BAE Systems

Posted on 2002/11/07 24:59:01 (November 2002) by john.

More corporate ranting...

On the tube today, bored as ever, I happened to read an advert for BAE Systems - (British Aerospace). It seemed to be more a general "good publicity" sort of advert rather than actually trying to sell anything in particular, so to start with I was a bit baffled by what the actual point of the whole thing was.

Anyway, that aside, the poster talked about a new type of radar homing beacon they'd invented or something. Apparently it has allowed people lost at sea to be found. This in itself is very commendable, so well done. However, the advert ended with the caption, and I might not have got the wording exactly right as it's from memory: "Just one of the many innovations from BAE Systems to help make the world a safer place". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the same BAE, as Tim informs me, that make landmines? Are they one of the other many innovations that make the world a safer place? It's obvious what the advert is trying to do then, to improve their public image, and bury the fact that they are, at least in part, arms manufacturers. I wonder how much the marketing consultants got paid for this. If they really do want to have a good public image, it might be better obtained by just stopping the production of weapons that kill and mutilate innocent civilians. Isn't this utterly sickening? The board of BAE are sitting there worrying that the value of their shares is going down because they are viewed by some as an immoral company. To correct this, they just throw a marketing campaign at the problem, not actually try and make any ammends to the people they have harmed and killed, or try to stop this happening in the future. I really wonder how some people can sleep at night.

What's your point? That a company which makes life-saving equipment as well as life-destroying equipment should be slated for inconsistency? Your own argument is not entirely sound, so should I rant about you? (D'oh, I am) You say "Land mines kill innocent people" ... but you fail to mention the fact that landmines are non-discriminatory, and are also equally adept at killing guilty people. So there you go ... putting a certain "Spin" on the facts to suit your own argument. Pot? Kettle?

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/07 13:28:25.

No, I don't agree with you Jimmy. Firstly, I believe killing is wrong regardless. Unfortunately because the average human being is too afraid to think beyond these limited horizons the bulk of the population of the world does believe it is necessary under certain circumstances. So the point about killing innocent people is more for other people's benefit, whereas in my mind, it is never right to kill, innocent, "guilty" or otherwise. To clarify my point then. I think you'll find most people, at least in this country, object to the idea of landmines. Based on that fact, it is not unreasonable to assume that people would therefore have a bad opinion of a company that manufactures them. What I object to is the way they try to improve their image through PR rather than actually trying to make the world a better place, by stopping doing the things that are upsetting people in the first place. The idea that you can throw money at a moral problem to make it go away is really repulsive to me.

Posted by John at 2002/11/07 13:53:57.

Plus if you go and get the BAE annual report, and look at the company's list of priorities, I doubt "Making the world a safer place" is going to rank higher than shareholder profit.

Posted by John at 2002/11/07 14:05:29.

Hold your horses, rant-boy! I'm not trying to say that killing people (innocent or otherwise) is a good thing - merely that "Putting a certain spin on the situation" is just human nature. They did it, you did it. You're cherry-picking facts which support your own argument - and they (similarly) like to mention the more positive aspects of their company's business when running PR campaigns. I think this is to be expected, and that to derided it as "Corporate Hypocrisy" is really a bit self-righteous.

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/07 14:21:16.

PS can I have you RIFF-reading classes, please? I've found some *really* evil things I can do with AVIs ...

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/07 14:21:55.

OK yes I suppose there's an element of cherry picking in what I said, and I regret the use of the word hypocrisy there. That word always comes back to bite you in the arse. Still though if you boil it all down to "killing people is bad" I think we're roughly in agreement aren't we?

Posted by John at 2002/11/07 14:27:42.

As for the RIFF classes, it'll have to be tomorrow now I'm afraid! I'm at university today and I no longer have a copy of the source code here... Sorry, I ought to have emailed you that stuff last night.

Posted by John at 2002/11/07 14:29:37.

