I understand why people are uncomfortable with this, but in the end I'm with Socrates. If we accept the protection and benefits of a society, it is incumbent on us to contribute to it's defence. Furthermore in a democracy we get to vote, and in doing so agree to be bound by it's outcome even if we disagree with it. That's the deal, like it or not.
Of course that doesn't mean we can't protest, or campaign for a different outcome, or explore legal means to prevent or limit policies we disagree with. Those are legitimate forms of engagement, they're taking a stand and taking some personal moral responsibility I can respect. Ultimately though, our freedoms and those of our allies and neighbours have to be fought for if we are going to keep them. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait could not be allowed to stand. Russia's annexation of Crimea and bullying of Ukraine should not be allowed to stand. Britain's occupation of the Chagos islands probably shouldn't be allowed to stand either, it's not a perfect world.
Of course there are extremely complex, dangerous issues that are hard to resolve out there. Those problems won't go away by refusing to think or worry about them and refusing to do anything about it. Inaction is just as much of a moral choice with it's own potentially catastrophic consequences.
I'm not advising anyone what to do. Sure, make up your own mind. But I don't think it's obvious that refusing to engage is a morally superior position.
What defense? Against whom? When was the last time the United States had to defend itself against invaders?
We've grown accustomed to how military technology (for killing people) is called "defense". It sounds benign. It feels better to work on advancing "defense" technology than on building tools to kill people.
Pretty much all "Defense" technology after WWII has only been used to invade and occupy other countries (by means of killing people).
A lot of the “don’t want to work on killing people” rhetoric is arguably a bit naive. First, sometimes governments legitimately need to use weapons to defend us, and they don’t grow on trees. More relevant to big tech specifically, some of the technologies (facial recognition, AR etc.) can legitimately claim to help improve targeting (and thus reduce chances of killing innocent bystanders). It’s rarely black and white. At the end of the day, if you are an employee who (quite legitimately) is uncomfortable with it, is it ok to petition company should stop, as opposed to simply taking your labor elsewhere?
If/when the missiles start flying, I’d like to feel that the US systems are built by America’s best technology companies, which yes, very much includes Microsoft.
Other large, economically successful countries are spending huge on military tech and have their best people on it.
You’ll care when it matters.
If you’ve got a fundamental point of principle disagreement with the idea of there being a military, and the need for countries to project power, then you should perhaps consider working in a different corner of the it industry.
If anything, the world is heading to a much more militarized future. Rising economic powers are spending vast amount of money on building modern naval capability. Only a fool would think that now is the time to turn away from the countries need for increased military capability.
Is nobody else here old enough to remember the 80s and MAD? The doctrine back then was that once the missiles start flying you have about four minutes left before every city in the US is nuked.
We have to be realistic about the actual threats, which are either trivial or overwhelming. There's no scope for the US to fight a roughly equal opponent.
I’m pleased Nadella doesn’t shirk from this as Google did. Of course in an ideal world we wouldn’t need these technologies and abilities to sew destruction, unfortunately rivals and foes aren’t vacillating about such quandaries.
I’m pleased he sees beyond a small minority of active dissenters.
As a side, it’s odd seeing headlines about the redundancy of the US and NK declaring a formal cessation of hostilities and declaring the war officially over[1]. Those are the people you should denounce: people who want to promote endless wars.
[1]apparently among the things on the table at the summit is the possibility of signing a peace accord, though the likelihood is low, it’s odd to see the negativity in the possibility.
Before you just pick up and leave, it's sensible to at least say "hey, I don't want to work in military projects, I'll leave if you force me too" which I think is what some at Microsoft did. Microsoft is free to do whatever they want, and so are their employees.
Yeah even civilised countries like the Netherlands and Norway are increasing spending on defense. Its an unfortunate necessity- I wish that money could go to healthcare or infrastructure but the world isn't perfect.
