Army delays $22B augmented reality goggle program
federalnewsnetwork.com
federalnewsnetwork.com
I understand why every billionaire is betting on this in some way.
I would however put these goggles firmly in the camp of weapons like the tank that fires hundreds of missiles that fly off independently and destroy a hundred passing tanks. There is such a distance from "kinda works in demo" to "killing active enemy" that it is barely worth thinking about for five years or more.
I would have to put other projects up top like
- when all the civilian engine development turns to batteries and electric, how the hell do we keep our planes trains and automobiles running. Just how expensive will getting the gas get?
- Do ship defences really work? I would want to be pretty sure we test fire every kind of drone and missile at real ships and see if they shoot them down.
- In defiance of everything i wrote above, Apparently there is a cool targeting sight that puts a red dot on where the bullet will land based on distance, weather etc etc. It "apparently" makes every squaddie a sniper and is going to roll out to US army real soon. My question is once soldiers get out of a vehicle, how lethal is the battlefield now? What's the survival time measured in minutes under sniper and artillery fire? The last time the battlefield was insanely lethal people just dig trenches to even survive the day.
Trench warfare proliferated when a revolution in firepower was unmatched by similar advances in mobility.
Most likely, ongoing advances in stealth, armor, area denial, anti-drone tech, etc. will preclude its reappearance on the battlefield.
Bad enough that Germany literally tried to get them banned, and considered them a violation of the Hague conventions...
Video games make a joke of shotguns, but they're disgustingly effective in real life.
---
"On September 15, 1918, the German government officially protested the use of the shotgun in a note verbale—an unsigned diplomatic note—transmitted to the Spanish Embassy in Berlin, then to the Swiss Embassy, and eventually to the American legation in Berne, Switzerland. The note asserted that the use of shotguns by U.S. forces violated Article 23(e) of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions and warned that any American captured with a shotgun or shotgun ammunition would be executed."
What is advancing is area denial, anti-drone tech, and active protection systems.
This occurred during a time when trenches actually protected those soldiers. Modern artillery with GPS-guided rounds can not only target a specific building (so far away that you need to account for the rotation of the earth as it spins underneath the round) but you can pick the window of the building you want the round to go through.
For a fraction of the cost there's also the ol' hand-grenade-duct-taped-to-a-quadcopter.
Hiding in a trench isn't really going to save anyone.
The target trench area/s would need something like a small Phalanx CIWS to play defense.
Air-burst rounds beat trenches.
Armor piercing rounds beat tanks (and bunkers).
So the solution: have tanks next to your trenches. If your opponent loads air-burst rounds into their weapon, charge at them with your tank.
If your opponent loads armor-piercing rounds into their weapon, run into the trench. Armor-piercing (neither HEAT nor Sabot) can do much vs a trench. (I'm ignoring the AC-130, just assuming land-based combat for now cause AC-130 is beaten by a totally different strategy: air superiority)
---------
"Combined arms". Your opponent has to load his weapon with the right bullet for the right circumstance. Mix up your strategies (both defensive and offensive strategies).
* HEAT-armor piercing loses to reactive armor on a tank.
* Reactive-armor loses to sabot-rounds.
* Sabot rounds lose to long-distance battle (air-resistance slows down the round). HEAT is better at long-distance (HEAT always was kinda slow: most of the "power" comes from the explosion that occurs after-the-collision... which is beaten by reactive armor).
You can't guard against everything. Instead, you rely upon mixing up the strategies enough so that enemies are kept "guessing" as to which weapon to load / unload.
What the US Military does, is combine a force of an M1 Abrams + M2 Bradley IFV, maybe with a M109A6 Paladin self-propelled armored Howitzer and a cell-phone that can call an AC-130 if things get really bad.
Each machine is designed for a different situation. For the trench, the M2 Bradley IFV has the ability for anti-trench air burst rounds... and the M109A6 Paladin classic "artillery" can lob explosives at a very high angle and probably hit any trench from miles away.
------------
M2 Bradley IFV can take a trench: it has grenades, air-burst weapons, machine gun, missiles and more. M2 Bradley IFV has thinner armor however. So the M2 Bradley fighting by itself is still not the best option: if the opponent has a 100mm anti-armor gun in their trench, they may kill the M2.