There we go, I even removed the word hypocrisy from the article... :)

Posted by John at 2002/11/07 14:30:50.

Don't think I'll be placated by removing a few choice words. I was disagreeing with your underlying viewpoint! But I appreciate the effort, nevertheless ;)

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/07 15:07:39.

BAE = Bad Ass Evil?

Posted by rowanboy at 2002/11/07 18:45:59.

WSMOTTWABWH = Well Slap Me On The Thigh With A Big Wet Halibut

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/08 09:42:31.

So, John, are you saying that companies that make things for war are immoral? Is it immoral to use things that were originally funded to go to words killing people?

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/11/08 11:29:31.

The word "immoral" is such a subjective thing, so I'm not in a position to dictate what is or isn't immoral. In my opinion, killing is wrong, so therefore making things to kill people must also be wrong. But that's just my opinion, which it seems the large portion of the world does not share.

Posted by John at 2002/11/08 11:51:42.

Ok mate, by your opinion, is it wrong to use things that were originally intended to kill?

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/11/08 24:13:19.

As Karl Marx said, the Hudson river is not always the Hudson river, many other tributaries flow into it, so in effect it is many different rivers (or something along those lines). What I'm saying is, although I believe in certain moral absolutes, most things in life I suppose are grey areas. OK so if a group of children are trapped behind a locked door in a burning building and there just happens to be a gun to hand that can shoot off the lock, in that particular scenario the gun obviously has a positive effect, and the act of using it has saved lives and not harmed anyone else so that is obviously a good thing. There are of course many things which are not created with the intent of harming people, but if misused can do exactly that (knives, sleeping pills, armchairs and so on). From a previous article, there was a discussion about how the internet is another example of something made originally for military purposes, that now has a lot of very beneficial effects on many people's lives all over the world. But that's really a "it just so happens that..." rather than "it's ONLY there because of...".

I wonder what moral snare you are trying to lead me into though...

Posted by John at 2002/11/08 13:57:44.

Lead you, I am, John. It's just that most companies have created something, normally for money, that they then sell to the military. Are you going to hate all of them just because they have made stuff that can be used for military uses? Are you going to hate every company that has produced something that kills? You example of a knife is a good one and brings me to my point:

The company itself is not immoral, its the use it's put to.

I think BAe have good cause to advertise as above, they don't just do military stuff but also produce systems for civillian applications. There's nothing wrong with emphasising that. Boeing also make fighter aircraft but the best airliner (747) on the planet that has made a lot of people's lives better over the years. You hate them? What about Universities?

We live in the real world where there is going to be the chance of war and conflict. We might not like the idea but you will have to choose a side: them, us or neutral. If everyone was neutral then up-and-coming countries might get away with all sorts (like invading Poland). Where there is a market (a world in which there might be war), there will be a product. You might not like it, but that's the way it is and all the moralistic bitching won't solve anything.

If it really disgusts you, John, why not go out there and do something about it?

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/11/08 14:17:21.

No I disagree. For some things (e.g. land mines, nuclear warheads) it is kind of hard to think of a positive use to which they can be put. Even if you could think of a positive use in some highly improbable scenario (blowing up astreroids or something), you can guarantee this was not the intention with which these things were created. If every scientist had a conscience and just downright refused to make things that are so obviously connected with killing, such things would simply not exist. Yes, a thuggish individual could still beat you to death with his fists. But the kind of apalling widescale slaughter that some of these technologies facilitate would not be possible. Heisenberg claimed he deliberately sabotaged the German nuclear weapons plan during the second world war because he thought it was wrong (although this particular incident is, admittedly, much contested). Still though, in theory it is possible for the decisions of a single individual to make real differences. I'm sure if you look into history you will see many examples of real lives being saved by scientists refusing to take part in work which will clearly lead to killing.

