Is it possible to have a career in SciComp without contributing to arms research?What are the career options for computational scientists other than being in software Industry?

How many oliphaunts died in all of the Lord of the Rings battles?

Move the outer key inward in an association

Did Vladimir Lenin have a cat?

How can I kill my goat?

Golden Guardian removed before death related trigger

reconstruction filter - How does it actually work?

Does Wolfram Mathworld make a mistake describing a discrete probability distribution with a probability density function?

Exploiting the delay when a festival ticket is scanned

How long until two planets become one?

Did the Americans trade destroyers in the "destroyer deal" that they would later need themselves?

How can I say in Russian "I am not afraid to write anything"?

Irreducible factors of primitive permutation group representation

Why does Canada require mandatory bilingualism in a lot of federal government posts?

Do the books ever say oliphaunts aren’t elephants?

Assuring luggage isn't lost with short layover

What is more environmentally friendly? An A320 or a car?

ECDSA: Why is SigningKey shorter than VerifyingKey

What is this 4 sharp symbol and what does it mean?

Can a US President, after impeachment and removal, be re-elected or re-appointed?

Why did some Apollo missions carry a grenade launcher?

Why isn't there any 9.5 digit multimeter or higher?

Is it possible to attain stream-entry if one is only following "the 5 precepts"?

Desktop app status bar: Notification vs error message

What steps would an amateur scientist have to take in order to get a scientific breakthrough published?



Is it possible to have a career in SciComp without contributing to arms research?


What are the career options for computational scientists other than being in software Industry?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








35












$begingroup$


I am at an international conference (ICIAM2019) about numerical methods and am surprised by the prevalence of applications directly relatable to arms research.



examples:



  • One award winner holds his talk about the mathematical problem of radar reconstruction/detection of moving objects, within his talk he describes the situation of a radar "platform" in 8km height using active radar detecting "moving subjects" at ground level, and he goes on about how magnificently tricky this problem is.


  • people are presenting methods to accurately resolve and simulate shockwaves, and a quick google search reveals that they are working on "inertial confinement fusion".


  • at after-conference dinner I sat next to people doing numerics in Los Alamos.


I am doing my phd in applied math and numerical methods, and to be honest, I did not anticipate that the people receiving awards and are put on the large stages are doing arms research. I also noticed that the audience, which is presumably smarter than me, is applauding this work.



I am wondering whether or not I would want to be part of this community, and if it is possible to build a career in applied math without directly or indirectly contributing to arms research. Is this something that is shrugged of? I am at a very early stage and would be very grateful for advice from the more experienced folks.






career-development







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$









  • 14




    $begingroup$
    I appreciate this question, and look forward to hearing others' perspectives. You have every right to make your own life decisions based on your personal ethos; however, words like "spooked" and phrases like "without further questions" are polarizing. There are a lot of people who know exactly what technology they're contributing to, and also believe in the morality of it, for better or worse. I think it would be helpful to make some of your language more neutral.
    $endgroup$
    – LedHead
    Jul 18 at 16:30







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I softened the question a bit to make it less suggestive. thanks for the remark.
    $endgroup$
    – MPIchael
    Jul 18 at 19:51






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I recommend reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s book Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul♦
    Jul 19 at 0:04






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Are any of your examples actually "arms research"? There are plenty of civilian applications for radar. Fusion has many beneficial applications for power generation. Los Alamos may have its roots in nuclear weapons, but these days it does plenty of research that is not directly applicable to warfare. It sounds like you've spooked yourself over nothing to me.
    $endgroup$
    – Harabeck
    Jul 19 at 15:57










  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – Anton Menshov♦
    Jul 20 at 15:45

















35












$begingroup$


I am at an international conference (ICIAM2019) about numerical methods and am surprised by the prevalence of applications directly relatable to arms research.



examples:



  • One award winner holds his talk about the mathematical problem of radar reconstruction/detection of moving objects, within his talk he describes the situation of a radar "platform" in 8km height using active radar detecting "moving subjects" at ground level, and he goes on about how magnificently tricky this problem is.


  • people are presenting methods to accurately resolve and simulate shockwaves, and a quick google search reveals that they are working on "inertial confinement fusion".


  • at after-conference dinner I sat next to people doing numerics in Los Alamos.


I am doing my phd in applied math and numerical methods, and to be honest, I did not anticipate that the people receiving awards and are put on the large stages are doing arms research. I also noticed that the audience, which is presumably smarter than me, is applauding this work.



I am wondering whether or not I would want to be part of this community, and if it is possible to build a career in applied math without directly or indirectly contributing to arms research. Is this something that is shrugged of? I am at a very early stage and would be very grateful for advice from the more experienced folks.






career-development







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$









  • 14




    $begingroup$
    I appreciate this question, and look forward to hearing others' perspectives. You have every right to make your own life decisions based on your personal ethos; however, words like "spooked" and phrases like "without further questions" are polarizing. There are a lot of people who know exactly what technology they're contributing to, and also believe in the morality of it, for better or worse. I think it would be helpful to make some of your language more neutral.
    $endgroup$
    – LedHead
    Jul 18 at 16:30







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I softened the question a bit to make it less suggestive. thanks for the remark.
    $endgroup$
    – MPIchael
    Jul 18 at 19:51






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I recommend reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s book Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul♦
    Jul 19 at 0:04






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Are any of your examples actually "arms research"? There are plenty of civilian applications for radar. Fusion has many beneficial applications for power generation. Los Alamos may have its roots in nuclear weapons, but these days it does plenty of research that is not directly applicable to warfare. It sounds like you've spooked yourself over nothing to me.
    $endgroup$
    – Harabeck
    Jul 19 at 15:57










  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – Anton Menshov♦
    Jul 20 at 15:45













35












35








35


8



$begingroup$


I am at an international conference (ICIAM2019) about numerical methods and am surprised by the prevalence of applications directly relatable to arms research.



examples:



  • One award winner holds his talk about the mathematical problem of radar reconstruction/detection of moving objects, within his talk he describes the situation of a radar "platform" in 8km height using active radar detecting "moving subjects" at ground level, and he goes on about how magnificently tricky this problem is.


  • people are presenting methods to accurately resolve and simulate shockwaves, and a quick google search reveals that they are working on "inertial confinement fusion".


  • at after-conference dinner I sat next to people doing numerics in Los Alamos.


I am doing my phd in applied math and numerical methods, and to be honest, I did not anticipate that the people receiving awards and are put on the large stages are doing arms research. I also noticed that the audience, which is presumably smarter than me, is applauding this work.



I am wondering whether or not I would want to be part of this community, and if it is possible to build a career in applied math without directly or indirectly contributing to arms research. Is this something that is shrugged of? I am at a very early stage and would be very grateful for advice from the more experienced folks.






career-development







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am at an international conference (ICIAM2019) about numerical methods and am surprised by the prevalence of applications directly relatable to arms research.



examples:



  • One award winner holds his talk about the mathematical problem of radar reconstruction/detection of moving objects, within his talk he describes the situation of a radar "platform" in 8km height using active radar detecting "moving subjects" at ground level, and he goes on about how magnificently tricky this problem is.


  • people are presenting methods to accurately resolve and simulate shockwaves, and a quick google search reveals that they are working on "inertial confinement fusion".


  • at after-conference dinner I sat next to people doing numerics in Los Alamos.


I am doing my phd in applied math and numerical methods, and to be honest, I did not anticipate that the people receiving awards and are put on the large stages are doing arms research. I also noticed that the audience, which is presumably smarter than me, is applauding this work.