Regarding "the need for countries to project power"- I was recently reading Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. I quote from chapter 16 "When scientists know sin":
From my point of view, the consequences of global nuclear war
became much more dangerous with the invention of the hydrogen
bomb, because airbursts of thermonuclear weapons are much
more capable of burning cities, generating vast amounts of smoke,
cooling and darkening the Earth, and inducing global-scale
nuclear winter. This was perhaps the most controversial scientific
debate I've been involved in (from about 1983-90). Much of the
debate was politically driven. The strategic implications of nuclear
winter were disquieting to those wedded to a policy of massive
retaliation to deter a nuclear attack, or to those wishing to
preserve the option of a massive first strike. In either case, the
environmental consequences work [to] the self-destruction of any
nation launching large numbers of thermonuclear weapons even
with no retaliation from the adversary. A major segment of the
strategic policy of decades, and the reason for accumulating tens
of thousands of nuclear weapons, suddenly became much less
credible.
This "need to project power" is just another way to say we're too goddamn stupid to use the technology we create without blowing ourselves, and everyone else, up with it. Democracy has nothing to do with it. Raw, unmitigated human stupidity dominates military decisions in every country.
> If you’ve got a fundamental point of principle disagreement with the idea of there being a military
This is a straw man argument. The employees prefer not to develop products that kill people, that's very different than opposing the concept of a military.
The normalization of obvious lies in corporate communication. They are doing it for money and not selling to "bad" governments for maybe ethical, maybe PR, maybe staff protest reasons.
Democracies have a weak point though, because not always does the majority stand behind the "good" side of history. For example the US electorate was 80% in favor of the Iraq invasion in May 2003, a month or two after the invasion had begun and approximately at the same time with the infamous "Mission accomplished" speech. I've always compared the Iraq war with the equally infamous Athenian Sicily Expedition [1], which had got the majority support of the Athenian citizens at its start but which in the end proved to be disastrous for the Athenian democracy.
I think the focus, then, should be on holding elected officials accountable for their actions. I don't think Nadella's argument is particularly persuasive, but we should all understand our way of life is worth fighting for, and in those justified circumstances our government should have the required tools to carry that job out, no matter how unfortunate war is.
Yeah not really actually, people don't care everyone is on their phones reads this once and then moves on. Its not the 70s any more, just because people say on social media they are going to do something doesn't mean they are indeed following through... I do sincerely wish you were right, but sadly you are mistaken.
And let's face it, The military is a big part of the American institution - you can disagree and argue against it but that will not change reality. They also have the biggest pocket book, so Google, Amazon, Microsoft will always do business with them. If you disagree - leave Silicon Valley or those companies and join an NGO - I am sure they need technical help these days and cannot afford the talent.
While I admire pacifists, the sad reality of the world is sometimes you have to stand and fight. Is making tech for war in the interest of ending the conflict, and dying, as quickly as possible "for the greater good"?
Yes sometimes. However in the present day it's usually the agressors that play the peace makers and cause much of the conflict around the world. They have whole P/R departments to spin their war mongering into spreading democracy and rights while at the same time destroying the livelihoods of millions. They have their citizens brain washed to think that there is some unquestionable evil out there which must constantly be combated to divert their attention from local issues to an always elusive foreign enemy.
Sure, but the US hasn't had to stand and fight since WWII. That's a lot of unnecessary wars. An unbelievable amount of wasted resources and wasted lives. Chances are any war this technology will be used in is going to be an unnecessary war and therefore an immoral war, simply based on our history. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't even debate whether Microsoft should be giving this to the government. In a WWII situation we'd want any advantage. In today's world, moral people do and should indeed try to limit the damage of the immoral wars the US fights.
Stand up and fight for what? Most people are completely blind to the realities and driving forces behind various conflicts. The Wall Street Journal and New York Times et al are usually not telling an accurate or comprehensive story.
> the sad reality of the world is sometimes you have to stand and fight.
For "democratically elected institutions" (as Nadella put it) and by tacit approval the wars of aggression and internal repression they perpetrating -- or against the corruption and profiteering in them, that helps create a lot of these sad realities and never seems to make them any better?
> It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war.
-- Douglas MacArthur
It's like when you ask someone who is running around with a knife to drop the knife, and they scream "What? Should I just let anyone do anything to me? Why don't I just stop breathing right now?"
Pacifism is a straw man. The issue isn't that the US should unilaterally disarm; but as the world leader in arms racing, and also kinda not slowing even when major opponents topple (also see the cold war), and also a rather sad reality of a track record of murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, directly or by direct support, it would be nice for the US to have the moral integrity and backbone matching its military capability and economic power rather than inversely proportional to it.
> No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.
-- Smedley Butler
> The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business - ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed.