M1 Abrams can't take the trench, but it can lend its armor to the M2 by driving in front of it: blocking those anti-armor shots and making things safer for the M2. The air-burst attack can likely be done from behind an M1's cover.
------------
If you know the enemy will only send M2 Bradleys, you simply set up bunkers (covered above-grade concrete structures) with anti-armor cannons. Bradleys only have a 30mm gun, so you can build concrete + steel walls that can stop that attack.
If you know the enemy will only send M1 Abrams, you simply set up trenches (below-grade dug structures). Tanks are direct-fire, and the ground is a surprisingly good shield. The M1 can probably penetrate any reasonably built bunker with ease: thanks to heavy 100mm+ sabot rounds (I forget how big tank guns are but... much bigger than M2 guns)
If you build a trench + bunker, now the opponent has to send the M1 Abrams (for the bunker) + the M2 Bradley (for the trench). Now you have an opportunity for the bunker to shoot the Bradley with a 100mm weapon, killing it. And for the trench to similarly attack the tank, largely with impunity (if the supporting M2 is dealt with).
Or maybe the US Army decides to call in the AC-130 and just pew-pew-pew you from the sky at that point.
Ah, the joy of the Military Industrial Complex's feature treadmill.
HEAT rounds and Sabot rounds just aren't useful against civilians or soft targets. They're a weapon for dislodging highly armored enemies: like bunkers, tanks and the like.
------
The weapons that are useful against soft targets are pistols, machine guns, rifles, and the like. And they're already being used in crimes and other such situations.
There's no point shooting 120mm tank sabot rounds at people, because a 9mm pistol will effectively kill at much cheaper prices. There's pretty much nothing to fear from the more sophisticated weapons. A singular 120mm tank round weighs nearly 40 lbs.
In contrast, you can carry something like 1000+ rounds of 9mm ammunition in the same 40lbs weight. The weapons used on the battlefield (ex: missiles, HEAT rounds, rockets, etc. etc.) simply aren't useful in soft / civilian settings.
1. Very slow rate of fire -- It takes time to load the weapon.
2. Low number of shells -- an M1 Abrams only can carry 40ish shots.
3. Extreme heavy weight / armor is redundant -- 70-tons means really big engines, really big engines uses a lot of fuel.
-------------
I'd say the "heavy vehicle" that is actually designed for infantry are the M2 Bradley IFV. Less than 30 tons, a smaller 25mm chain gun with 900-rounds, armor still too thick for small-arms fire (but not redundantly / absurdly thick like the M1 Abrams).
The 25mm cannon is still capable of firing those "anti-trench burst rounds" that started this thread, and a faster rate of fire would be more useful than a bigger, slower 120mm boom.
Things like the M1 Abrams exist to kill things like the M2 Bradley. Sure, the M1 Abrams has some tricks (mainly the 50-cal secondary gun) to deal with infantry, but a lot of its features are straight up redundant if there's no enemy armor around.
-------------
A lot of military weapons, maybe most of them, exist to beat the strategies that beat lower level tactics. Ex: F22 is designed to kill airplanes, but cannot serve as a close-air support fighter very well.
A civilian might have to worry about a Predator Drone (seemingly the main weapon we use to kill targets from the sky). But civilians don't have to worry about F22.
Trenches (at least on the less mobile German side) were underground bunkers, concrete and steel reinforced that could survive literally hundreds of tons of high explosives. The shit fired here would be laughed at by WWI defences. Honestly the dummies in the trenches were getting hit yes, but they were still standing. 1916 those dummies would be five hundred feet in the air along with a ton of earth. And the machine gunners would be underground safe (if not actually sound).
Yes, the air burst attack there would kill anyone standing in an open trench.
But a minute after opening up (and remember this is going to be divisional level artillery you are airbursting here - hundreds of tanks across miles of front, someone will notice) once the attack starts everyone is under the ground in bunkers.
The minute you stop they come back out and start firing back.
(And they will have mined the ground, have anti-tank weapons etc.)
Honestly the more I think about how lethal a battlefield is nowadays the more I think any "front" less than 500 miles wide is just going to bog down
Its like people don't know we have CIWS or something.
