Weapons, War, Cons And Pros

[Alboin]

<ThreadReference Title="Education In Weapons Technology [Career Path]">
http://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=21014
</ThreadReference>

i've always liked weapons. and it would be uber-cool to make and design new ones.

Why would you want to design instruments to kill people? Do you think Oppenheimer thought it was 'uber-cool' to detonate the a-bomb? I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

Why choose a career on this path voluntarily?

[01000101]

As society will probably never reach a point where we no longer need weapons and live in perfect harmony, I'd opt to have better weapons than allow an enemy to have the better weapons. I don't mean to start a flame-war at all, just pointing out the obvious.

Also, his question wasn't "should I want to build weapons", it was about his educational path to achieve that goal.

Iirc, you can pick up double majors at any time during your initial bachelors. I agree though, if you are really dedicated, I'd go get some work experience in a somewhat related field, then let that pay for your future education. Also, if you do that, you're more apt to get decent apprenticeships or offers once you graduate as you'll have the education and some base experience.

[gravaera]

Where exactly are you planning to go from there?

World Domination.

i've always liked weapons. and it would be uber-cool to make and design new ones.

I understand people saying things like, "I believe in the right of every man to protect himself, and I believe in the logic of providing small firearms for those in need of defense" even though in a perfect world that shouldn't be so.

Reasons like that are shakily okay, but when you come and tell me that "I like making weapons" and you decide you're going to introduce more into this hell-bent world, I think you're doing something bordering very closely what I like to call 'folly'. *Shrug*.

Call of Duty is fun, and yes it looks exhilarating, and you get slightly curious as to the feeling that would accompany the thrill of being at risk of losing your life in an instant, or whatever your warped reason would be, but in the real world, on battlefields, people don't normally die and lay in one heap all at once. In the real world, on the battlefield, you get to see the live action sequence of seeing the life drain out of someone's eyes, and hearing them cry out to god not to die. Hear them calling out the names of wives, mothers, children, and sisters.

Hear them screaming out apologies to no-one in particular hoping they could be forgiven for some deep, unfulfilled regret. You get to see, in real 4D colour, with real DIRECT eXtermination effects bullets ripping through human beings' bodies, and real DIRECT sound when children are caught up in the middle of some misguided explosion.

The number, and varieties of weapons already out in the world today FAR exceed the requirements for basic self defense of either the individual, OR any nation. Any more weapons being manufactured are solely so done for malfeasance; That's it.

And son, war is no game.

[Cognition]

Just for perspective's sake here let's keep in mind that a lot of design today focuses on making weapons that are more precise with lower or all together non lethal payloads as well. There's still some development being done, Russia is working on extremely large conventional bombs and the US is working on super bunker buster bombs and so forth. But you have things moving towards UAVs, unmanned applications and less than lethal weaponry for peace keeping purposes. I think the allure of weapons design is similar to building a car with a 1200hp. There's really no practical reason to do it, but just building something insanely powerful has a certain allure to it. I'm sure there's a few physicists at Fermilab and CERN who love smashing atoms together at ridiculous energies too regardless of what it reveals. There's not necessarily a sinister motive in all this.

[Alboin]

But you have things moving towards UAVs, unmanned applications and less than lethal weaponry for peace keeping purposes.

The military cannot keep peace. Just look at Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Did we 'keep the peace' in any one of those places? Hell, we didn't even suggest peace. Weapons and force can neither create nor 'keep' peace.

I'm sure there's a few physicists at Fermilab and CERN who love smashing atoms together at ridiculous energies too regardless of what it reveals. There's not necessarily a sinister motive in all this.

If you are developing a weapon, by definition, your motives are to kill. Let's face it, 'nonlethal' weapons will never 'replace' lethal weapons, weapons that can end the largest war in human history with only two bombs. The only fear that all men share is that of dying. There's no awe in the 'we will paralyze' your army bomb. Obviously not. Only through complete and utter destruction of life can weapons be effective.

For that matter, "physicists...smashing atoms" are not developing weapons. They're exploring the world around them. They have no intent to kill, to destroy, but to donate, to donate to the bank of human knowledge, humanity.

What I'm trying to say here, redoktober, is that you may want to consider another career. I mean, you obviously have a lot of potential. Help the world rather than destroy it.

[redoktober]

i've always liked weapons. and it would be uber-cool to make and design new ones.

Why would you want to design instruments to kill people? Do you think Oppenheimer thought it was 'uber-cool' to detonate the a-bomb? I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

Why choose a career on this path voluntarily?

tony stark's my idol. he isn't real, but he's definitely doing it right. and my dream may be kiddish...but who knows?

As society will probably never reach a point where we no longer need weapons and live in perfect harmony, I'd opt to have better weapons than allow an enemy to have the better weapons. I don't mean to start a flame-war at all, just pointing out the obvious.

Also, his question wasn't "should I want to build weapons", it was about his educational path to achieve that goal.

Iirc, you can pick up double majors at any time during your initial bachelors. I agree though, if you are really dedicated, I'd go get some work experience in a somewhat related field, then let that pay for your future education. Also, if you do that, you're more apt to get decent apprenticeships or offers once you graduate as you'll have the education and some base experience.

hmm. yeah, i guess that's how i should go about it. thanks, man!

Where exactly are you planning to go from there?

World Domination.

i've always liked weapons. and it would be uber-cool to make and design new ones.

I understand people saying things like, "I believe in the right of every man to protect himself, and I believe in the logic of providing small firearms for those in need of defense" even though in a perfect world that shouldn't be so.

Reasons like that are shakily okay, but when you come and tell me that "I like making weapons" and you decide you're going to introduce more into this hell-bent world, I think you're doing something bordering very closely what I like to call 'folly'. *Shrug*.

Call of Duty is fun, and yes it looks exhilarating, and you get slightly curious as to the feeling that would accompany the thrill of being at risk of losing your life in an instant, or whatever your warped reason would be, but in the real world, on battlefields, people don't normally die and lay in one heap all at once. In the real world, on the battlefield, you get to see the live action sequence of seeing the life drain out of someone's eyes, and hearing them cry out to god not to die. Hear them calling out the names of wives, mothers, children, and sisters.

Hear them screaming out apologies to no-one in particular hoping they could be forgiven for some deep, unfulfilled regret. You get to see, in real 4D colour, with real DIRECT eXtermination effects bullets ripping through human beings' bodies, and real DIRECT sound when children are caught up in the middle of some misguided explosion.

The number, and varieties of weapons already out in the world today FAR exceed the requirements for basic self defense of either the individual, OR any nation. Any more weapons being manufactured are solely so done for malfeasance; That's it.

And son, war is no game.

hell, yeah. i seem to remember that from the time i spent in kabul and of course, my own backyard: kashmir. and trust me, sometimes, in our part of the world, talking doesn't help. but a bullet full of mercury or a katyusha launcher sure does. and yes, i know some would say that this attitude of mine causes problems. well, it's the attitudes of people like osama bin-laden or baitulla mehsud or ayman al-zawahiri which are the real threats.

Just for perspective's sake here let's keep in mind that a lot of design today focuses on making weapons that are more precise with lower or all together non lethal payloads as well. There's still some development being done, Russia is working on extremely large conventional bombs and the US is working on super bunker buster bombs and so forth. But you have things moving towards UAVs, unmanned applications and less than lethal weaponry for peace keeping purposes. I think the allure of weapons design is similar to building a car with a 1200hp. There's really no practical reason to do it, but just building something insanely powerful has a certain allure to it. I'm sure there's a few physicists at Fermilab and CERN who love smashing atoms together at ridiculous energies too regardless of what it reveals. There's not necessarily a sinister motive in all this.

haha, yeah. my motives are mostly for the heck of research.

But you have things moving towards UAVs, unmanned applications and less than lethal weaponry for peace keeping purposes.

The military cannot keep peace. Just look at Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Did we 'keep the peace' in any one of those places? Hell, we didn't even suggest peace. Weapons and force can neither create nor 'keep' peace.

I'm sure there's a few physicists at Fermilab and CERN who love smashing atoms together at ridiculous energies too regardless of what it reveals. There's not necessarily a sinister motive in all this.

If you are developing a weapon, by definition, your motives are to kill. Let's face it, 'nonlethal' weapons will never 'replace' lethal weapons, weapons that can end the largest war in human history with only two bombs. The only fear that all men share is that of dying. There's no awe in the 'we will paralyze' your army bomb. Obviously not. Only through complete and utter destruction of life can weapons be effective.

For that matter, "physicists...smashing atoms" are not developing weapons. They're exploring the world around them. They have no intent to kill, to destroy, but to donate, to donate to the bank of human knowledge, humanity.

What I'm trying to say here, redoktober, is that you may want to consider another career. I mean, you obviously have a lot of potential. Help the world rather than destroy it.

i've seen people being killed, in the name of god's holy war, religion, and yes, gender. i've had enough. i can't join the army, but i can do something! if it means becoming an iron-monger, a weapon-maker, so be it.

[redoktober]

i know i sound like a merciless, heartless, bloodthirsty pig.
what can i do?
they've made me, no, moulded me, into the man full of hatred that i've become.