I am wondering whether or not I would want to be part of this community, and if it is possible to build a career in applied math without directly or indirectly contributing to arms research. Is this something that is shrugged of? I am at a very early stage and would be very grateful for advice from the more experienced folks.






career-development




career-development






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jul 18 at 19:50







MPIchael

















asked Jul 18 at 15:35









MPIchaelMPIchael

4012 silver badges9 bronze badges




4012 silver badges9 bronze badges










  • 14




    $begingroup$
    I appreciate this question, and look forward to hearing others' perspectives. You have every right to make your own life decisions based on your personal ethos; however, words like "spooked" and phrases like "without further questions" are polarizing. There are a lot of people who know exactly what technology they're contributing to, and also believe in the morality of it, for better or worse. I think it would be helpful to make some of your language more neutral.
    $endgroup$
    – LedHead
    Jul 18 at 16:30







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I softened the question a bit to make it less suggestive. thanks for the remark.
    $endgroup$
    – MPIchael
    Jul 18 at 19:51






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I recommend reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s book Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul♦
    Jul 19 at 0:04






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Are any of your examples actually "arms research"? There are plenty of civilian applications for radar. Fusion has many beneficial applications for power generation. Los Alamos may have its roots in nuclear weapons, but these days it does plenty of research that is not directly applicable to warfare. It sounds like you've spooked yourself over nothing to me.
    $endgroup$
    – Harabeck
    Jul 19 at 15:57










  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – Anton Menshov♦
    Jul 20 at 15:45












  • 14




    $begingroup$
    I appreciate this question, and look forward to hearing others' perspectives. You have every right to make your own life decisions based on your personal ethos; however, words like "spooked" and phrases like "without further questions" are polarizing. There are a lot of people who know exactly what technology they're contributing to, and also believe in the morality of it, for better or worse. I think it would be helpful to make some of your language more neutral.
    $endgroup$
    – LedHead
    Jul 18 at 16:30







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I softened the question a bit to make it less suggestive. thanks for the remark.
    $endgroup$
    – MPIchael
    Jul 18 at 19:51






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I recommend reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s book Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul♦
    Jul 19 at 0:04






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Are any of your examples actually "arms research"? There are plenty of civilian applications for radar. Fusion has many beneficial applications for power generation. Los Alamos may have its roots in nuclear weapons, but these days it does plenty of research that is not directly applicable to warfare. It sounds like you've spooked yourself over nothing to me.
    $endgroup$
    – Harabeck
    Jul 19 at 15:57










  • $begingroup$
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    $endgroup$
    – Anton Menshov♦
    Jul 20 at 15:45







14




14




$begingroup$
I appreciate this question, and look forward to hearing others' perspectives. You have every right to make your own life decisions based on your personal ethos; however, words like "spooked" and phrases like "without further questions" are polarizing. There are a lot of people who know exactly what technology they're contributing to, and also believe in the morality of it, for better or worse. I think it would be helpful to make some of your language more neutral.
$endgroup$
– LedHead
Jul 18 at 16:30





$begingroup$
I appreciate this question, and look forward to hearing others' perspectives. You have every right to make your own life decisions based on your personal ethos; however, words like "spooked" and phrases like "without further questions" are polarizing. There are a lot of people who know exactly what technology they're contributing to, and also believe in the morality of it, for better or worse. I think it would be helpful to make some of your language more neutral.
$endgroup$
– LedHead
Jul 18 at 16:30





1




1




$begingroup$
I softened the question a bit to make it less suggestive. thanks for the remark.
$endgroup$
– MPIchael
Jul 18 at 19:51




$begingroup$
I softened the question a bit to make it less suggestive. thanks for the remark.
$endgroup$
– MPIchael
Jul 18 at 19:51




4




4




$begingroup$
I recommend reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s book Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military.
$endgroup$
– Paul♦
Jul 19 at 0:04




$begingroup$
I recommend reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s book Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military.
$endgroup$
– Paul♦
Jul 19 at 0:04




9




9




$begingroup$
Are any of your examples actually "arms research"? There are plenty of civilian applications for radar. Fusion has many beneficial applications for power generation. Los Alamos may have its roots in nuclear weapons, but these days it does plenty of research that is not directly applicable to warfare. It sounds like you've spooked yourself over nothing to me.
$endgroup$
– Harabeck
Jul 19 at 15:57




$begingroup$
Are any of your examples actually "arms research"? There are plenty of civilian applications for radar. Fusion has many beneficial applications for power generation. Los Alamos may have its roots in nuclear weapons, but these days it does plenty of research that is not directly applicable to warfare. It sounds like you've spooked yourself over nothing to me.
$endgroup$
– Harabeck
Jul 19 at 15:57












$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Anton Menshov♦
Jul 20 at 15:45




$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Anton Menshov♦
Jul 20 at 15:45










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















24












$begingroup$

I completely agree with @Anton in his discussion. No matter what scientific computing work you do, if you publish it in some public journal or location, it can be used to build weapons or further military tech.



I worked on missiles for a few years in a classified lab and I can tell you that I used my scientific computing background constantly in that environment. Using what I knew about solving differential equations or doing optimization and distributed computing were only a subset of the things I benefited from in that line of work and that doesn’t include other areas such as AI, computer science, controls, dynamical systems, etc. I can also tell you it was the norm in our lab to find papers and/or blog posts in these topics, when needed, to try and advance different algorithms for our purposes.



So indirectly, anything you make public and available could be used. So you’ll never escape that. That said, I think it’s totally reasonable to never need to directly support arms research with your work. Some of my current colleagues have had big careers in scientific computing and they haven’t supported any arms research directly.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am genuinely curious. Do you rationalize this line of work with the argument "better we have that technology than the other faction"? I have read some of Feynmans books and he describes that that was the dominant argument at Los Alamos at the time.
    $endgroup$
    – MPIchael
    Jul 18 at 20:32






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The best weapon is one that never needs to be used, simply because it's so good nobody in their right mind would want to face an opponent that has that weapon in their arsenal. And as to offensive vs. defensive, there's little difference. Many things (maybe most), can be considered either depending on scenario. An air-air missile for example. If carried on an interceptor defending a city the missile is in a defensive role, if carried on a penetration strike mission by an attack aircraft it's offensive.
    $endgroup$
    – jwenting
    Jul 19 at 11:11






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @spektr but not cynic enough to believe in the inevitability of actors who achieve this level of defensive might eventually using the same power for acts of aggression, I guess!
    $endgroup$
    – Will
    Jul 19 at 14:19






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Will I am cynical enough to think such a thing could happen. But if at least two players are competing in what would be an arms race, I expect (with no guarantee) the aggression will largely be kept at bay. If a single actor greatly exceeded the power of all others, I would be worried then.
    $endgroup$
    – spektr
    Jul 19 at 14:35






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @spektr Since the world is not quite yet completely divided into the territory of a handful of militarily-matched superpowers this equilibrium isn't a very recognisable pattern in reality. Nevertheless, lacking the military might to resist the expansionist projects and proxy wars of the remaining superpowers is certainly easier to get worried about than remaining in or joining their rank.
    $endgroup$
    – Will
    Jul 19 at 15:32


















27












$begingroup$

TL;DR:



  • It is certainly possible to build a career in applied math and computational sciences without directly contributing to arms research.

  • It is hardly possible to build a career in any research without indirectly contributing to arms research.

One can easily avoid direct contributions to military topics by choosing more abstract mathematical topics, carefully selecting numerical/measurement experiments, applying (actually, not applying) for the particular grants, etc. In this way, a researcher can build a very successful career without direct arms contributions.



Now, due to the nature of computational sciences, this research can be of extreme interest for advancing military technology. Developing an abstract applied mathematical method might contribute (without you realizing it) to a certain military application.



It is certainly true that the research from STEM fields is especially prone to potential military usage. However, that is not limited to STEM. Arts, humanities, and all other research can (and did!) potentially contribute to the advances of arms, directly or indirectly.



The simplest example of indirect contibution that is totally outside of your control:




As a professor, you developed an extremely popular course in numerical methods/philosophy of science/history of art. One of your students successfully finished it and decided to apply to arms research. Now you indirectly contributed to this research by providing your passion, materials, and time.




It is easy and possible to find examples of more "direct" indirect contributions. Say, the study of the art of Kukryniksy can lead to more efficient propaganda methodologies.



I, personally, very appreciate the ethical concerns. And the question of research ethics has become quite a hot topic in recent years. I would not discuss if it is ethical to do research that directly contributes to and targets military applications. It is a choice of the particular researcher that we should, at least, respect. But I will point out that potential indirect contributions to military applications are inevitable for any research field. Moreover, the safest way to not contribute to arms is to do nothing, which is obviously a bad solution altogether.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$






















    13












    $begingroup$

    I'm going to be slightly pedantic, but it is in the interest of easing your mind. The problem is here, emphasis mine.




    career in applied math without directly or indirectly contributing to arms research.




    The way you've framed the question, the only possible answer is "no". But you could say the same for any career choice.



    • "Can I pursue a career as a pastry chef without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

    • "Can I pursue a career in vending machine repair without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

    • "Can I pursue a career in fishing without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

    The only answer to all of these is obviously "no", as indirect support could simply mean making the lives of arms researchers easier or providing them with calories to do their work. The world is massively interconnected, and you are largely not responsible for indirect, unintended contributions.



    If you develop an interesting approach to any problem within computational science, people can then use your insights to forward many goals. Frankly, even an offhanded comment to a colleague could give them an insight that gels an idea that contributes to something else they're working on.



    Worry about your direct contributions. The rest is truly out of your control.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$










    • 3




      $begingroup$
      This is the answer. If you pay tax you are contributing to the defence budget. If your land was invaded you would expect the military to protect you, or not? So it's a bit non sequitur to be against everything military and still expect them to be there when needed. And they are needed; it's only the knowledge that they are there which stops bad guys from moving in. I see you are in Germany. Look East and tell us what's stopping the big bully neighbour from coming over (again).
      $endgroup$
      – RedSonja
      Jul 19 at 11:06










    • $begingroup$
      @RedSonja while I approve Ben I.'s answer, your argument is very viewpoint-specific. The same logic as you apply to German scientists, also applies to the scientists living in the big bully country, and they might apply the same rationale to justify working for the army... or should they?
      $endgroup$
      – svavil
      Jul 19 at 11:29










    • $begingroup$
      It always brings me back to Kant's imperative. If everybody would argue like this, we will be in a constants arms-race. If every scientist would desist from arms research, we would be in a better place. These are of course unrealistic extremes, and I know that the world is more complex than that, but it is the only consistent argument I can think of.
      $endgroup$
      – MPIchael
      Jul 19 at 12:49






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      This is part of the human condition, sad but true. Come up with an answer and pick up your Nobel prize.
      $endgroup$
      – RedSonja
      Jul 19 at 13:03






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      My viewpoint is very much influenced by living in Europe, in a country which in living memory was indeed unhappily occupied by the big bad bully in the East. I lock my door when I go out. Do you not?
      $endgroup$
      – RedSonja
      Jul 19 at 13:05


















    1












    $begingroup$

    Not all defense work is about offensive weapons; a lot is also about security: meaning preventing damage, preventing loss of life, and generally preserving and/or improving quality of life. For example, it is of national interest to diversify sources of energy not only to prevent global warming, but also in case of loss of infrastructure. People research computational epidemiology and informatics to prevent diseases from spreading or curing them as well. Advances in science and technology through the insights gained from computational research are also valuable to security in more ways than offensive weaponry.



    While any advances in science can be weaponized for offensive purposes, the same research can also be “counter-weaponized” to save lives and improve quality of life.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$










    • 3




      $begingroup$
      “Not all...about offensive weapons... ...security...preventing damage...” – I don't say this can't be an invalid argument, however there's a massive slippery slope here. Just about everything militaries have ever done in history was claimed to serve some kind of defensive purpose; in some cases what they ended up doing was actually genocide of the “offending” party.
      $endgroup$
      – leftaroundabout
      Jul 19 at 10:11










    • $begingroup$
      @leftaroundabout: Defense is multifaceted. All that is made for benevolent purposes can be exploited for malicious intent. Much of what is made for malicious intent can also be manipulated for benevolent purposes as well. It is good to be concious of potential ill consequences of research. But if there is even a remote possibility to exploit it for good as well, I feel it is worth risking.
      $endgroup$
      – Paul♦
      Jul 19 at 23:10


















    0












    $begingroup$

    I largely agree with the answers above. A field that could be of great interest to computational scientists and that is only indirectly linked to the military is geophysical fluid dynamics. One could work on developing state-of-the-art weather, climate and ocean models. Your work can result in better weather predictions and a better understanding of the climate system and the human influence on this climate system.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      Weather forecasting has direct military applications. The USAF even has a Special Forces branch dedicated to it.
      $endgroup$
      – Gaius
      Jul 21 at 13:53














    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "363"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscicomp.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33076%2fis-it-possible-to-have-a-career-in-scicomp-without-contributing-to-arms-research%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    24












    $begingroup$

    I completely agree with @Anton in his discussion. No matter what scientific computing work you do, if you publish it in some public journal or location, it can be used to build weapons or further military tech.



    I worked on missiles for a few years in a classified lab and I can tell you that I used my scientific computing background constantly in that environment. Using what I knew about solving differential equations or doing optimization and distributed computing were only a subset of the things I benefited from in that line of work and that doesn’t include other areas such as AI, computer science, controls, dynamical systems, etc. I can also tell you it was the norm in our lab to find papers and/or blog posts in these topics, when needed, to try and advance different algorithms for our purposes.



    So indirectly, anything you make public and available could be used. So you’ll never escape that. That said, I think it’s totally reasonable to never need to directly support arms research with your work. Some of my current colleagues have had big careers in scientific computing and they haven’t supported any arms research directly.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I am genuinely curious. Do you rationalize this line of work with the argument "better we have that technology than the other faction"? I have read some of Feynmans books and he describes that that was the dominant argument at Los Alamos at the time.
      $endgroup$
      – MPIchael
      Jul 18 at 20:32






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      The best weapon is one that never needs to be used, simply because it's so good nobody in their right mind would want to face an opponent that has that weapon in their arsenal. And as to offensive vs. defensive, there's little difference. Many things (maybe most), can be considered either depending on scenario. An air-air missile for example. If carried on an interceptor defending a city the missile is in a defensive role, if carried on a penetration strike mission by an attack aircraft it's offensive.
      $endgroup$
      – jwenting
      Jul 19 at 11:11






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @spektr but not cynic enough to believe in the inevitability of actors who achieve this level of defensive might eventually using the same power for acts of aggression, I guess!
      $endgroup$
      – Will
      Jul 19 at 14:19






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Will I am cynical enough to think such a thing could happen. But if at least two players are competing in what would be an arms race, I expect (with no guarantee) the aggression will largely be kept at bay. If a single actor greatly exceeded the power of all others, I would be worried then.
      $endgroup$
      – spektr
      Jul 19 at 14:35






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @spektr Since the world is not quite yet completely divided into the territory of a handful of militarily-matched superpowers this equilibrium isn't a very recognisable pattern in reality. Nevertheless, lacking the military might to resist the expansionist projects and proxy wars of the remaining superpowers is certainly easier to get worried about than remaining in or joining their rank.
      $endgroup$
      – Will
      Jul 19 at 15:32















    24












    $begingroup$

    I completely agree with @Anton in his discussion. No matter what scientific computing work you do, if you publish it in some public journal or location, it can be used to build weapons or further military tech.



    I worked on missiles for a few years in a classified lab and I can tell you that I used my scientific computing background constantly in that environment. Using what I knew about solving differential equations or doing optimization and distributed computing were only a subset of the things I benefited from in that line of work and that doesn’t include other areas such as AI, computer science, controls, dynamical systems, etc. I can also tell you it was the norm in our lab to find papers and/or blog posts in these topics, when needed, to try and advance different algorithms for our purposes.