Rockets flying at 500mph are shot down regularly by aimbot defensive weapons. But suddenly a drone flying at 20mph is too tough to handle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d_h5uqnYOI
--------
"Duct-taped grenade on drone" is just a crappy TOW missile. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW), which were around in the 70s. That's not a new strategy. We have CIWS today that provide mild-protection against weapons like this.
Wire-guided missiles are older than the TOW system. But I assume most military buffs would know about the TOW.
EDIT: Wow, I knew that there were wire-guided missiles before TOW. I didn't know that wire-guided missiles were in play in Nazi Germany during WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrstahl_X-4
In any case: the problem with pure wire-guided missiles is that when people are shooting guns at you, and you're hiding in a trench... fiddling around with a joystick trying to move your "drone" (or wire-guided missile) to hit them is a lot harder than it looks. Even if the enemy is the size of a tank (remember: the tank is moving surprisingly fast)
TOW were optical-guided + wire-guided, meaning a computer calculates the positioning, and you "only" need to point the optical scanner towards your target, no joystick involved. 1940s style joysticks being used in modern combat would be a significant disadvantage compared to modern systems.
--------
EDIT2: CIWS is the big version we put onto the Iron Dome or Cruisers / Supercarriers. Apparently the smaller version is called APS (active protection system), when its put onto a tank or IVF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JI0cYo6rag
-------
For an actual anti-tank weapon (or really, anti-anything weapon), look up what TOW missiles can do today with their simple point-and-shoot interfaces: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a17654/wat...
That's two explosions: once "over" the target, the TOW 2B Missile (one of the many, many variants of TOW) explodes, sending an armor-piercing round over the top of a tank where the armor is weaker.
The 2nd explosion is the actual explosion designed to kill the tank.
TOW missiles fly at 300m/s (or ~650+ miles per hour).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfkOeHQXAaM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tQD5k48QTU
Mortar teams are already indirect fire, and have a variety of methodologies at adjusting aim to pummel the enemy with attacks.
Mortars are devastating weapons, partially because of how quickly you can load and shoot mortars and bombard an area.
-----------
If you want accuracy, you use the missiles I described earlier. Mortars are (relatively) rapid-fire weapons in contrast, with a blast occurring every 3 or so seconds.
----
I'm sure ISIS is trying to come up with new uses for weapons. But... frankly I'm not seeing how strapping a mortar round to a drone is more effective than shooting 20 mortars in the same amount of time.
Or, if precision is needed (urban environment / guerilla situation), TOW missiles. Going to 1940's style joystick controls in a combat situation when the enemy has point-and-shoot TOWs is definitely a disadvantage.
-------
We also have GPS-guided mortar rounds these days btw. No drone needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM395_Precision_Guided_Mortar_...
Also: laser + GPS guided mortars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evqkZAqvOzI
Because all you need is a cheap ass drone and anyone over the age of 10 to pilot it
https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/01/drones-isis/13...
The mortar's arc is so high, that all you need are fins that "guide" the mortar round to its target as it falls back down.
> Because all you need is a cheap ass drone and anyone over the age of 10 to pilot it
You don't even need a pilot for GPS / laser guided mortars. Point the laser at the target, and bam, the mortar round hits the target.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evqkZAqvOzI
And you can do this like, 15-times per minute with today's mortar systems. How quickly does your drone fly back-and-forth to pick up more mortar rounds?
-----------
Alternatively, you can see the drone as maybe a CAS (Close Air Support)? But generally speaking: CAS airplanes use gatling guns (AC-130 being an exception: it uses a tank-gun from the sky).
Releasing bombs from flying objects isn't very accurate. It seems like the "meta" has increasingly moved towards guns: 105mm tank guns on an AC-130 to accurately shoot tank-shells / high explosives onto a target. Gatling guns from a A10 Warthog, etc. etc. And maybe a guided missile-launch platform here and there.
CAS needs to fly around and fire more than 1 shot to be effective. Dropping one bomb is like, WW2 dive-bomber style combat (fly to target, drop bomb, fly back). If you actually want to sit around and help out the troops for more than one attack, you need multiple payloads, and guns are really good at that.
https://www.wired.com/story/this-drone-sniffs-out-odors-with...