[Cognition]

But you have things moving towards UAVs, unmanned applications and less than lethal weaponry for peace keeping purposes.

The military cannot keep peace. Just look at Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Did we 'keep the peace' in any one of those places? Hell, we didn't even suggest peace. Weapons and force can neither create nor 'keep' peace.

I'm sure there's a few physicists at Fermilab and CERN who love smashing atoms together at ridiculous energies too regardless of what it reveals. There's not necessarily a sinister motive in all this.

If you are developing a weapon, by definition, your motives are to kill. Let's face it, 'nonlethal' weapons will never 'replace' lethal weapons, weapons that can end the largest war in human history with only two bombs. The only fear that all men share is that of dying. There's no awe in the 'we will paralyze' your army bomb. Obviously not. Only through complete and utter destruction of life can weapons be effective.

For that matter, "physicists...smashing atoms" are not developing weapons. They're exploring the world around them. They have no intent to kill, to destroy, but to donate, to donate to the bank of human knowledge, humanity.

What I'm trying to say here, redoktober, is that you may want to consider another career. I mean, you obviously have a lot of potential. Help the world rather than destroy it.

My point is that warfare is here to stay, by at least trying to making more accurate bombs or alternatives to putting soldiers and civilians in harms it is in effect saving lives. Blaming weapons is the "devil made me do it" argument, knowledge is very hard to remove and the fact is when it comes to weaponry the cat is out of the bag at this point. Violence should always be the last option on the table, but it's going to be there for a while. Humans are individualistic and competitive creatures by nature (albeit social ones). Violence will always be an option and if someone decides to use it then it's in everyone's best interest that things are carried out in the least destructive way possible. Peace keeping doesn't need to take place in another country, a recent example would be some of the anarchists rioting at the G20 and other similar summits. Thankfully we have pepper spray, sonic weapons and tear gas, keep in mind there were times when the military would just be called in to mow these people over, luckily we live in an age where someone throwing a brick doesn't necessitate indiscriminate gunfire.

My other analogy dealt mainly with the fact that we have a certain draw to raw power regardless of form, even if there's next to no practical application for it. I don't agree with the assert that a weapons maker necessarily does it simply to kill people either that you're making, so I guess we'll leave things at that.

[Masterkiller]

I'm sure there's a few physicists at Fermilab and CERN who love smashing atoms together at ridiculous energies too regardless of what it reveals. There's not necessarily a sinister motive in all this.

If you are developing a weapon, by definition, your motives are to kill. Let's face it, 'nonlethal' weapons will never 'replace' lethal weapons, weapons that can end the largest war in human history with only two bombs. The only fear that all men share is that of dying. There's no awe in the 'we will paralyze' your army bomb. Obviously not. Only through complete and utter destruction of life can weapons be effective.

For that matter, "physicists...smashing atoms" are not developing weapons. They're exploring the world around them. They have no intent to kill, to destroy, but to donate, to donate to the bank of human knowledge, humanity.

What I'm trying to say here, redoktober, is that you may want to consider another career. I mean, you obviously have a lot of potential. Help the world rather than destroy it.

I disagree You may develop a nuclear-bomb and it won't kill anybody until you use it. Of course, there is only one way to use a nuclear-bomb, but that may be not the target of your creation. Just like we all here trying to develop operating system. An OS must be used to control a computer, but no more than 1% of us mainly target to use their own OS or take the market with it. Since we are not creating an OS to use it, or someone to use it, why we are trying? It is for educational purpose, it is because we can and it is because it's a challenge. You may do far more easy things, but far more useful, but that is not so interesting.
That's way if someone could create a nuclear-bomb it will create it. The killer is the one that use it. The one that creates it is developer, inventor or so on. These are NOT bad guys.

Offtopic: CERN doesn't work with ridiculous energies. They smashing a particles with so small energy at ridiculous speed. The Force (F) the magnets do it is not so big, but it is enormous if you are a particle.

[Alboin]

You may develop a nuclear-bomb and it won't kill anybody until you use it. Of course, there is only one way to use a nuclear-bomb, but that may be not the target of your creation

I'm creating X, there's only 1 use for X, but that's not why I'm making X. You're right, its very much like osdev, but do note the word in the title of the thread: "Career".

If one is developing a weapon because it is interesting, then one is not developing weapons. Weapons development costs millions of dollars, and is, more probably than not in all circumstances, funded by the government. Do you think for a second that any government would not in moment's notice adopt the next big-weapon-thing? Why dedicate your working career to such scumbags as those who run the armies of the world?

And for that matter, why is creating devices that kill 'interesting'? The human body is frail as all hell, and somehow it's interesting to find new and inventive ways to blow it up?