    So indirectly, anything you make public and available could be used. So you’ll never escape that. That said, I think it’s totally reasonable to never need to directly support arms research with your work. Some of my current colleagues have had big careers in scientific computing and they haven’t supported any arms research directly.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I am genuinely curious. Do you rationalize this line of work with the argument "better we have that technology than the other faction"? I have read some of Feynmans books and he describes that that was the dominant argument at Los Alamos at the time.
      $endgroup$
      – MPIchael
      Jul 18 at 20:32






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      The best weapon is one that never needs to be used, simply because it's so good nobody in their right mind would want to face an opponent that has that weapon in their arsenal. And as to offensive vs. defensive, there's little difference. Many things (maybe most), can be considered either depending on scenario. An air-air missile for example. If carried on an interceptor defending a city the missile is in a defensive role, if carried on a penetration strike mission by an attack aircraft it's offensive.
      $endgroup$
      – jwenting
      Jul 19 at 11:11






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @spektr but not cynic enough to believe in the inevitability of actors who achieve this level of defensive might eventually using the same power for acts of aggression, I guess!
      $endgroup$
      – Will
      Jul 19 at 14:19






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Will I am cynical enough to think such a thing could happen. But if at least two players are competing in what would be an arms race, I expect (with no guarantee) the aggression will largely be kept at bay. If a single actor greatly exceeded the power of all others, I would be worried then.
      $endgroup$
      – spektr
      Jul 19 at 14:35






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @spektr Since the world is not quite yet completely divided into the territory of a handful of militarily-matched superpowers this equilibrium isn't a very recognisable pattern in reality. Nevertheless, lacking the military might to resist the expansionist projects and proxy wars of the remaining superpowers is certainly easier to get worried about than remaining in or joining their rank.
      $endgroup$
      – Will
      Jul 19 at 15:32













    24












    24








    24





    $begingroup$

    I completely agree with @Anton in his discussion. No matter what scientific computing work you do, if you publish it in some public journal or location, it can be used to build weapons or further military tech.



    I worked on missiles for a few years in a classified lab and I can tell you that I used my scientific computing background constantly in that environment. Using what I knew about solving differential equations or doing optimization and distributed computing were only a subset of the things I benefited from in that line of work and that doesn’t include other areas such as AI, computer science, controls, dynamical systems, etc. I can also tell you it was the norm in our lab to find papers and/or blog posts in these topics, when needed, to try and advance different algorithms for our purposes.



    So indirectly, anything you make public and available could be used. So you’ll never escape that. That said, I think it’s totally reasonable to never need to directly support arms research with your work. Some of my current colleagues have had big careers in scientific computing and they haven’t supported any arms research directly.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    I completely agree with @Anton in his discussion. No matter what scientific computing work you do, if you publish it in some public journal or location, it can be used to build weapons or further military tech.



    I worked on missiles for a few years in a classified lab and I can tell you that I used my scientific computing background constantly in that environment. Using what I knew about solving differential equations or doing optimization and distributed computing were only a subset of the things I benefited from in that line of work and that doesn’t include other areas such as AI, computer science, controls, dynamical systems, etc. I can also tell you it was the norm in our lab to find papers and/or blog posts in these topics, when needed, to try and advance different algorithms for our purposes.



    So indirectly, anything you make public and available could be used. So you’ll never escape that. That said, I think it’s totally reasonable to never need to directly support arms research with your work. Some of my current colleagues have had big careers in scientific computing and they haven’t supported any arms research directly.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jul 18 at 17:58









    spektrspektr

    2,9461 gold badge10 silver badges15 bronze badges




    2,9461 gold badge10 silver badges15 bronze badges










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I am genuinely curious. Do you rationalize this line of work with the argument "better we have that technology than the other faction"? I have read some of Feynmans books and he describes that that was the dominant argument at Los Alamos at the time.
      $endgroup$
      – MPIchael
      Jul 18 at 20:32






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      The best weapon is one that never needs to be used, simply because it's so good nobody in their right mind would want to face an opponent that has that weapon in their arsenal. And as to offensive vs. defensive, there's little difference. Many things (maybe most), can be considered either depending on scenario. An air-air missile for example. If carried on an interceptor defending a city the missile is in a defensive role, if carried on a penetration strike mission by an attack aircraft it's offensive.
      $endgroup$
      – jwenting
      Jul 19 at 11:11






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @spektr but not cynic enough to believe in the inevitability of actors who achieve this level of defensive might eventually using the same power for acts of aggression, I guess!
      $endgroup$
      – Will
      Jul 19 at 14:19






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Will I am cynical enough to think such a thing could happen. But if at least two players are competing in what would be an arms race, I expect (with no guarantee) the aggression will largely be kept at bay. If a single actor greatly exceeded the power of all others, I would be worried then.
      $endgroup$
      – spektr
      Jul 19 at 14:35






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @spektr Since the world is not quite yet completely divided into the territory of a handful of militarily-matched superpowers this equilibrium isn't a very recognisable pattern in reality. Nevertheless, lacking the military might to resist the expansionist projects and proxy wars of the remaining superpowers is certainly easier to get worried about than remaining in or joining their rank.
      $endgroup$
      – Will
      Jul 19 at 15:32












    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I am genuinely curious. Do you rationalize this line of work with the argument "better we have that technology than the other faction"? I have read some of Feynmans books and he describes that that was the dominant argument at Los Alamos at the time.
      $endgroup$
      – MPIchael
      Jul 18 at 20:32






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      The best weapon is one that never needs to be used, simply because it's so good nobody in their right mind would want to face an opponent that has that weapon in their arsenal. And as to offensive vs. defensive, there's little difference. Many things (maybe most), can be considered either depending on scenario. An air-air missile for example. If carried on an interceptor defending a city the missile is in a defensive role, if carried on a penetration strike mission by an attack aircraft it's offensive.
      $endgroup$
      – jwenting
      Jul 19 at 11:11






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @spektr but not cynic enough to believe in the inevitability of actors who achieve this level of defensive might eventually using the same power for acts of aggression, I guess!
      $endgroup$
      – Will
      Jul 19 at 14:19






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Will I am cynical enough to think such a thing could happen. But if at least two players are competing in what would be an arms race, I expect (with no guarantee) the aggression will largely be kept at bay. If a single actor greatly exceeded the power of all others, I would be worried then.
      $endgroup$
      – spektr
      Jul 19 at 14:35






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @spektr Since the world is not quite yet completely divided into the territory of a handful of militarily-matched superpowers this equilibrium isn't a very recognisable pattern in reality. Nevertheless, lacking the military might to resist the expansionist projects and proxy wars of the remaining superpowers is certainly easier to get worried about than remaining in or joining their rank.
      $endgroup$
      – Will
      Jul 19 at 15:32







    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    I am genuinely curious. Do you rationalize this line of work with the argument "better we have that technology than the other faction"? I have read some of Feynmans books and he describes that that was the dominant argument at Los Alamos at the time.
    $endgroup$
    – MPIchael
    Jul 18 at 20:32




    $begingroup$
    I am genuinely curious. Do you rationalize this line of work with the argument "better we have that technology than the other faction"? I have read some of Feynmans books and he describes that that was the dominant argument at Los Alamos at the time.
    $endgroup$
    – MPIchael
    Jul 18 at 20:32




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    The best weapon is one that never needs to be used, simply because it's so good nobody in their right mind would want to face an opponent that has that weapon in their arsenal. And as to offensive vs. defensive, there's little difference. Many things (maybe most), can be considered either depending on scenario. An air-air missile for example. If carried on an interceptor defending a city the missile is in a defensive role, if carried on a penetration strike mission by an attack aircraft it's offensive.
    $endgroup$
    – jwenting
    Jul 19 at 11:11




    $begingroup$
    The best weapon is one that never needs to be used, simply because it's so good nobody in their right mind would want to face an opponent that has that weapon in their arsenal. And as to offensive vs. defensive, there's little difference. Many things (maybe most), can be considered either depending on scenario. An air-air missile for example. If carried on an interceptor defending a city the missile is in a defensive role, if carried on a penetration strike mission by an attack aircraft it's offensive.
    $endgroup$
    – jwenting
    Jul 19 at 11:11




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    @spektr but not cynic enough to believe in the inevitability of actors who achieve this level of defensive might eventually using the same power for acts of aggression, I guess!
    $endgroup$
    – Will
    Jul 19 at 14:19