You cannot completely detach the product from its potential uses. If somebody approached you tomorrow with designs for a product to help strangling children and asked you to build it, would you be able to do so with a clear conscience? You'd never have to be personally involved in the strangling, you'd never have to see it or even know about it. Is this acceptable?

Improvement to society is the resposibility of every individual. Everybody thinking they can act immorally (by my definition) and it won't matter because everyone else is just as bad, is clearly a disastrous model. Human beings are not limited to acting in a selfish and individualistic manner. Take a look at Cuba and you will see many examples of where sheer group determination and a feeling of unity and solidarity has overcome seemingly insurmoutable obstacles. I am doing something about it, Rob. If everybody refused, in the way I (and others) do, to work towards products that will inevitably kill, then the world would be a better place.

Posted by John at 2002/11/08 15:30:11.

Were you aware that BAE are sponsoring Poppy Day this year? I heard a discussion about this on Radio 4 this morning. The guy from some disarmament organisation who was putting the "against" case likened it to "having King Herod sponsor a day given over to promoting child welfare."

Posted by rowanboy at 2002/11/08 15:51:42.

You're getting a bit beyond yourself there. I agree that you're (in a minor, reactionary way) improving the world by refusing to work on products that contribute to the wealth/functionality of companies which also make war-like products. But this should not be confused with refusing to contribute to *actual* war-like products, which (in turn) should not be confused with actaully doing something about the (said) war-like products themselves. In fact, you're trying to claim the "Moral high ground" when in fact you're only whingeing in a sort-of fourth-order way which won't really affect the world at large, in any context that actualy relates to reality. I think you're onto a loser here, and should either do something positive, or stop complaining about things related to things related to things related to things related to killing.

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/08 15:53:51.

You're missing the point. I'm not trying to say I'm doing anything particualrly wonderful, simply that it's important to think hard about these sorts of things, for which it's necessary to have this kind of communication. If you don't like my "complaining" then go read another website.

Posted by John at 2002/11/08 16:02:26.

All I'm saying is it is wrong to kill. It saddens me that people seem to want to argue this point.

Posted by John at 2002/11/08 16:06:12.

Nobody's disputing the morality or murder. I'm just a bit concerned that you're getting on a high horse about nothing. Remember that you started off ranting about an ad-campaign? Remember that I said you shouldn't complain about a company putting a positive spin on its activities? That's where this argument came from ... and that's where I'm still going. You, on the other hand, seem to be on a wide-ranging rant about killing in general. This does not support your original argument. Perhaps you need to start a new thread called "I don't think you should kill people" - and you might get more agreement that way. As it is, you're on an anti-BAE-rant and are unliklely to find much support.

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/08 16:18:03.

BAE make products with the specific intention of killing people. It is the same argument to me.

Posted by John at 2002/11/08 16:20:45.

Ah, you've got a point about the nuclear weapons. You've also got a point about scientists saying 'no'. I can't disagree. If scientists didn't do it, then it would not exist. Fair play. Got me there.

However, your view of changing society by saying 'no' is a bit odd. If we (in the Western World) all decided to not make offensive weapons in the 1920s (when such thinking was welcomed after the 1st World War) then Hitler would have killed millions more and we would be living in a fascist state.

That's a bit extreme. But do you see, while there are lunatics out there, you need a military and if you're going to have one, it needs to be quite high tech. The world is not ever (strong word, but I'll leave it in) get to the state where 'everyone' says no. It will take EVERYONE for it to all stop. As it is unlikely that EVERYONE is going to do that, your efforts are a little pointless.

If someone asked me to build a child strangler, I'd ask who the children were. If they were rabid zombie children, no problem there.

Tom, The British Legion's Remeberance Sunday is to remember the brave people who fought so that we could live the way we wanted. By your quote, you make it sound like BAe forced them to go to war when really they were helping our people survive for longer. Rememberance Sunday is totally outside the remit of this debate and thus I think we should leave it well alone.

