4 ms·

Because you are building stuff to kill people. Even the doublespeak of naming it defence is atrocious. It might be justifiable in some cases like the current we

by sydd 3y ago

Because you are building stuff to kill people. Even the doublespeak of naming it defence is atrocious. It might be justifiable in some cases like the current weapon shipments to Ukraine, but not if they are used in something like the Iraqi war. And you definitely wont be the one who decides where the weapon you helped to make is used.

atemerev 3y ago
Yes, you are building stuff to kill people who are killing you (and democratic Western world in general). Quite ethical, if you ask me. And most weapons in the world are not used to kill people — they are used to deter people from killing people. And, if you choose to not work for autocratic countries, you have a choice in saying who will use the weapons.
- MokaAkashiya 3y ago
  It's funny how democratic Western world gives themselves the ethical right to kill others while fighting for “truth” and turning a blind eye to their own war crimes, which is ultimately a reflection of the rhetoric of their opponents. This impeccable confidence in the rightness is simply amazing.
  - dgroshev 3y ago
    You're effectively a part of western world, and it doesn't sound like you're turning a blind eye to western war crimes. Moreover, they are covered in big newspapers, remembered and regretted for decades, and often lead to criminal cases and/or resignations. I can 100% assure you that it's not like that in Russia, and that's the difference between modern west and other superpowers, past and present.
hardware2win 3y ago
The problem is that if you fall behind in arms race, then it may mean that you are going to suffer a lot.
dgroshev 3y ago
Even with the Iraqi war, we're talking about a regime that killed hundreds of thousands of its political opponents [1], gassed civilians [2], and engaged in genocide [3]. It is really not clear to me that stern talking and maybe sanctions while essentially abandoning victims to be slaughtered by the regime is the moral choice here. See also: Syria. Plus, when it gets to the actual intervention, tech minimises casualties, making the war shorter and enabling more precise strikes. The US did not need to indiscriminately shell cities like Russia does in its current war. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign

by sydd 3y ago

atemerev 3y ago

Yes, you are building stuff to kill people who are killing you (and democratic Western world in general). Quite ethical, if you ask me. And most weapons in the world are not used to kill people — they are used to deter people from killing people. And, if you choose to not work for autocratic countries, you have a choice in saying who will use the weapons.

MokaAkashiya 3y ago
It's funny how democratic Western world gives themselves the ethical right to kill others while fighting for “truth” and turning a blind eye to their own war crimes, which is ultimately a reflection of the rhetoric of their opponents. This impeccable confidence in the rightness is simply amazing.
- dgroshev 3y ago
  You're effectively a part of western world, and it doesn't sound like you're turning a blind eye to western war crimes. Moreover, they are covered in big newspapers, remembered and regretted for decades, and often lead to criminal cases and/or resignations. I can 100% assure you that it's not like that in Russia, and that's the difference between modern west and other superpowers, past and present.

hardware2win 3y ago

The problem is that if you fall behind in arms race, then it may mean that you are going to suffer a lot.

dgroshev 3y ago

Even with the Iraqi war, we're talking about a regime that killed hundreds of thousands of its political opponents [1], gassed civilians [2], and engaged in genocide [3]. It is really not clear to me that stern talking and maybe sanctions while essentially abandoning victims to be slaughtered by the regime is the moral choice here. See also: Syria. Plus, when it gets to the actual intervention, tech minimises casualties, making the war shorter and enabling more precise strikes. The US did not need to indiscriminately shell cities like Russia does in its current war. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign