About your problem with Tom and missile defence
, read this to clarify:
: "Do you not find a conflict of interest between what you do for a living (missile systems development, if I gather correctly) and what you edify in your book?
Doesn't the entropy of YOUR consciousness get shaken up by the mere knowledge of the destructive consequences that your work may bring upon this world?"
: "There is no conflict of interest, nor any destructive consequences, related to my work. It is your assumptions and beliefs that make it appear so.
This topic has been addressed before in this forum -- several times -- but here it is again:
I do not, nor have I ever, worked on weapons of any sort. I Worked only on defensive systems. The technology involved in defensive systems is entirely different than the technology needed for weapon systems. Defensive systems simply protect populations from offensive systems. I work for NASA now.
In particular, I have worked on sensor systems for defensive missiles. The defensive missiles I have worked on have but one function (and their technology is good for nothing else -- has no offensive application), and that is to destroy incoming nuclear warheads and thereby potentially save the lives of a few hundred million innocent victims. It would be better if there were no Nuclear warheads but that is not the world we live in. Defending innocent noncombatants who cannot defend themselves from such a threat is not immoral. Pretending that the ugly stuff will disappear on its own and that it is not my problem and I should distance myself from it (it is not going to go away any time soon in our culture) does little to improve the situation and leaves the larger population at risk. I would rather that the money spent on missile defense were spent on other things that would have a bigger effect on the well being and security of the population but that is not my choice to make, though I lobby for it every chance I get.
Over the last several decades I have lived and worked in a fragile democracy within a political culture flirting with fascism. I have found that fighting fascist attitudes and mind-sets within the system is much more effective from inside the system than any sort of gesture that can be made from outside the system, or from simply withdrawing from the system. Go to your enemy and your oppressor and change them with argument and love and good example - or separate yourself from your enemy, call them names, or shake your fist and holler. The first is much more difficult, but has a good chance of making a positive difference while the second is easy (and thus the method of choice for most of us) but ineffective given the circumstances in the real world -- at worst it devolves to posturing in order to stroke a self-righteous ego and more often than not makes things worse by justifying, unifying, and entrenching the enemies position.
If you are not part of the solution, doing the best you can to make a difference, then you are part of the problem. It takes all kinds working from various angles and approaches to change cultural and individual attitudes. It is more effective if we spread out and work through as many channels and directions as possible - each doing as much, and being as effective, as he/she has the opportunity to be.
I do not work for the Army, I work for NASA
Some years ago I worked in strategic missile defense [mostly in sensor technology development (e.g., radars) and in systems risk/vulnerability analysis). Strategic missile defense has no purpose other than to defend civilian population by destroying incoming nuclear warheads. Defensive missile technology does not apply to offensive missile systems.
30 years ago I worked for army technical intelligence -- we studied foreign military electronic systems technology to see what we could learn but primarily to find ways to counter foreign offensive systems.
I am not a pacifist -- being able to defend one's self is sometimes necessary. One might argue that having a good defense may encourage the use of offence. That can be true but is not necessarily true -- it depends entirely on the quality of the leadership. The quality of leadership comes and goes but over the last 30 years it has been generally responsible - with some notable exceptions. Over the last 30 years, especially in strategic missile defense, having some minimal defense of civilian population has not emboldened offense.
(This post could be used as a reference for future doubts about Tom and missile defence)
You should do some searching on UFO's on this board, a fresh perspective might be valuable.