    $begingroup$
    @spektr but not cynic enough to believe in the inevitability of actors who achieve this level of defensive might eventually using the same power for acts of aggression, I guess!
    $endgroup$
    – Will
    Jul 19 at 14:19




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @Will I am cynical enough to think such a thing could happen. But if at least two players are competing in what would be an arms race, I expect (with no guarantee) the aggression will largely be kept at bay. If a single actor greatly exceeded the power of all others, I would be worried then.
    $endgroup$
    – spektr
    Jul 19 at 14:35




    $begingroup$
    @Will I am cynical enough to think such a thing could happen. But if at least two players are competing in what would be an arms race, I expect (with no guarantee) the aggression will largely be kept at bay. If a single actor greatly exceeded the power of all others, I would be worried then.
    $endgroup$
    – spektr
    Jul 19 at 14:35




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @spektr Since the world is not quite yet completely divided into the territory of a handful of militarily-matched superpowers this equilibrium isn't a very recognisable pattern in reality. Nevertheless, lacking the military might to resist the expansionist projects and proxy wars of the remaining superpowers is certainly easier to get worried about than remaining in or joining their rank.
    $endgroup$
    – Will
    Jul 19 at 15:32




    $begingroup$
    @spektr Since the world is not quite yet completely divided into the territory of a handful of militarily-matched superpowers this equilibrium isn't a very recognisable pattern in reality. Nevertheless, lacking the military might to resist the expansionist projects and proxy wars of the remaining superpowers is certainly easier to get worried about than remaining in or joining their rank.
    $endgroup$
    – Will
    Jul 19 at 15:32













    27












    $begingroup$

    TL;DR:



    • It is certainly possible to build a career in applied math and computational sciences without directly contributing to arms research.

    • It is hardly possible to build a career in any research without indirectly contributing to arms research.

    One can easily avoid direct contributions to military topics by choosing more abstract mathematical topics, carefully selecting numerical/measurement experiments, applying (actually, not applying) for the particular grants, etc. In this way, a researcher can build a very successful career without direct arms contributions.



    Now, due to the nature of computational sciences, this research can be of extreme interest for advancing military technology. Developing an abstract applied mathematical method might contribute (without you realizing it) to a certain military application.



    It is certainly true that the research from STEM fields is especially prone to potential military usage. However, that is not limited to STEM. Arts, humanities, and all other research can (and did!) potentially contribute to the advances of arms, directly or indirectly.



    The simplest example of indirect contibution that is totally outside of your control:




    As a professor, you developed an extremely popular course in numerical methods/philosophy of science/history of art. One of your students successfully finished it and decided to apply to arms research. Now you indirectly contributed to this research by providing your passion, materials, and time.




    It is easy and possible to find examples of more "direct" indirect contributions. Say, the study of the art of Kukryniksy can lead to more efficient propaganda methodologies.



    I, personally, very appreciate the ethical concerns. And the question of research ethics has become quite a hot topic in recent years. I would not discuss if it is ethical to do research that directly contributes to and targets military applications. It is a choice of the particular researcher that we should, at least, respect. But I will point out that potential indirect contributions to military applications are inevitable for any research field. Moreover, the safest way to not contribute to arms is to do nothing, which is obviously a bad solution altogether.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



















      27












      $begingroup$

      TL;DR:



      • It is certainly possible to build a career in applied math and computational sciences without directly contributing to arms research.

      • It is hardly possible to build a career in any research without indirectly contributing to arms research.

      One can easily avoid direct contributions to military topics by choosing more abstract mathematical topics, carefully selecting numerical/measurement experiments, applying (actually, not applying) for the particular grants, etc. In this way, a researcher can build a very successful career without direct arms contributions.



      Now, due to the nature of computational sciences, this research can be of extreme interest for advancing military technology. Developing an abstract applied mathematical method might contribute (without you realizing it) to a certain military application.



      It is certainly true that the research from STEM fields is especially prone to potential military usage. However, that is not limited to STEM. Arts, humanities, and all other research can (and did!) potentially contribute to the advances of arms, directly or indirectly.



      The simplest example of indirect contibution that is totally outside of your control:




      As a professor, you developed an extremely popular course in numerical methods/philosophy of science/history of art. One of your students successfully finished it and decided to apply to arms research. Now you indirectly contributed to this research by providing your passion, materials, and time.




      It is easy and possible to find examples of more "direct" indirect contributions. Say, the study of the art of Kukryniksy can lead to more efficient propaganda methodologies.



      I, personally, very appreciate the ethical concerns. And the question of research ethics has become quite a hot topic in recent years. I would not discuss if it is ethical to do research that directly contributes to and targets military applications. It is a choice of the particular researcher that we should, at least, respect. But I will point out that potential indirect contributions to military applications are inevitable for any research field. Moreover, the safest way to not contribute to arms is to do nothing, which is obviously a bad solution altogether.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$

















        27












        27








        27





        $begingroup$

        TL;DR:



        • It is certainly possible to build a career in applied math and computational sciences without directly contributing to arms research.

        • It is hardly possible to build a career in any research without indirectly contributing to arms research.

        One can easily avoid direct contributions to military topics by choosing more abstract mathematical topics, carefully selecting numerical/measurement experiments, applying (actually, not applying) for the particular grants, etc. In this way, a researcher can build a very successful career without direct arms contributions.



        Now, due to the nature of computational sciences, this research can be of extreme interest for advancing military technology. Developing an abstract applied mathematical method might contribute (without you realizing it) to a certain military application.



        It is certainly true that the research from STEM fields is especially prone to potential military usage. However, that is not limited to STEM. Arts, humanities, and all other research can (and did!) potentially contribute to the advances of arms, directly or indirectly.



        The simplest example of indirect contibution that is totally outside of your control:




        As a professor, you developed an extremely popular course in numerical methods/philosophy of science/history of art. One of your students successfully finished it and decided to apply to arms research. Now you indirectly contributed to this research by providing your passion, materials, and time.




        It is easy and possible to find examples of more "direct" indirect contributions. Say, the study of the art of Kukryniksy can lead to more efficient propaganda methodologies.



        I, personally, very appreciate the ethical concerns. And the question of research ethics has become quite a hot topic in recent years. I would not discuss if it is ethical to do research that directly contributes to and targets military applications. It is a choice of the particular researcher that we should, at least, respect. But I will point out that potential indirect contributions to military applications are inevitable for any research field. Moreover, the safest way to not contribute to arms is to do nothing, which is obviously a bad solution altogether.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        TL;DR:



        • It is certainly possible to build a career in applied math and computational sciences without directly contributing to arms research.

        • It is hardly possible to build a career in any research without indirectly contributing to arms research.

        One can easily avoid direct contributions to military topics by choosing more abstract mathematical topics, carefully selecting numerical/measurement experiments, applying (actually, not applying) for the particular grants, etc. In this way, a researcher can build a very successful career without direct arms contributions.



        Now, due to the nature of computational sciences, this research can be of extreme interest for advancing military technology. Developing an abstract applied mathematical method might contribute (without you realizing it) to a certain military application.



        It is certainly true that the research from STEM fields is especially prone to potential military usage. However, that is not limited to STEM. Arts, humanities, and all other research can (and did!) potentially contribute to the advances of arms, directly or indirectly.



        The simplest example of indirect contibution that is totally outside of your control:




        As a professor, you developed an extremely popular course in numerical methods/philosophy of science/history of art. One of your students successfully finished it and decided to apply to arms research. Now you indirectly contributed to this research by providing your passion, materials, and time.




        It is easy and possible to find examples of more "direct" indirect contributions. Say, the study of the art of Kukryniksy can lead to more efficient propaganda methodologies.



        I, personally, very appreciate the ethical concerns. And the question of research ethics has become quite a hot topic in recent years. I would not discuss if it is ethical to do research that directly contributes to and targets military applications. It is a choice of the particular researcher that we should, at least, respect. But I will point out that potential indirect contributions to military applications are inevitable for any research field. Moreover, the safest way to not contribute to arms is to do nothing, which is obviously a bad solution altogether.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jul 18 at 16:51

























        answered Jul 18 at 16:27









        Anton Menshov♦Anton Menshov

        5,5882 gold badges22 silver badges80 bronze badges




        5,5882 gold badges22 silver badges80 bronze badges
























            13












            $begingroup$

            I'm going to be slightly pedantic, but it is in the interest of easing your mind. The problem is here, emphasis mine.




            career in applied math without directly or indirectly contributing to arms research.