[AndrewAPrice]

I think we shouldn't risk human lives and instead use drive/fly-by wire tanks/aircraft. Machines would be expensive to produce and maintain, but an economical loss can't be compared to the lost of lives of soldiers. And there wouldn't be a risk to human lives unless their enemy got past your mechanical defensives (in which case hope you've worked out a treaty by then).

[redoktober]

this is *all* my fault.
i shouldn't have asked.
now, everyone thinks i'm nuts.
or worse, a scumbag.
with perverse interests.

[stephenj]

Red, the thing about doing any military work is that due to secrecy it is uncomfortable to talk about work outside of work. The question of what you are allowed to say, versus what you are not allowed to say is best answered with "say nothing". At least in my experience. This means that protesters can yell what they think whereas people who actually know what is going on say little. That is why I'm not going to put any real content in this post. In fact, if people want to say horrible things about me, or the work I do, feel free to, because I'm not going to be able to defend myself with details. The only thing I will say is that a lot of content posted on this topic is misguided, and that is the polite way to say it.

As for career advice on what one in the industry does, most people I've met work on integrating, rather than building technology. Even those who build tend to be working on "Mark 28" (fake relatively-large number) of an exisiting line.

This post (my best attempt at saying something on the topic while saying nothing about details) is all I'm going to say, in public or in private.

[Alboin]

This means that protesters can yell what they think whereas people who actually know what is going on say little.

Really? Come on, the military has all this secrecy and stuff, but, in reality, they just build things that go boom. There are no aliens, they don't have magic or anything. "Actually know what is going on"? That horse in unhealthy.

So you are, as you say, in the "know"? Because of such, you cannot defend yourself? (As if I were attacking you in the first place.)

Hypothetically, let's look at those possible 'defenses'. Well, I'd suppose that having some sort of engineering degree and landing a job with the government results in at least a reasonable (livable) amount of pay. So, it is a job, no? That's actually a reasonable 'defense', I mean if it means food to eat, then I see no harm in it. However, that's really the only 'defense'. Unless there's some massive army coming to invade California (assuming we're talking about the US and its army) there's no reason to have thousands of rockets or a huge standing army. (Terrorists aren't invading, by the way.)

In fact, if people want to say horrible things about me, or the work I do, feel free to, because I'm not going to be able to defend myself with details. The only thing I will say is that a lot of content posted on this topic is misguided, and that is the polite way to say it.

I'm not saying horrible things about anyone. Red here is looking at his future, and my point was that perhaps he should look for some place where he can do some good.

this is *all* my fault.
i shouldn't have asked.
now, everyone thinks i'm nuts.
or worse, a scumbag.
with perverse interests.

No, no! Not at all! Don't get the wrong impression. By scum bag, I was referring to generals and such that view people as numerical data. Take Douglas MacArthur, for instance. The man was a war hero of WWII, courageous and all. However, by Korea, he actually believed he could invade China. This got China involved in the whole affair, and screwed up what would have otherwise been a 'nice' war.

[Masterkiller]

This means that protesters can yell what they think whereas people who actually know what is going on say little.

Really? Come on, the military has all this secrecy and stuff, but, in reality, they just build things that go boom. There are no aliens, they don't have magic or anything. "Actually know what is going on"? That horse in unhealthy.

The government should be like an OS - transparent to the application... Anyway all OS fails at some point. The same is with government. The government doesn't protects you, it protects society of the country. If you threat society (by killing people or destroy society works) it is against the wall and you got arrested. If threat is too large it can make the society and the country unstable. To prevent this secrecy is required. If someone fire a rocket with nuclear-bomb within it and the government prevent the boom, the society does not need to know, because it will make the people doubt in government. (People got easily frighten by a big boom, instead real thinking). Even you talk against you government, if you got attacked, you call the police. Our police department installed cameras that coverns main streets of the centre of the capitol and even if its dark, I do not fear to pass these streets at night. There are thousand of threats against society and so little of them is military. And most of them just pass around you, you don't see it and you talk against the government. If you had known what actually could happened at you, you will got an infarct. And you can't handle better, follow your fear. It is like a technician job: They know where they can touch and they are rarely shocked by electicity (or shocked not so deadly); You do not know where to touch, so you'd better do not touch at all. There are lockers, warning signs and so on to prevent you touch, the government way is secrecy.
If you ask users that rarely use computer if they need and operating system, the most of them will answer something similar to: "No, I just need to start skype, IE, some game etc." but after elementary education in computers you know you really NEED some. We all know we NEED government as well. Anarchy is not something beautiful...