I also agree that it is neccessary to have this kind of communication, John, but I think perhaps your trigger of story could have been a little better placed: the debate you really wanted to get to the bottom of has very little to do with the advertising campaign of a company that does civilian and military contracts.

It also seems, John, that if our sovreignty was under risk you would not bare arms, but stand by and wave banners about how bad war is. When war is forced upon you, you would claim the neutral ground and say that it's nothing to do with you because you are a pacifist. Good luck with that, we all hope it never comes to it.

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/11/08 16:25:48.

Well, said, Rob!

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/08 16:27:43.

The very syntax you express yourself with is extremely limiting, Rob. The notion of countries, the notion of "them and us". Whilst we continue to make these artifical barriers between us and other people there will continue to be fear and hatred and this will lead to conflict. The way to properly resolve the constant threat of conflict with which we've always been plagued is not to build walls and point guns at each other. It is to communicate, find common ground, have consideration for others and learn to love people. We are not incapable of this. It is not an overnight fix, and it will take a lot of courage for everyone to see beyond these horizons. But it is possible.

Posted by John at 2002/11/08 16:40:24.

Come on, John - this hardly relates to an ad-campaign! Nobody likes a thread that goes off-subject.

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/08 16:43:57.

...and if any of you are thinking about launching an attack on pacifism. First question, what is better, a world filled with pacifists, or a world filled with warmongers. Think hard about that. Second, don't confuse pacifism with cowardice. I have been considering joining the volunteer fire service. I am quite prepared to risk my life to save others. I am not, however, prepared to kill, under any circumstances.

Posted by John at 2002/11/08 16:52:22.

You need a web-page called "John's moral dilemmas" where people can vote for questions such as "Is it OK to kill children". or maybe "Is it OK to kill children if they are terminally ill anyway". Personally, I'm not suggesting answers to these questions, but it might make for a fun site. At the end of the vote, john can play God and pronounce his judgement upon us all. As usual. I've checked, and "www.holier-than-thou.org" is actually available. Bargain!

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/08 17:02:14.

As it happens, imrightandyourewrong.org is also available.

Posted by John at 2002/11/08 17:06:17.

Yeah - but I've had a great idea for a fun, new web-site, and you've not.

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/08 17:07:33.

ithoughtofitfirst.org is available...

Posted by John at 2002/11/08 17:12:40.

Had to have the last word, didn't you?

Posted by Jimmy at 2002/11/08 17:16:08.

No, that's my job.

Posted by Mike at 2002/11/08 17:22:34.

I'm just trying to be realistic, John. If we were attacked, would you bear arms to protect yourself?

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/11/08 19:34:13.

Still you're on the wrong tracks Rob. What do you mean by "we"? To me, the whole human race is "we", not some devisive notion of patriotism. I will not kill another human being. I have made this clear. If "we" are attacked, as you put it, the individual soldiers who are invading are human beings just as much as you or I am. they have feelings, fears, families in exactly the same way we do. These are not faceless monsters. Most soldiers are usually manipulated to do what they do by fear and propoganda. Such people do not deserve to die, and I have no right to take their lives away from them. Whilst you continue to live with this notion that there is some horde waiting to pounce at the gate, you are letting fear control you, and you will not be free, Rob. I have a feeling this is one of the steps on the path to enlightenment that the Buddha talked about. To have realised this myself fills me with a wonderful sense of freedom. I don't think that this is something I can teach to other people, merely something I can hope you will find for yourselves. Everyone is basically the same. We all are all afraid of what others may do to us, and it is this fear that perpetuates violence. Therefore it needs people to look beyond these horizons to a world that I believe really can exist, in which people have a common understanding of each other from which stems peaces.

Posted by John at 2002/11/10 12:46:04.

OK John, pop quiz.

You have children, they have your nose, their mums eyes etc.

A drunk driver smashes into them and a lollipop-lady on their way home from school. Not a pretty site.

You are first on the scene.

The driver, bruised but OK asks you for directions to Medina.