You may notice though, that war hasn't ended up being people lobbing a bunch of smart weapons at each other, and militaries still seem to be digging holes and building walls.
For this you need up to the minute intelligence and that is either insiders, or boots on the ground. If you have penetrated their networks well enough to have up to the minute intel, it's a totally different game anyway. And if you have active frontline soldiers there then it's close air support.
I suspect this is the issue of asymmetric warfare (where one side massively out-tech and out-weapons the other but the terrain (mountains / cities) nullifies the effect or symmetric warfare (where frankly we seem to be preparing for now ) - and effectively we make close air support into artillery (or vice versa) lobbing smart bombs directed by frontline soldiers.
The problem is of course the other side will too - so we just have the artillery of WWI - only even more accurate and responsive to front line needs.
It depends on the level of investment. WW2 saw a tremendous technological progress in 5 years because that was it took to win the war. Nowadays, I don't see why AR would be so urgent.
Just to (cherry) pick a few examples
- WW2 was not even going to start unless progress had already passed the point that doctrine could see a way past the stalemate of the previous war. Germany had proven this (to itself) in Spain in 1936 - that tanks with close air support was now a viable thing at the divisional level. Progress from the say Panzer II to IV was not "quantum leaps" but solid well tested progress as was similar Russian tanks who were going up against them. Adding bigger engines and more armour, or sloping armour. This was progress by "failing fast". That is an organisational decision less than a technical one. for example :
- Torpedoes : In the battle of midway US torpedoes frankly did not work (it's a terrible thing to ask a pilot to fly low and slow into AA fire and not give them a torpedo that actually will shoot straight or explode on contact). That was fixed in the latter part of the Pacific war but not because of technological progress but organisational change. ie firing everyone who thought there was no need to test torpedoes by, you know, live firing even one.
- Manhattan Project. Yes and no I mean in early 1939 science did not think it was actually possible to make a nuclear bomb. After Piles' memo that changed and so there was a race on. But the goal was so tempting / threatening that even without a war it would still have been a major strategic goal. just like Rockets
- Rockets. Frankly these are like VR glasses. Basically the technology was just possible in the late 30s. And we would have worked on it anyway - war or not. But despite going from toy demo to actual bombs on London, they were ... well the V2 was the biplane compared to the Apollo 20 years later. It was not war that made rockets go up, it was funding.
War perhaps gives a focus to develop at a pace that would not be seen otherwise, but the space race showed you can do it without an actual live war-
Technology cannot be forced -the materials science or energy equations either make it possible or not. No amount of investment in 1917 would have made a Panzer tank by 1920. You also could not turn a V2 into Apollo by 1950.
Ultimately my view is that war strips away the self-serving excuses that organisations build up around why their progress is slow. It makes things faster because it gives clear unmistakable feedback (see torpedoes) and focuses funding, prioritisation and talent.
It seems it would be nice if we could find ways to improve our organisations without the deaths of millions.
Thank you had not thought about that before.
Counter examples on both sides in WWII: A) The allied bombing campaign that failed to meet its strategic objectives for almost the whole duration of the war. B) The continued German development of strategically insignificant terror weapons (especially the V2). The bombing campaign did finally flatten German industry and transport, but not until the Germans were obviously going to lose anyway, in very late 1944 / early 1945. Its first several years had very little strategic effect but cost vast numbers of lives on both sides.
Anyway I hope I was saying that war is not necessary for us to learn to organise better.
And I would say that the Nazi "organisation" was so fucked up that anything that did not fit the internal psychosis of the Party was never going to make a difference.
Which I guess is the point.
A democracy has its blind spots - we should build a more perfect democracy with fewer prejudices and blind spots - and if we do we will I hope see a better society and more technological progress to boot.
Double down on democracy is kind of what I am saying.
(Strategic bombing seems to sit in that weird area of psychosis in military planners and politicians. See acoup.blog recently for it but it has never worked - London, Dresden, Tokyo, all made population more determined, drones killing people at weddings or roadsides is never going to make people give up. But we keep doing it.)
A better use of technology for this kind of policy would be on offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, control and monitoring of social or media networks and telecommunications. The CCP seems to understand that those are better tools for conducting diplomacy with 21st century violence more than making it easier for a soldier to hit someone with a bullet, since that is mostly a solved problem (shoot more of them and care less about who they hit)
Tell it to Azerbaijan. The fact that the US didn't have a coincidence of plan and excution sufficient to achieve anything doesn't mean others can't, even with vastly fewer material resources.
