Soldiers and Scientists and Engineers

[Dingo Jellybean]

Maybe it's just me, but personally, I always felt soldiers get too much attention. Maybe that's not what I meant, but I just mean that the scientists that are responsible for weapons, devices, and vehicles the soldiers need. I mean granted, they are putting their lives at risk, but the american public often overlooks the scientists and engineers that really run the country.

Granted, the scientists don't risk their lives...but they're too valuable to be fighting. Without them, the soldiers might as well fight with bamboo sticks. If the soldiers are the immune system of the US, then the scientists are the brains and backbone of the country(as well as many other countries).

I'm not trying to put a value on who's more valuable, because we're all on the same side...but often the scientists and engineers who deisng vehicles and equipment are often overlooked and it pains me to see them neglected.

So yeah, thoughts?

[Dr Unne]

The technology the army uses nowadays gets some attention on TV, but most people probably don't understand, not enough to do more than give a "wow, neat". I'd hope that most people realize that our army gets a rather large part of its strength from the technology we use though. Scientists are probably more valuable in the long run, just like generals are valuable, but foot soldiers are the ones who die out in the field, and that at least deserves some credit.

[Shadow Nexus]

Science used for killing deserves no respect.

[Casey]

Ever see that movie "Falling Down" good movie.

edit:I agree though, Scients/Engineers do deserve more recognition for their work, thanks to them are soldiers out in the battle field have one of the best equipment in the world. Compared to other countries. And with the technology, are troops are best trained/equiped also.

[Skogs]

Science used for killing deserves no respect.

Completely agree with you there. In a few years I will have the dilemma of deciding to follow a more lucrative, commercial or military based scientific career or a less well-paying, more ethical career. It's not a decision I'm looking forward to making.

[Shadow Nexus]

Completely agree with you there. In a few years I will have the dilemma of deciding to follow a more lucrative, commercial or military based scientific career or a less well-paying, more ethical career. It's not a decision I'm looking forward to making.

Uh...well, I study philosophy, so guess what my decision was. Although I never even contemplated the idea of doing something I don't like, such as having to do something with the army.

[nik0tine]

Science used for killing deserves no respect.

The power of this statements bluntness is brilliant. I couldn't agree more with what you have said.

[Dr Unne]

Which is better, creating something which is used for killing, or refusing to create something which is used for killing, and as a result being killed by someone else who doesn't hold to your standards?

[Shadow Nexus]

Which is better, creating something which is used for killing, or refusing to create something which is used for killing, and as a result being killed by someone else who doesn't hold to your standards?

The best way of winning a fight is not starting it. In the modern western world there is little risk of being invaded by a foregin country.

If science moves towards the developing of tools for killing, it is because the interest of a few, as is war.

[DeBlayde]

invaded, unlikely. Attacked, all kinds of likely. I would remind you of certain events which happened a few years ago in the beginning of September.

[Shadow Nexus]

invaded, unlikely. Attacked, all kinds of likely. I would remind you of certain events which happened a few years ago in the beginning of September.

Yes, and even with the largest army in the world, and a waste in military budget being eight times all the external debt of all the third world countries in the world, no one could stop it: weapons are not there for saving lifes, weapons are there to take them.

Well, not to mention all the unethical acts with animals used for testing weapons.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

Science used for killing deserves no respect.

The M1 garand was used for killing, but how many Jewish lives did it save in WWII??? The A bomb was used for killing, but how many American lives did it save from invading Japans' coast in a d-day type fashion.

I think we should all agree sometimes killing saves lives.

[Casey]

I think we should all agree sometimes killing saves lives.

Yup.

[Jebus]

Which is better, creating something which is used for killing, or refusing to create something which is used for killing, and as a result being killed by someone else who doesn't hold to your standards?

I consider it a moral victory. Science was meant to discover how our universe works. To bring reason and facts to people, not to kill them. And I don't care if it saves people. I remember a quote I heard once, "Without warriors, there can be no war." I rather like that quote.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I think we should all agree sometimes killing saves lives.

Why do we always look towards the here and now? Violence begets more violence, killing provokes more killing. Terrorists attacked us, we bomb the crap out of them, they attack us again, we bomb the crap out of them, it's an endless cycle of death. What is war but a long string of atrocities and counter-atrocities?