            The way you've framed the question, the only possible answer is "no". But you could say the same for any career choice.



            • "Can I pursue a career as a pastry chef without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            • "Can I pursue a career in vending machine repair without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            • "Can I pursue a career in fishing without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            The only answer to all of these is obviously "no", as indirect support could simply mean making the lives of arms researchers easier or providing them with calories to do their work. The world is massively interconnected, and you are largely not responsible for indirect, unintended contributions.



            If you develop an interesting approach to any problem within computational science, people can then use your insights to forward many goals. Frankly, even an offhanded comment to a colleague could give them an insight that gels an idea that contributes to something else they're working on.



            Worry about your direct contributions. The rest is truly out of your control.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$










            • 3




              $begingroup$
              This is the answer. If you pay tax you are contributing to the defence budget. If your land was invaded you would expect the military to protect you, or not? So it's a bit non sequitur to be against everything military and still expect them to be there when needed. And they are needed; it's only the knowledge that they are there which stops bad guys from moving in. I see you are in Germany. Look East and tell us what's stopping the big bully neighbour from coming over (again).
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 11:06










            • $begingroup$
              @RedSonja while I approve Ben I.'s answer, your argument is very viewpoint-specific. The same logic as you apply to German scientists, also applies to the scientists living in the big bully country, and they might apply the same rationale to justify working for the army... or should they?
              $endgroup$
              – svavil
              Jul 19 at 11:29










            • $begingroup$
              It always brings me back to Kant's imperative. If everybody would argue like this, we will be in a constants arms-race. If every scientist would desist from arms research, we would be in a better place. These are of course unrealistic extremes, and I know that the world is more complex than that, but it is the only consistent argument I can think of.
              $endgroup$
              – MPIchael
              Jul 19 at 12:49






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              This is part of the human condition, sad but true. Come up with an answer and pick up your Nobel prize.
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 13:03






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              My viewpoint is very much influenced by living in Europe, in a country which in living memory was indeed unhappily occupied by the big bad bully in the East. I lock my door when I go out. Do you not?
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 13:05















            13












            $begingroup$

            I'm going to be slightly pedantic, but it is in the interest of easing your mind. The problem is here, emphasis mine.




            career in applied math without directly or indirectly contributing to arms research.




            The way you've framed the question, the only possible answer is "no". But you could say the same for any career choice.



            • "Can I pursue a career as a pastry chef without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            • "Can I pursue a career in vending machine repair without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            • "Can I pursue a career in fishing without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            The only answer to all of these is obviously "no", as indirect support could simply mean making the lives of arms researchers easier or providing them with calories to do their work. The world is massively interconnected, and you are largely not responsible for indirect, unintended contributions.



            If you develop an interesting approach to any problem within computational science, people can then use your insights to forward many goals. Frankly, even an offhanded comment to a colleague could give them an insight that gels an idea that contributes to something else they're working on.



            Worry about your direct contributions. The rest is truly out of your control.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$










            • 3




              $begingroup$
              This is the answer. If you pay tax you are contributing to the defence budget. If your land was invaded you would expect the military to protect you, or not? So it's a bit non sequitur to be against everything military and still expect them to be there when needed. And they are needed; it's only the knowledge that they are there which stops bad guys from moving in. I see you are in Germany. Look East and tell us what's stopping the big bully neighbour from coming over (again).
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 11:06










            • $begingroup$
              @RedSonja while I approve Ben I.'s answer, your argument is very viewpoint-specific. The same logic as you apply to German scientists, also applies to the scientists living in the big bully country, and they might apply the same rationale to justify working for the army... or should they?
              $endgroup$
              – svavil
              Jul 19 at 11:29










            • $begingroup$
              It always brings me back to Kant's imperative. If everybody would argue like this, we will be in a constants arms-race. If every scientist would desist from arms research, we would be in a better place. These are of course unrealistic extremes, and I know that the world is more complex than that, but it is the only consistent argument I can think of.
              $endgroup$
              – MPIchael
              Jul 19 at 12:49






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              This is part of the human condition, sad but true. Come up with an answer and pick up your Nobel prize.
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 13:03






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              My viewpoint is very much influenced by living in Europe, in a country which in living memory was indeed unhappily occupied by the big bad bully in the East. I lock my door when I go out. Do you not?
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 13:05













            13












            13








            13





            $begingroup$

            I'm going to be slightly pedantic, but it is in the interest of easing your mind. The problem is here, emphasis mine.




            career in applied math without directly or indirectly contributing to arms research.




            The way you've framed the question, the only possible answer is "no". But you could say the same for any career choice.



            • "Can I pursue a career as a pastry chef without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            • "Can I pursue a career in vending machine repair without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            • "Can I pursue a career in fishing without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            The only answer to all of these is obviously "no", as indirect support could simply mean making the lives of arms researchers easier or providing them with calories to do their work. The world is massively interconnected, and you are largely not responsible for indirect, unintended contributions.



            If you develop an interesting approach to any problem within computational science, people can then use your insights to forward many goals. Frankly, even an offhanded comment to a colleague could give them an insight that gels an idea that contributes to something else they're working on.



            Worry about your direct contributions. The rest is truly out of your control.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            I'm going to be slightly pedantic, but it is in the interest of easing your mind. The problem is here, emphasis mine.




            career in applied math without directly or indirectly contributing to arms research.




            The way you've framed the question, the only possible answer is "no". But you could say the same for any career choice.



            • "Can I pursue a career as a pastry chef without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            • "Can I pursue a career in vending machine repair without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            • "Can I pursue a career in fishing without indirectly contributing to arms research?"

            The only answer to all of these is obviously "no", as indirect support could simply mean making the lives of arms researchers easier or providing them with calories to do their work. The world is massively interconnected, and you are largely not responsible for indirect, unintended contributions.



            If you develop an interesting approach to any problem within computational science, people can then use your insights to forward many goals. Frankly, even an offhanded comment to a colleague could give them an insight that gels an idea that contributes to something else they're working on.



            Worry about your direct contributions. The rest is truly out of your control.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Jul 19 at 2:06









            Ben I.Ben I.

            2314 bronze badges




            2314 bronze badges










            • 3




              $begingroup$
              This is the answer. If you pay tax you are contributing to the defence budget. If your land was invaded you would expect the military to protect you, or not? So it's a bit non sequitur to be against everything military and still expect them to be there when needed. And they are needed; it's only the knowledge that they are there which stops bad guys from moving in. I see you are in Germany. Look East and tell us what's stopping the big bully neighbour from coming over (again).
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 11:06










            • $begingroup$
              @RedSonja while I approve Ben I.'s answer, your argument is very viewpoint-specific. The same logic as you apply to German scientists, also applies to the scientists living in the big bully country, and they might apply the same rationale to justify working for the army... or should they?
              $endgroup$
              – svavil
              Jul 19 at 11:29










            • $begingroup$
              It always brings me back to Kant's imperative. If everybody would argue like this, we will be in a constants arms-race. If every scientist would desist from arms research, we would be in a better place. These are of course unrealistic extremes, and I know that the world is more complex than that, but it is the only consistent argument I can think of.
              $endgroup$
              – MPIchael
              Jul 19 at 12:49






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              This is part of the human condition, sad but true. Come up with an answer and pick up your Nobel prize.
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 13:03






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              My viewpoint is very much influenced by living in Europe, in a country which in living memory was indeed unhappily occupied by the big bad bully in the East. I lock my door when I go out. Do you not?
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 13:05












            • 3




              $begingroup$
              This is the answer. If you pay tax you are contributing to the defence budget. If your land was invaded you would expect the military to protect you, or not? So it's a bit non sequitur to be against everything military and still expect them to be there when needed. And they are needed; it's only the knowledge that they are there which stops bad guys from moving in. I see you are in Germany. Look East and tell us what's stopping the big bully neighbour from coming over (again).
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 11:06