Source: built one such system for US Navy.
Engineers on the project are leaving in droves (we got a couple interviewing for us, but I presume a lot more are just moving internally) to avoid the crunch and (likely) eventual crash & burn (because if they can't physically implement the requirements today I doubt they'll breakthrough in a year).
AR, VR, sensor technology, battery technology and portable computing have come a long way for certain, but most of what's being promised is just grandiose.
I'm always surprised at how much snake oil and empty promises the federal government keeps buying in bulk. I realize why the DoD wants to invest in this, because you should to stay current if not ahead of adversaries, but why do they have to push it as a development effort when it's really a lot of research and exploratory engineering work. Does it take take big promise to get adequate funding for slightly less grandiose but still cutting edge work?
The older I get, the more tired I get of the constant oversell in technology.
I mean...
*https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42739/army-halts-widel...
1) Batteries are inherently dismal, and getting enough of a sci-fi aesthetic and feature set to wow the military brass will always demand enough power to be at the edge of battery logistics hell
2) Infantrymen will destroy any cable you come up with in five minutes
- I'd be very surprised if Apple releases their AR headset without a similar-size (70% or more) investment over the preceding decade. RDT&E for environment-aware devices is incredibly expensive.
- Defense funding and procurement amounts often shock those not in the industry, but the truth is that the entire market for most of what the DoD funds is...the DoD. Sure, a lot of the components and IP can be reused in the commercial sector, but for most programs the DoD has to fund both the initial R&D and the unit sales, because the market is so much smaller and device sales are heavily restricted (e.g. ITAR). The DoD also has MUCH broader and stricter requirements for security, safety, reliability, and compliance with a daunting array of standards and processes than the commercial industry. To be clear, this is on net a good thing for the DoD and by extension the rest of the USA, but it does increase development costs.
Certainly there is profit being made by Microsoft here, that's kind of the point of partnering with the DoD. But the intuitive comparison of "DoD programs should cost the same as developing a commercial equivalent" that many of us make is fundamentally apples and oranges in both the product development and the economics.
There are nowhere near 70k engineers working on this - I'd be surprised if even 7k - but this has been in development for years, and will be in development for a few more.
Depending on how many headsets they planned to deliver - I wouldn't be surprised if they each cost more than $1k - there are like 60k infantry soldiers - so that could easily cost >$60M.
I'd imagine they spent >$100M lobbying on this and Jedi.
I can't see how this would cost anywhere near $22Bn - but military contractors are known to have profit margins >30%.
I'm obviously missing a lot of things - but I wouldn't be surprised if this cost MSFT >$10Bn.
Microsoft could get better engineers for cheaper. Including within the US. The problem is that this isn't about engineering. It's a scheme.
They have become so incompetent that they don't even have the talent necessary to know what talent looks like when recruiting.
Corporate engineers will never hire other engineers who are better than them (for political reasons), so the engineering talent in these companies has been degrading for years as the bureaucracy and internal politics has increased.
Not all experience transfers over and developing completely new technology (both hardware and software in combination) is extremely hard. I think you're vastly underestimating the value people get from these university degrees when they're actually pioneering new things and actually learned the topics they were taught.
Do you work at MSFT? How do you know so much about their competence?
One reason why they suck at web is because they suck at interoperability. They can't do open source properly. They don't know how to optimize software for maximum compatibility. This is because vendor lock-in is the enemy of compatibility and interoperability. Vendor lock-in is in their DNA; everything they do is about lock-in. Their software is all about complex, rigid interfaces; this is how they achieve lock-in but it makes it difficult to integrate their solutions into third party software (high friction, high entry barriers) and difficult to maintain/update.
VScode?
Based on what data? Contract bidders must show all direct and indirect costs and are typically allowed to price in ~10% profit when submitting their proposal. In fact, you can look at historical financial data for LMT, NOC, GD, etc and see profit margin float around 7-10%. A proposal with 30% profit margin baked in would be laughed out of the selection committee.
