Ethics, Scientists, Engineers and the Military - Ethical Engineering for International Development and Environmental Sustainability - page 347

Most countries with a well-developed military capacity, including most of the
industrialised countries, engage in the arms trade and export a sizeable percentage
of military production. For instance, in the UK an estimated one third of military
production was exported in 2011/2012 (CAAT 2014, Private communication).
However, it should be noted that the data on UK arms exports is of very poor quality,
so this estimate is not at all accurate. As discussed in Sect. 5 , there are few controls
or real restrictions on the export of arms to confl ict zones and countries with serious
human rights abuses where they may be used in repression. Thus, the idea that
governments require military capacity and research to defend or improve their
ability to defend their citizens against external enemies seems not to be supported
by the evidence. Instead it is likely that weapons are either not used, an irresponsible
use of scarce resources, or traded, possibly to be used in internal confl icts and
repression, or are used in outside intervention in such confl icts. Therefore, for many
countries, rather than military preparedness being required to defend against an
external aggressor, the threat of an external 'enemy' is required to justify military
spending, which is desired for other reasons, such as power, status and prestige.
Therefore, the real ethical question for scientists and engineers is not whether it
is ethically justifi ed to do military work in support of the defence of one's country,
but whether it is ethically justifi ed to do military work:
• Which may lead to the production of weapons which will be traded, including to
confl ict zones and countries with poor human rights records and which may be
used in internal repression.
• Which are very expensive both in fi nancial terms and in consumption of (scare)
resources, thereby diverting resources from other important areas.
Engineers and scientists have also played a major role in developments in
armaments technology, including long-range missiles, military aircraft, armed
drones, landmines, cluster bombs and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
and cyberwarfare, as well as in the development of information and communication
technologies which form an essential part of modern military forces and confl ict,
just as of all other aspects of modern society.
These developments have had the following important negative impacts: (1) sig-
nifi cantly increasing the speed of action or response, (2) signifi cantly increasing
the lethality or number of people killed and injured at one time, (3) signifi cantly
increasing the range of weapons and the distance over which they can spread death
and destruction and (4) signifi cantly increasing the distance of military personnel
from the resulting death and destruction. Thus, rather than military R&D reducing
the potential destructiveness of war, it has signifi cantly increased it. In addition, the
potential for much faster responses at a much greater distance may lead to escala-
tions of actual or potential confl icts, with the use of military force before there has
been time to really think whether its use is necessary or desirable or investigate
alternative approaches. The ability of many modern weapons systems to kill at great
distances, as well as the increasing automation of armed drones, distance military