-- Colonel James G. Burton
That's the sad reality of not just the US, but also the US.
Two facts (or conjectures maybe) lead to a third: [1] Civilian technology is increasingly critical militarily, sucking tech companies into this market^ [2] The military industrial complex(es) are a global force unto themselves, with a potentially frightening influence on war and peacetime policies... possibly more influence than the banking sector.
So... are we going to see SV pivot into a major military income stream? You are what you eat and the military industry is a large plate.
There's a lot of daylight between pacifism and an objection to MSFT entering the wider arms producing market.
In any case, it's Satya that opens the door to this discussion by calling it a principled decision and stating the principle. Is democracy the only standard? An absolute standard? Do US interests play? Many of the US' allies are not democracies and some of its rivals are not.
^The advertising-espionage dovetail is especially weird and worrying.
It sounds like they're doing this with very good intentions and so they will surely pave the way to... somewhere... a better world maybe? I don't know, that doesn't quite sound right...
[+] [-] simonh|7 years ago|reply
Of course that doesn't mean we can't protest, or campaign for a different outcome, or explore legal means to prevent or limit policies we disagree with. Those are legitimate forms of engagement, they're taking a stand and taking some personal moral responsibility I can respect. Ultimately though, our freedoms and those of our allies and neighbours have to be fought for if we are going to keep them. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait could not be allowed to stand. Russia's annexation of Crimea and bullying of Ukraine should not be allowed to stand. Britain's occupation of the Chagos islands probably shouldn't be allowed to stand either, it's not a perfect world.
Of course there are extremely complex, dangerous issues that are hard to resolve out there. Those problems won't go away by refusing to think or worry about them and refusing to do anything about it. Inaction is just as much of a moral choice with it's own potentially catastrophic consequences.
I'm not advising anyone what to do. Sure, make up your own mind. But I don't think it's obvious that refusing to engage is a morally superior position.
[+] [-] jwr|7 years ago|reply
What defense? Against whom? When was the last time the United States had to defend itself against invaders?
We've grown accustomed to how military technology (for killing people) is called "defense". It sounds benign. It feels better to work on advancing "defense" technology than on building tools to kill people.
Pretty much all "Defense" technology after WWII has only been used to invade and occupy other countries (by means of killing people).
[+] [-] raxxorrax|7 years ago|reply
Especially since "we" supplied Iraq with weapons in the hope he would use them against Iran.
> could not be allowed to stand.
heh...
[+] [-] Golfkid2Gadfly|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tepix|7 years ago|reply
[1] Like the US? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-de...
[+] [-] hguhghuff|7 years ago|reply
Other large, economically successful countries are spending huge on military tech and have their best people on it.
You’ll care when it matters.
If you’ve got a fundamental point of principle disagreement with the idea of there being a military, and the need for countries to project power, then you should perhaps consider working in a different corner of the it industry.
If anything, the world is heading to a much more militarized future. Rising economic powers are spending vast amount of money on building modern naval capability. Only a fool would think that now is the time to turn away from the countries need for increased military capability.
[+] [-] pjc50|7 years ago|reply
We have to be realistic about the actual threats, which are either trivial or overwhelming. There's no scope for the US to fight a roughly equal opponent.
[+] [-] mc32|7 years ago|reply
I’m pleased he sees beyond a small minority of active dissenters.
As a side, it’s odd seeing headlines about the redundancy of the US and NK declaring a formal cessation of hostilities and declaring the war officially over[1]. Those are the people you should denounce: people who want to promote endless wars.
[1]apparently among the things on the table at the summit is the possibility of signing a peace accord, though the likelihood is low, it’s odd to see the negativity in the possibility.
[+] [-] vasco|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tsubasachan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YeGoblynQueenne|7 years ago|reply
From my point of view, the consequences of global nuclear war became much more dangerous with the invention of the hydrogen bomb, because airbursts of thermonuclear weapons are much more capable of burning cities, generating vast amounts of smoke, cooling and darkening the Earth, and inducing global-scale nuclear winter. This was perhaps the most controversial scientific debate I've been involved in (from about 1983-90). Much of the debate was politically driven. The strategic implications of nuclear winter were disquieting to those wedded to a policy of massive retaliation to deter a nuclear attack, or to those wishing to preserve the option of a massive first strike. In either case, the environmental consequences work [to] the self-destruction of any nation launching large numbers of thermonuclear weapons even with no retaliation from the adversary. A major segment of the strategic policy of decades, and the reason for accumulating tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, suddenly became much less credible.