If you consider an alternative, just make an app and stick phone on a rifle, sure, that will work for 90% of the stuff you want to do, but it would break and that's bad. A true "heads up display" that you can bet your life on, anywhere on earth, at any time, is just a truly massive undertaking.
It's half as much as the development of the entire flipping Space Shuttle. It's more than Apple's entire yearly R&D budget. It's more than the James Webb Space Telescope and the entire Hubble program (including operations and the repairs that were needed post-launch) combined. It's roughly the cost of 8 Mars rovers of the same type as Curiosity / Perseverance.
This is worse, even, than the Joint Strike Fighter program, which at least started out reasonably with only a pair of 1 billion dollar grants handed out to Boeing and Lockheed to develop two functional prototype fighter aircraft (never mind how the costs spiraled later).
Setting aside the question of how much it should or shouldn't cost to develop such a product, it's absolute insanity to do it with a single massive project. The DoD loves to claim in public they're trying to be more agile, and this is the exact opposite of that. This ought to have been done $100 million (or less) at a time with limited initial scope and incrementally expanding goals.
Don't make excuses for this. There is no possible justification.
For reference, an ounce of gold in the peak at 1980 (which was a long while peak btw) was $800ish, an ounce of gold today is $1800. So more than 2x.
So $22B today is more like $10B in 1980.
Which is around 49 billion in 2020 dollars, adjusted for inflation (gold is a poor comparison, it's closer to 5x than 2x).
Do you ask why space travel is expensive? It's arguably much simpler than this is.
If a pair of goggles fails, the soldier takes them off.
These are the same people who equipped soldiers in Vietnam with a rifle that jams due to mud. The idea that military hardware has to be many times more reliable than space hardware is absurd.
Either way, if this is worth doing -- and I agree with you that it's a big, big if -- it is worth doing right.
Increased situational awareness has value, but it is a clear case of diminishing returns. Exactly what the cutoff ought to be is debatable, but that the cutoff exists is certain.
At some point you have to make a cost-benefit analysis and look at the bigger picture. For example and in this particular case, yes, spending let’s say 10 billion instead of 22 billion for a rougher solution might increase the dead count on the battlefield in the near future, but if those 12 billion that you’ve now saved go to better free education at home (more engineers in the future to design better weapons) or/and to free healthcare (more fit soldiers in the future) maybe it will all even out at a higher threshold.
Given that soldiers are currently getting by with something that works 0% of the time, the assumption that 90% isn't good enough seems highly suspect. Exactly how many more soldiers will be saved by developing a true heads up display versus an off the shelf app running on a ruggedized phone?
This seems like an obvious case of a failure to actually define requirements and make real engineering decisions.
I don't really mean to suggest 22b is too low a cash prize, but I imagine it takes a lot to overcome the barriers that have been wilfully erected. Much less the ones discreetly erected by incumbent military contractors.
This seems important. . .
However, early prototype IVAS systems were simply not rugged enough for operational use, with one iteration notably unable to work in the rain. The Army has conducted more rigorous testing of the latest version, with what it had indicated were positive results. Soldiers have also experimented with using IVAS headsets within vehicles and during airmobile operations.
Questions have also been raised about the conformal batteries that soldiers need to carry in their gear to power the IVAS headsets, both in regard to how long they can keep the systems running and safety concerns about what might happen if they get shot or otherwise damaged in combat. The Army has said in the past that it has made progress on improving the capabilities of the batteries and their resistance to incoming fire.
$22B is about $150 for every working American. It probably cost Microsoft less than $1mm to lobby for this deal.
Yes. I will quote your original comment followed by the guideline that you're violating.
> [You] Prime content for /r/im14andthisisdeep right here.
> [Guideline] Be kind. Don't be snarky.
> [You] Do you think someone can just hand out a million dollar check and be given $22B of work without being qualified?
> [Guideline] Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> [You] Did you not read the article
> [Guideline] Please don't comment on whether someone read an article.
Note that I'm not an admin of HN or anything. Just doing my part to keep things civic.
I’m far more concerned about the demand-side of this equation.
I’ve worked at a lot of places, and none of the code I’ve ever written has been used to conduct warfare.
Technology is amoral; the science of the atom is not evil just because it led to the atomic bomb.
Edit: here’s the DOD case study by the CNCF: