Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!limbo!taylor
From: pcg@spl27.spl.loral.com (Paul C George)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: Computers as weapons
Message-ID: <1667@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Date: 28 Jan 91 23:36:39 GMT
Sender: taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com
Organization: Loral Software Productivity Laboratory
Lines: 67
Approved: taylor@Limbo.Intuitive.Com

While I have not directly worked on weapon's software, my 10 years in
the defense industry perhaps gives me some insight.

First of all, all weapons are not created equal.  There are those which
are defensive in nature, for example the Patriot missile or Phalanx
Close In Weapons System.  Work on such systems may be viewed as saving
lives.

Second, even for weapons that are clearly offensive in nature, one can
argue that a smarter weapon also saves lives by allowing more precision
(avoiding 'collateral damage') and keeping our forces out of danger.  A
more effective weapon may also save lives by shortening a conflict or
providing a deterent.  For an interesting discussion of smart weapon and
information age potential, I recommend 'Davids Sling' by Mark Stiegler
(Bean Books, 1988)

While use of deadly force may be considered immoral, it should be
remembered that as long as there are others who have weapons and are
willing to use them, even peacefull people must be able to defend
themselves.  Pacifism is nice, but it requires cooperation.  Ghandi was
fortunate that the British had cultural traditions that respect such
activities.  The Khmer Rouge or Stalin would have handled him somewhat
differently

Just as in the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' arguement,
weapons may be used for good or ill (I am not dealing here with whether
any recent/current military actions are in fact justified).  At any
rate, those who use the weapons are not those who order their use.
Hence, I cannot see any problem with helping some 19 year old get out of
a combat situation with his skin intact via superior firepower delivered
from out of the opponent's range.  The moral blame (if any) is on the
politicians.  To 'resist warfare' it would be more effective to
influence political and military science to get beyond Clauswitzian game
theory, and allow more innovative solutions (sorry, have no good
solutions that don't require agreement on both sides as to 'appropriate
behavior').

Finally, engineers rarely work for the military directly.  They work for
companies that get government contracts.  These contracts may be for
communications satellites, pollution monitoring equipment, and a host of
other arguably beneficial products; as well as weapons.  There are also
in house activities in manufaturing automation, materials technology,
software support environments, and the like which arguably help our
country's competitiveness.

Reality here rears its ugly head.  If you wish to work on advanced
software in a networked unix environment or with the luxury of fast
equipment & tools (like news), you end up with an aerospace company.
The commercial world requires a very limited supply of computer
scientists.  Working in that world is great if you like accounting,
inventory, and networking applications, heavily tilted towards COBOL.
In addition, much of the more technical work is in small firms which
poorly survive economic downturns.  Therefor if you want some job
security (i.e.  keeping your wife & kids housed, clothed, and fed), you
can hedge your bets with a larger firm.  They also provide you with a
larger variety of work (assuming you prefer development to software
maintenance).

As a closing note, I might point out that some people are not purely
mercenary and do have moral scruples.  Even working in the industry I
have a choice of projects and Companies.  For example I considered the
offer by Logicon to work on the targeting system for our ICBMs & bombers
to be beyond the pale.  I can also work inside to guide a firm towards
selecting contracts that are more conductive to peace, or which have
applications that can help people at large.

Paul George