late 90s)
> They have a significant part in lobbying for war, for weapons export, for more spending on military spending and so on.
Also agreed, for good or bad (I would say mainly good)
> Defense companies also strongly coordinate with Israel and the Israel lobby to make sure continuous money flows to Israel and Israel can be a first class buyer of US weapons.
That goes both ways, Israel is one of our main partners in defense (and related) research, they are also the US's main ally in the Middle East, Allies trade is nothing new?
> They have strong ties to government and make absurd amount of money on many of these projects despite routinely going over budget by absolutely insane amounts.
Yep, there is a certain culture in those companies that tends to... encourage that behavior. And the lobbying makes that space harder to get into
> Yes, companies that build weapons to some extend need to exist but the defense contractors are not ethical in the least and I would not work for them. Maybe in the civilian part of the company, possibly but even that would require a lot of thinking.
If you want to extend the ethical thinking train, the only companies you can work for are the ones that operate on a mom-and-pop shop scale and there is nothing wrong with that. Applying that critical lens to only defense contractors (not that you are doing right now) is a bit disingenuous
That might be true but there is difference you could drive a container ship threw between the AOI of the 90s and the power they gained in the Civil War and eventually when they grew even further in Syria. The major reason they (and Al-Nusra and friends) were able to grow in Syria is because the US (pushed by the Usual Suspects) with additional money from the Usual Suspects Country Edition flowed billions in weapons to the 'kind, humanist, democracy loving rebels'.
Thankfully ISIS turned back to Iraq and forced the US to switch sides.
> Also agreed, for good or bad (I would say mainly good)
If you think massive weapons export is mainly good then we have to disagree on principle.
I'm sure the genocide enacted on Yemen by US weapons, supported by US engineers and pilots is doing a lot of good. We should sell them more weapons as soon as possible.
Trump literally had the Saudi prince hold up pictures of US weapon system he would buy like he was TV commercial. It was the most embracing and sad statement about US policy that I have seen in one image. No clear message then we don't care about illegal war and mass civilian murder and starvation as long as you buy the new Over-9000 super people shreder.
> That goes both ways, Israel is one of our main partners in defense (and related) research, they are also the US's main ally in the Middle East, Allies trade is nothing new?
I would argue the alliance with Israel is a hindrance to the US goals. When US wanted to get involved military in 1991 Israel did nothing, because if they had been involved everybody else wouldn't have wanted to be.
Israel also stole nuclear secretes and is a rough nuclear power that hasn't signed the NPT. Its incredibly funny how the US has spend 30 years claiming the Iran wants to be a rough nuclear power when their ally in the region is one.
Israel repeatably get the US into trouble and does damn near everything imaginable to insure that the US contains the countries it didn't like. Israel has major ongoing efforts for 25 at least to attempted to push the US into a war with Iran. According to Israel Iran has been '1 year away from nuclear weapons' for almost 25 years now. They produce manufactured evidence to attempt to lie the US into war.
We can of course go further and point out that Israel massacre against civilians in Lebanon was the direct trigger for the 9/11 bombers to join AQ.
We could go on, but sorry I don't buy the 'its a two sided partnership where both parties profit equally' thing.
And even among allies, the relationship between the two counties is way beyond a normal ally. Israel has managed a level of integration that is beyond pretty much any other ally. I don't remember all the details but its far from normal.
> Yep, there is a certain culture in those companies that tends to... encourage that behavior.
Its not a culture in my opinion its explicit operation and continued consolidation has made that pretty much all contract go to the same few companies no matter how bad they are.
In a recent interesting episode at NASA (that I follow more closely then the military) a long term military guy took over Head of Human space flight. In the first major bid, he realized that Boeing bid was utter trash and went against NASA protocol to call Boeing to tell them that they were losing and should adjust their bid. This was found out and he quickly resigned and but people got the story. Sadly he is not in prison.
The excuse seem to have basically been 'well if we don't give the money to Boeing their lobbying will prevent the program from happening'.
If this happens at NASA and was for once uncovered, I don't even want to know what the last 50 years of military contract hide in sins.
Eisenhower speech about the Military-Industrial complex has been used and abused every possible way by people but the core of what he said and the context of why he said it was actually spot on. He wanted to call it the Congress-Military-Industrial complex but that was removed from the speech.
> Applying that critical lens to only defense contractors (not that you are doing right now) is a bit disingenuous
I'm not sure where you get that point. Its certainty not only defense contracts. But I would say the potential for harm is bigger then most.