Although very compelling, I have gradually weaned myself off from pop-military journalism such as this article.
Unfortunately it seems to me, that the intersection of people who are qualified to talk about these topics and the ones who are willing and allowed to talk about it is very small.
I feel like to form a qualified opinion on these modern marvels of technology, one needs to have at least an undergraduate understanding of at least one (but preferably a multitude) of the most difficult engineering fields.
Most people don't have that, and this usually results in shallow articles full of factoids that get repeated again and again.
Especially recycled content blogspam like this article. As an alternative, here is a lengthy monologue by a former Pratt and Whitney flight engineer about the SR-71's engine, the J58.
I don't know about 'morally compromising' but have you ever considered just how much of our entertainment revolves around the story of killing other people? Almost every video game I own is in some way violent. The books I read and the movies I watch are often about people in conflict.
This persists even with people from 'neutral' countries who are explicitly committed to staying out of war (japan, sweden, etc). I don't really judge it, because this is the water we swim in as humanity, but an alien visiting us would conclude we're a very murderous and warlike species.
What’s the argument that being entertained by weaponry is morally comprised? The only argument I can think of would be reliant on a belief that human killing is always morally wrong. I’m not sure many people share that belief. But would love to hear an alternative perspective.
They aren't abstractly used to murder hypothetical people. Real humans have had their lives and families and entire countries destroyed by us, using these machines.
We can say we didn't do that, we individually have very little control over who our government kills and how. But as long as we take delight in the implements of that destruction they are right to hate us.
But there are other cases where peoples’ lives were saved by such machines. E.g. billions of dollars in weaponry has been supplied to Ukraine to defend the country from invasion. Was that immoral too?
Right now I'm not actually arguing against militaries existing or anyone making or controlling military equipment. It's consistent to consider them a gruesome and shameful necessity, rather than to take joy in their prowess and ingenuity which is a bit the norm in the US.
I don't know, it's kinda cool seeing technology pushed to it's limits. I would never join the military and opposed my country's participation in most recent wars but I just like the tech, airplanes in particular.
I know but come on. "They're just so cool though" isn't a very solid defense of finding entertainment in large scale death-dealing machinery. Like truly think of yourself in the shoes of someone who for example had a child killed by one of these things. What would you think about someone "just liking the tech" with no thought given to the intended or actual use?
The problem with your argument is that you’re only looking at the negatives. If you believe that weapons can only be used to kill children, then, yes, your view makes sense. If you’ve been adversely affected by weaponry, you likely hate weapons with every fiber of your being. However, there are others who have used weapons to defend themselves against unjust aggression and those people may view weapons favorably. And finally, there are most people who have never been directly impacted by the machines of war. Those people probably fall around a neutral opinion of weapons. Some may skew towards a positive opinion, some, like yourself, skew negative, but overall largely neutral. Given this sentiment distribution, I don’t think you can make a judgment on whether or not it is immoral to like reading about weaponry.
I'm not trying to make a generalizable philosophical argument about all weapons though. I'm specifically challenging the free pass that american military machines get in techie circles merely because they are technologically sophisticated.
Our tolerance for misery just because something is impressive is a bad thing about us and we should strive to be better than that.
It's complicated... Consider this: I think Ukrainians would be very happy if we'd give them a bunch of fighter jets. Even though they've been on the receiving end of these I'm sure they'd be happy to get some right now.
These machines are not really for dealing death, even though that is what they do. They are just as capable at preventing innocents being killed. They are mainly intended as a defensive tool.
I’m pretty certain your hypothetical victims here would hate us for destroying their country and/or killing their family, not for “taking delight in the implements of destruction.”
I agree it is a complex topic rife with moral quandaries. Another component of the overall picture is the sobering reality that without the weapons of war and military technology, we wouldn't have a country or government to call our own. Nations are born from the victors of violent conflicts, so it is difficult to grasp that my own distaste for violence and military technology is a direct privilege granted from their previous use by those who came before me.
There's an old lefty joke I believe dating from the vietnam war that I heard many years ago it goes like this:
"Does america need to have the most powerful military in the world?"
"Well it certainly does now!"
Maybe it didn't have to be this way. If it does maybe we should just stand up and bear the consequences of the world we've made. If everyone wants us destroyed so badly they might be on to something.
Can't we all just appreciate how beautiful these aircrafts are? They almost look too good to be real. Like something out of science fiction or an Ace Combat video game. It must feel amazing to maneuver one of these things in the air...
We're here for the technology, not for the murder-porn.
We can't do much about the fact that intraglobal resource competitions have made it necessary to play the game. There is no opting out.
As a consequence, the money and science that is poured into space and military is immense. The products of those energies are technologically interesting, and we'd all be poorer without them.
> We're here for the technology, not for the murder-porn.
Morally impoverished to pretend you can separate them in this way. You're here for the technology despite the murder-porn, so have the spine to stand up and admit that about yourself.
> and we'd all be poorer without them.
You can literally spin up youtube and find videos of children being killed by these tools. Do that, watch a couple. Watch children die, you owe them that at least if you're going to find value and entertainment in these weapons. Would they be poorer? their families? Be honest about whose lives are enriched by these tools and whose aren't, please. You and I might be poorer without them, sure, but that's not a "we all" that I can understand.
I agree that it is not simple, and that the worst consequences are awful.
But unfortunately, opting out is not an option, no matter how distasteful parts of it are. If we don't have competitive or superior tools, we become victimized by those that do. For any definition of "we", where there is not enough social cohesion and control to prevent bad actors (e.g. most obviously: global politics!).
These tools are sometimes used carelessly. Some of that is inevitable, some of it is lack of accountability, some of it is malice. Some of it we can improve on, but some we cannot.
But also, military research is responsible for huge good parts of our lives. Our survival as a (country, yes, but also) species might depend on it. But it's a mixed bag. This mirrors the complexity of life.
The ideal is to have the best tools of competition imaginable, and to never need to use them. We can agree on this at least, I think.
(We can also agree that they are sometimes used unnecessarily!)
But the privilege of never needing to use them comes with the burden of constantly improving them. Fortunately, there are often great benefits to the research even if it's never used for the purpose intended by the party who paid for it.
Unfortunately it seems to me, that the intersection of people who are qualified to talk about these topics and the ones who are willing and allowed to talk about it is very small.
I feel like to form a qualified opinion on these modern marvels of technology, one needs to have at least an undergraduate understanding of at least one (but preferably a multitude) of the most difficult engineering fields.
Most people don't have that, and this usually results in shallow articles full of factoids that get repeated again and again.