            • $begingroup$
              @RedSonja while I approve Ben I.'s answer, your argument is very viewpoint-specific. The same logic as you apply to German scientists, also applies to the scientists living in the big bully country, and they might apply the same rationale to justify working for the army... or should they?
              $endgroup$
              – svavil
              Jul 19 at 11:29










            • $begingroup$
              It always brings me back to Kant's imperative. If everybody would argue like this, we will be in a constants arms-race. If every scientist would desist from arms research, we would be in a better place. These are of course unrealistic extremes, and I know that the world is more complex than that, but it is the only consistent argument I can think of.
              $endgroup$
              – MPIchael
              Jul 19 at 12:49






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              This is part of the human condition, sad but true. Come up with an answer and pick up your Nobel prize.
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 13:03






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              My viewpoint is very much influenced by living in Europe, in a country which in living memory was indeed unhappily occupied by the big bad bully in the East. I lock my door when I go out. Do you not?
              $endgroup$
              – RedSonja
              Jul 19 at 13:05







            3




            3




            $begingroup$
            This is the answer. If you pay tax you are contributing to the defence budget. If your land was invaded you would expect the military to protect you, or not? So it's a bit non sequitur to be against everything military and still expect them to be there when needed. And they are needed; it's only the knowledge that they are there which stops bad guys from moving in. I see you are in Germany. Look East and tell us what's stopping the big bully neighbour from coming over (again).
            $endgroup$
            – RedSonja
            Jul 19 at 11:06




            $begingroup$
            This is the answer. If you pay tax you are contributing to the defence budget. If your land was invaded you would expect the military to protect you, or not? So it's a bit non sequitur to be against everything military and still expect them to be there when needed. And they are needed; it's only the knowledge that they are there which stops bad guys from moving in. I see you are in Germany. Look East and tell us what's stopping the big bully neighbour from coming over (again).
            $endgroup$
            – RedSonja
            Jul 19 at 11:06












            $begingroup$
            @RedSonja while I approve Ben I.'s answer, your argument is very viewpoint-specific. The same logic as you apply to German scientists, also applies to the scientists living in the big bully country, and they might apply the same rationale to justify working for the army... or should they?
            $endgroup$
            – svavil
            Jul 19 at 11:29




            $begingroup$
            @RedSonja while I approve Ben I.'s answer, your argument is very viewpoint-specific. The same logic as you apply to German scientists, also applies to the scientists living in the big bully country, and they might apply the same rationale to justify working for the army... or should they?
            $endgroup$
            – svavil
            Jul 19 at 11:29












            $begingroup$
            It always brings me back to Kant's imperative. If everybody would argue like this, we will be in a constants arms-race. If every scientist would desist from arms research, we would be in a better place. These are of course unrealistic extremes, and I know that the world is more complex than that, but it is the only consistent argument I can think of.
            $endgroup$
            – MPIchael
            Jul 19 at 12:49




            $begingroup$
            It always brings me back to Kant's imperative. If everybody would argue like this, we will be in a constants arms-race. If every scientist would desist from arms research, we would be in a better place. These are of course unrealistic extremes, and I know that the world is more complex than that, but it is the only consistent argument I can think of.
            $endgroup$
            – MPIchael
            Jul 19 at 12:49




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            This is part of the human condition, sad but true. Come up with an answer and pick up your Nobel prize.
            $endgroup$
            – RedSonja
            Jul 19 at 13:03




            $begingroup$
            This is part of the human condition, sad but true. Come up with an answer and pick up your Nobel prize.
            $endgroup$
            – RedSonja
            Jul 19 at 13:03




            3




            3




            $begingroup$
            My viewpoint is very much influenced by living in Europe, in a country which in living memory was indeed unhappily occupied by the big bad bully in the East. I lock my door when I go out. Do you not?
            $endgroup$
            – RedSonja
            Jul 19 at 13:05




            $begingroup$
            My viewpoint is very much influenced by living in Europe, in a country which in living memory was indeed unhappily occupied by the big bad bully in the East. I lock my door when I go out. Do you not?
            $endgroup$
            – RedSonja
            Jul 19 at 13:05











            1












            $begingroup$

            Not all defense work is about offensive weapons; a lot is also about security: meaning preventing damage, preventing loss of life, and generally preserving and/or improving quality of life. For example, it is of national interest to diversify sources of energy not only to prevent global warming, but also in case of loss of infrastructure. People research computational epidemiology and informatics to prevent diseases from spreading or curing them as well. Advances in science and technology through the insights gained from computational research are also valuable to security in more ways than offensive weaponry.



            While any advances in science can be weaponized for offensive purposes, the same research can also be “counter-weaponized” to save lives and improve quality of life.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$










            • 3




              $begingroup$
              “Not all...about offensive weapons... ...security...preventing damage...” – I don't say this can't be an invalid argument, however there's a massive slippery slope here. Just about everything militaries have ever done in history was claimed to serve some kind of defensive purpose; in some cases what they ended up doing was actually genocide of the “offending” party.
              $endgroup$
              – leftaroundabout
              Jul 19 at 10:11










            • $begingroup$
              @leftaroundabout: Defense is multifaceted. All that is made for benevolent purposes can be exploited for malicious intent. Much of what is made for malicious intent can also be manipulated for benevolent purposes as well. It is good to be concious of potential ill consequences of research. But if there is even a remote possibility to exploit it for good as well, I feel it is worth risking.
              $endgroup$
              – Paul♦
              Jul 19 at 23:10















            1












            $begingroup$

            Not all defense work is about offensive weapons; a lot is also about security: meaning preventing damage, preventing loss of life, and generally preserving and/or improving quality of life. For example, it is of national interest to diversify sources of energy not only to prevent global warming, but also in case of loss of infrastructure. People research computational epidemiology and informatics to prevent diseases from spreading or curing them as well. Advances in science and technology through the insights gained from computational research are also valuable to security in more ways than offensive weaponry.



            While any advances in science can be weaponized for offensive purposes, the same research can also be “counter-weaponized” to save lives and improve quality of life.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$










            • 3




              $begingroup$
              “Not all...about offensive weapons... ...security...preventing damage...” – I don't say this can't be an invalid argument, however there's a massive slippery slope here. Just about everything militaries have ever done in history was claimed to serve some kind of defensive purpose; in some cases what they ended up doing was actually genocide of the “offending” party.
              $endgroup$
              – leftaroundabout
              Jul 19 at 10:11










            • $begingroup$
              @leftaroundabout: Defense is multifaceted. All that is made for benevolent purposes can be exploited for malicious intent. Much of what is made for malicious intent can also be manipulated for benevolent purposes as well. It is good to be concious of potential ill consequences of research. But if there is even a remote possibility to exploit it for good as well, I feel it is worth risking.
              $endgroup$
              – Paul♦
              Jul 19 at 23:10













            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            Not all defense work is about offensive weapons; a lot is also about security: meaning preventing damage, preventing loss of life, and generally preserving and/or improving quality of life. For example, it is of national interest to diversify sources of energy not only to prevent global warming, but also in case of loss of infrastructure. People research computational epidemiology and informatics to prevent diseases from spreading or curing them as well. Advances in science and technology through the insights gained from computational research are also valuable to security in more ways than offensive weaponry.



            While any advances in science can be weaponized for offensive purposes, the same research can also be “counter-weaponized” to save lives and improve quality of life.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Not all defense work is about offensive weapons; a lot is also about security: meaning preventing damage, preventing loss of life, and generally preserving and/or improving quality of life. For example, it is of national interest to diversify sources of energy not only to prevent global warming, but also in case of loss of infrastructure. People research computational epidemiology and informatics to prevent diseases from spreading or curing them as well. Advances in science and technology through the insights gained from computational research are also valuable to security in more ways than offensive weaponry.



