I really do love the American "but the veterans!" script, despite only them being a minority of the people involved:
> Of [the 32], 14 no longer work for, or with, us, some of whom stopped as long as five years ago. Six are ex-armed forces veterans whose public sector experience involved serving and protecting their country.
> Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them.
A friend of mine recently got headhunted by a "defense" company called, and I won't even post the link, it's a website which sounds a bit like Van Helsing with some AI thrown in as a twist. He got an offer of 50k EUR more than his current already ridiculous salary.
I had to say that it's up to you, but don't expect me to still be your friend and still talk to you if you go for that.
Yes I would and without question. If by "do" you mean remove myself from the absolute evil that these establishments are, and shame them for it then yes.
I can approve of just about any job unless it's about murdering people because some politician(s) want it.
Obviously, it's one thing to be a commander ordering an attack, vs a soldier firing the weapon, vs starting the company to make the weapon, vs being a supplier to the weapons company, vs being an employee at the manufacturer, etc.
What about working for a president who is going to inevitably order hundreds if not thousands murdered? Or voting for said president?
What about paying taxes, knowing those tax dollars will go to missiles and guns used to murder?
(This isn't a criticism of your worldview, by the way. I'm just genuinely curious about how others draw these lines.)
I'm not GP but I could've written a similar comment. Personally I don't draw the line based on "proximity to war", but on the choices being made. I think poorly of someone who freely chooses "job directly contributing to war" over "job mostly unrelated to war".
Not them, but from someone with a similar perspective: Voting for the greater evil president gets you cut off. If you have a choice between two war criminals, but one is clearly going to be 10x worse than the other, a harm reduction vote is acceptable, especially if you voted in primaries to try to avoid that final shitty choice. Working for an evil government is only acceptable if you're using your influence to try to secretly serve as a roadblock in them implementing their agenda.
Dodging federal taxes in the US specifically is moral, but if you can't, it's defensible to pay them because you are literally held at gunpoint and your possessions will be seized anyways if you don't.
Given the current state of things I would say that it's really easy to pivot to "let's sell weapons to whoever wants them". Still presenting a product as a way to defend democracies is comical. At the end of the day, people with money will buy these things and it doesn't matter who because oversight is scarce.
Sure, but what _is_ the practical solution to the invasion of a foreign military power on your home soil then? Do you think these systems should only be developed by the government? And if so, do you then apply the same logic to anyone working in the government?
The "revolving door" spoken of here isn't quite as simple as it looks. Granted there are problems at "senior government level" but that is rare.
I worked for UK government for a few years. Then I went to the private sector. This happens a lot. Most of people who do, me included, it's because the public sector is so deep in incompetence and stupid politics that it is soul-crushing. Also to get anywhere you tend to have to take placement roles andmove around a lot and resort to a lot of arse licking and back-stabbing. Having a family or any stability is really difficult.
So you leave. And then they attempt to get you back with "enhanced pay" over your initial mediocre salary because there is suddenly a skills vacuum and everything is falling apart. They know who to reach out to because they want people who can slide back in and clean up the mess. All with redundancy again waved around constantly due to government reshuffles.
Lol, this is SOP for the British state. There has been a revolving door between the civil service and the private sector for decades. You cannot conceive of how many billions have been wasted on "consultancy" contracts with the big four, IT projects that lasted for years and delivered nothing, etc.
“Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them. Characterising this as part of a ‘revolving door strategy’ does them, and all veterans, a disservice.”
Why should people who been in the army be exempt when talking about a company in defence ?
They also hired the eldest grandson of the most famous British fascist (Oswald Mosley) to be head of the UK division.
No idea what the grandsons politics are like, and the guy has to work somewhere. But, you get the feeling mentioning his famous grandfather in the interview was ticking a lot of boxes for this gig.
We need to hold the line — nobody who has held a job with the UK Government ever deserves to be employed by the private sector. Once you're in the government, you've made your choice, you live or die in the public sector. No more begging the private sector for mercy later.
I guess like Americans, Britons also have forgotten all of those who paid by their blood to keep destroy these sort of people. Just like Americans, a large number of people know this is a crazy deal, but not enough to do something about it.
> Of [the 32], 14 no longer work for, or with, us, some of whom stopped as long as five years ago. Six are ex-armed forces veterans whose public sector experience involved serving and protecting their country.
> Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them.
I had to say that it's up to you, but don't expect me to still be your friend and still talk to you if you go for that.
"defense"
I can approve of just about any job unless it's about murdering people because some politician(s) want it.
Obviously, it's one thing to be a commander ordering an attack, vs a soldier firing the weapon, vs starting the company to make the weapon, vs being a supplier to the weapons company, vs being an employee at the manufacturer, etc.
What about working for a president who is going to inevitably order hundreds if not thousands murdered? Or voting for said president?
What about paying taxes, knowing those tax dollars will go to missiles and guns used to murder?
(This isn't a criticism of your worldview, by the way. I'm just genuinely curious about how others draw these lines.)
Dodging federal taxes in the US specifically is moral, but if you can't, it's defensible to pay them because you are literally held at gunpoint and your possessions will be seized anyways if you don't.
Have you seen what Russia is doing to Ukraine?
What's wrong with a European company working on not letting the same (or worse) repeat in the Baltic states or Poland?
I worked for UK government for a few years. Then I went to the private sector. This happens a lot. Most of people who do, me included, it's because the public sector is so deep in incompetence and stupid politics that it is soul-crushing. Also to get anywhere you tend to have to take placement roles andmove around a lot and resort to a lot of arse licking and back-stabbing. Having a family or any stability is really difficult.
So you leave. And then they attempt to get you back with "enhanced pay" over your initial mediocre salary because there is suddenly a skills vacuum and everything is falling apart. They know who to reach out to because they want people who can slide back in and clean up the mess. All with redundancy again waved around constantly due to government reshuffles.
Why should people who been in the army be exempt when talking about a company in defence ?
Notice they think it’s inappropriate to include them for negative conclusions but its appropriate to talk about the positive conclusions.
No idea what the grandsons politics are like, and the guy has to work somewhere. But, you get the feeling mentioning his famous grandfather in the interview was ticking a lot of boxes for this gig.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/congr...
We need to hold the line — nobody who has held a job with the UK Government ever deserves to be employed by the private sector. Once you're in the government, you've made your choice, you live or die in the public sector. No more begging the private sector for mercy later.
Is everyone aware of all the unhinged beliefs their CEO and leadership has been spreading. never mind their actual practices.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/21/palantir-...
I guess like Americans, Britons also have forgotten all of those who paid by their blood to keep destroy these sort of people. Just like Americans, a large number of people know this is a crazy deal, but not enough to do something about it.