This "need to project power" is just another way to say we're too goddamn stupid to use the technology we create without blowing ourselves, and everyone else, up with it. Democracy has nothing to do with it. Raw, unmitigated human stupidity dominates military decisions in every country.
[+] [-] wefarrell|7 years ago|reply
This is a straw man argument. The employees prefer not to develop products that kill people, that's very different than opposing the concept of a military.
[+] [-] ahartmetz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nine_k|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jplayer01|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natch|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a_imho|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raxxorrax|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anoncake|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HunOL|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tibbydudeza|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paganel|7 years ago|reply
Democracies have a weak point though, because not always does the majority stand behind the "good" side of history. For example the US electorate was 80% in favor of the Iraq invasion in May 2003, a month or two after the invasion had begun and approximately at the same time with the infamous "Mission accomplished" speech. I've always compared the Iraq war with the equally infamous Athenian Sicily Expedition [1], which had got the majority support of the Athenian citizens at its start but which in the end proved to be disastrous for the Athenian democracy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition
[+] [-] turndown|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sonnyblarney|7 years ago|reply
MSFT is not selling weapons, so long as they are not selling to tyrants, I think they're in the clear.
If they were selling tanks this would be a more complicated discussion.
[+] [-] jhanschoo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pasta|7 years ago|reply
I think Microsoft is going to lose users over this. Not much for sure, but it's naive to think people don't care.
[+] [-] 3327|7 years ago|reply
And let's face it, The military is a big part of the American institution - you can disagree and argue against it but that will not change reality. They also have the biggest pocket book, so Google, Amazon, Microsoft will always do business with them. If you disagree - leave Silicon Valley or those companies and join an NGO - I am sure they need technical help these days and cannot afford the talent.
[+] [-] berbec|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devoply|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnm1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colordrops|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PavlovsCat|7 years ago|reply
For "democratically elected institutions" (as Nadella put it) and by tacit approval the wars of aggression and internal repression they perpetrating -- or against the corruption and profiteering in them, that helps create a lot of these sad realities and never seems to make them any better?
> It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war.
-- Douglas MacArthur
It's like when you ask someone who is running around with a knife to drop the knife, and they scream "What? Should I just let anyone do anything to me? Why don't I just stop breathing right now?"
Pacifism is a straw man. The issue isn't that the US should unilaterally disarm; but as the world leader in arms racing, and also kinda not slowing even when major opponents topple (also see the cold war), and also a rather sad reality of a track record of murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, directly or by direct support, it would be nice for the US to have the moral integrity and backbone matching its military capability and economic power rather than inversely proportional to it.
> No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.
-- Smedley Butler
> The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business - ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed.
-- Colonel James G. Burton
That's the sad reality of not just the US, but also the US.
[+] [-] greendude29|7 years ago|reply
Try reading a History book. It might dissolve your rosy picture of what you're assuming are the reasons your country goes to war.
[+] [-] adamnemecek|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dalbasal|7 years ago|reply
Two facts (or conjectures maybe) lead to a third: [1] Civilian technology is increasingly critical militarily, sucking tech companies into this market^ [2] The military industrial complex(es) are a global force unto themselves, with a potentially frightening influence on war and peacetime policies... possibly more influence than the banking sector.
So... are we going to see SV pivot into a major military income stream? You are what you eat and the military industry is a large plate.
There's a lot of daylight between pacifism and an objection to MSFT entering the wider arms producing market.
In any case, it's Satya that opens the door to this discussion by calling it a principled decision and stating the principle. Is democracy the only standard? An absolute standard? Do US interests play? Many of the US' allies are not democracies and some of its rivals are not.
^The advertising-espionage dovetail is especially weird and worrying.
[+] [-] lenkite|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rado|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] seba_dos1|7 years ago|reply
Nadella: We've got it.
[+] [-] ralph84|7 years ago|reply
So 0.2% of 134,944. That takes vocal minority to a whole new level.
[+] [-] okonomiyaki3000|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dplgk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devmunchies|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m-p-3|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bunnycorn|7 years ago|reply
I applaud Nadella.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] elken|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siruncledrew|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baybal2|7 years ago|reply