            While any advances in science can be weaponized for offensive purposes, the same research can also be “counter-weaponized” to save lives and improve quality of life.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Jul 18 at 23:22

























            answered Jul 18 at 22:49









            Paul♦Paul

            7,4896 gold badges39 silver badges112 bronze badges




            7,4896 gold badges39 silver badges112 bronze badges










            • 3




              $begingroup$
              “Not all...about offensive weapons... ...security...preventing damage...” – I don't say this can't be an invalid argument, however there's a massive slippery slope here. Just about everything militaries have ever done in history was claimed to serve some kind of defensive purpose; in some cases what they ended up doing was actually genocide of the “offending” party.
              $endgroup$
              – leftaroundabout
              Jul 19 at 10:11










            • $begingroup$
              @leftaroundabout: Defense is multifaceted. All that is made for benevolent purposes can be exploited for malicious intent. Much of what is made for malicious intent can also be manipulated for benevolent purposes as well. It is good to be concious of potential ill consequences of research. But if there is even a remote possibility to exploit it for good as well, I feel it is worth risking.
              $endgroup$
              – Paul♦
              Jul 19 at 23:10












            • 3




              $begingroup$
              “Not all...about offensive weapons... ...security...preventing damage...” – I don't say this can't be an invalid argument, however there's a massive slippery slope here. Just about everything militaries have ever done in history was claimed to serve some kind of defensive purpose; in some cases what they ended up doing was actually genocide of the “offending” party.
              $endgroup$
              – leftaroundabout
              Jul 19 at 10:11










            • $begingroup$
              @leftaroundabout: Defense is multifaceted. All that is made for benevolent purposes can be exploited for malicious intent. Much of what is made for malicious intent can also be manipulated for benevolent purposes as well. It is good to be concious of potential ill consequences of research. But if there is even a remote possibility to exploit it for good as well, I feel it is worth risking.
              $endgroup$
              – Paul♦
              Jul 19 at 23:10







            3




            3




            $begingroup$
            “Not all...about offensive weapons... ...security...preventing damage...” – I don't say this can't be an invalid argument, however there's a massive slippery slope here. Just about everything militaries have ever done in history was claimed to serve some kind of defensive purpose; in some cases what they ended up doing was actually genocide of the “offending” party.
            $endgroup$
            – leftaroundabout
            Jul 19 at 10:11




            $begingroup$
            “Not all...about offensive weapons... ...security...preventing damage...” – I don't say this can't be an invalid argument, however there's a massive slippery slope here. Just about everything militaries have ever done in history was claimed to serve some kind of defensive purpose; in some cases what they ended up doing was actually genocide of the “offending” party.
            $endgroup$
            – leftaroundabout
            Jul 19 at 10:11












            $begingroup$
            @leftaroundabout: Defense is multifaceted. All that is made for benevolent purposes can be exploited for malicious intent. Much of what is made for malicious intent can also be manipulated for benevolent purposes as well. It is good to be concious of potential ill consequences of research. But if there is even a remote possibility to exploit it for good as well, I feel it is worth risking.
            $endgroup$
            – Paul♦
            Jul 19 at 23:10




            $begingroup$
            @leftaroundabout: Defense is multifaceted. All that is made for benevolent purposes can be exploited for malicious intent. Much of what is made for malicious intent can also be manipulated for benevolent purposes as well. It is good to be concious of potential ill consequences of research. But if there is even a remote possibility to exploit it for good as well, I feel it is worth risking.
            $endgroup$
            – Paul♦
            Jul 19 at 23:10











            0












            $begingroup$

            I largely agree with the answers above. A field that could be of great interest to computational scientists and that is only indirectly linked to the military is geophysical fluid dynamics. One could work on developing state-of-the-art weather, climate and ocean models. Your work can result in better weather predictions and a better understanding of the climate system and the human influence on this climate system.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$














            • $begingroup$
              Weather forecasting has direct military applications. The USAF even has a Special Forces branch dedicated to it.
              $endgroup$
              – Gaius
              Jul 21 at 13:53
















            0












            $begingroup$

            I largely agree with the answers above. A field that could be of great interest to computational scientists and that is only indirectly linked to the military is geophysical fluid dynamics. One could work on developing state-of-the-art weather, climate and ocean models. Your work can result in better weather predictions and a better understanding of the climate system and the human influence on this climate system.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$














            • $begingroup$
              Weather forecasting has direct military applications. The USAF even has a Special Forces branch dedicated to it.
              $endgroup$
              – Gaius
              Jul 21 at 13:53














            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            I largely agree with the answers above. A field that could be of great interest to computational scientists and that is only indirectly linked to the military is geophysical fluid dynamics. One could work on developing state-of-the-art weather, climate and ocean models. Your work can result in better weather predictions and a better understanding of the climate system and the human influence on this climate system.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            I largely agree with the answers above. A field that could be of great interest to computational scientists and that is only indirectly linked to the military is geophysical fluid dynamics. One could work on developing state-of-the-art weather, climate and ocean models. Your work can result in better weather predictions and a better understanding of the climate system and the human influence on this climate system.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Jul 21 at 8:34









            BasileiosBasileios

            101




            101














            • $begingroup$
              Weather forecasting has direct military applications. The USAF even has a Special Forces branch dedicated to it.
              $endgroup$
              – Gaius
              Jul 21 at 13:53

















            • $begingroup$
              Weather forecasting has direct military applications. The USAF even has a Special Forces branch dedicated to it.
              $endgroup$
              – Gaius
              Jul 21 at 13:53
















            $begingroup$
            Weather forecasting has direct military applications. The USAF even has a Special Forces branch dedicated to it.
            $endgroup$
            – Gaius
            Jul 21 at 13:53





            $begingroup$
            Weather forecasting has direct military applications. The USAF even has a Special Forces branch dedicated to it.
            $endgroup$
            – Gaius
            Jul 21 at 13:53


















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Computational Science Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscicomp.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33076%2fis-it-possible-to-have-a-career-in-scicomp-without-contributing-to-arms-research%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

            Image
            Natural numbersSquare numbersCategories requiring diffusion Help Category:9 (number) From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Jump to navigation Jump to search number: 9 (nine) instance of: natural number, deficient number, square number, composite number, odd number, centered cube number, centered octagonal number and nonagonal number other integers: -8 • -4 • -2 • -1 • 0 • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 -20 • 0 • 10 • 20 • 30 ...
            Read more

            Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

            Image
            How to attach cable mounting points to a bicycle frame? Is Jon Snow the last of his House? A steel cutting sword? I know that there is a preselected candidate for a position to be filled at my department. What should I do? Is the field of q-series 'dead'? How to cut a climbing rope? Do photons bend spacetime or not? Where have Brexit voters gone? Is it legal to have an abortion in another state or abroad? Did this character show any indication of wanting to rule before S8E6? How to respond to upset student? Compaq Portable vs IBM 5155 Portable PC Is the Indo-European language family made up? Can I summon an otherworldly creature with the Gate spell without knowing its true name? USPS Back Room - Trespassing? Can my floppy disk still work without a shutter spring? Alternatives to achieve certain output format Are black holes spherical during merger? Can the product of any two aperiodic functions which are defined on the entire number line be p...
            Read more

            Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?

            Image
            What is the meaning of [[:space:]] in bash? Is this artwork (used in a video game) real? What happens on Day 6? Link of a singularity Should I be able to keep my company purchased standing desk when I leave my job? Alternator dying so junk car? A scene of Jimmy diversity Is the Gritty Realism variant incompatible with dungeon-based adventures? What could be reasoning of male prison in VR world to only allow undershirt and sarong as nightwear to male prisoners Why does FFmpeg choose 10+20+20 ms instead of an even 16 ms for 60 fps GIF images? Sending a photo of my bank account card to the future employer Advice for paying off student loans and auto loans now that I have my first 'real' job If I stood next to a piece of metal heated to a million degrees, but in a perfect vacuum, would I feel hot? What made Windows ME so crash-prone? Can a dragon's breath weapon pass through Leomund's Tiny Hut? Did 007 exist before James Bond? Is there a sour...
            Read more