What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?

Posted by dsp at 2002/11/10 13:27:55.

PS. Does anyone else's wife work fo BAE Systems?

Posted by dsp at 2002/11/10 13:32:31.

A bit off thread now, but Rob: I was only adding an amusing bit into something that was getting a little heavy! I'm all for poppy day, and if BAe sponsor it then great - that means more of the collected cash goes to the physically and mentally scarred and mained ex-servicemen and their families.

I'm also not anti-BAe. I, like John and I think everyone else, believe that killing is wrong. But if it were kill or be killed, I know I'd rather be the one left standing.

Posted by rowanboy at 2002/11/10 13:42:55.

Eureeka! I see where John is going. In fact, I guess we kinda discussed this last time you were round. The fact that we all live on one planet is enough right? In fact, if we spanned humanity over several galaxies, then that wouldn't change anything of your premise.

Which, if I'm right, is: We are all human. Town, county, country and continents aside. So, each of us has an equal and undeniable right to be alive, whoever we are, wherever we are.

John goes further and suggests that this is true despite what is a terrible and disgusting flaw in those very same humans - the need to compete and eventually go to war over *all sorts* of different things (religion, land rights, skin colour, daft domain names..)> We should all be as one. No more countries, no more boundaries, no more *need* to fight. We're all the same.

And I'm with him.

So are you. So are most rational people. But it only takes a few to spoil the whole thing.

The only way to get rid of 'em seems - ironically - to blow them up, to wage a war against terrorism, a war against oppression and tyranny.

Posted by rowanboy at 2002/11/10 14:15:03.

Think of society as a huge computer system. It operates as an interconnection of many autonomous components. After a while of running, it has been noticed that a number of these components are behaving erroneously, or more to the point, blowing each other up. This is not making for a good system. Use of conflict, trying to root out the "bad" components and eliminate them is the equivalent of a quick and dirty patch. Like using "Sleep" in a bit of multi-threaded code. Or sticking a great big try and catch arround whatever is causing the problem. This is not solving the underlying problems, just sweeping them under the carpet. To fix the system properly requires a solid and well thought out set of design principles right from the outset. A systematic behaviour that all of the components understand, support, and appreciate. However nerdy this all sounds, I think we can learn a lot from taking such an abstract view of any system.

Posted by John at 2002/11/10 15:25:59.

Tim, I'm not sure if your question about the accident was meant entirely seriously... But anyway if this was meant to be a "would violence be acceptable if..." sort of question, then no, I'm not going to beat the guy in question to death or anything.

Posted by John at 2002/11/10 15:41:50.

Fair play Tom, soz about that.

So John, if an invading army came along and took away your house, lands, posessions, killed your neighbour, set fire to the pub, strung up the landlord and reduced pangbourne to rubble: you would turn round and say "Please do! Let's be freinds."? You would not protect your children from a forced-labour camp?

I agree that the perfect world would be one without any reason to fight (as Tom says, without borders etc) but it's not like that and is going to take many thousands of years to get to it. Until then, I believe we have to fight for what we think is right. Be that fighting verbally or physically.

And John, please don't patronise me: "Whilst you continue to live with this notion that there is some horde waiting to pounce at the gate, you are letting fear control you, and you will not be free, Rob." makes me only want to never post agin, and I am sure that is not your intention.

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/11/10 18:12:15.

Wow that seems to have struck a chord. This isn't an attempt to patronise you Rob, but you, in my opinion, are wrong. As it appears I, in your opinion, am wrong. Clearly in your position it's a bit unlikely after reading a few lines of text on a website you're going to suddenly say, hold on a minute, this whole military thing is a complete waste of time isn't it? However, a psychologist might point out that the fact that you are so offended by what I said (i.e. suggesting as a result you might never post again) ought to point some significance towards something or other.

Posted by John at 2002/11/11 09:34:30.

You *know* the only way to sort this out is a duel at dawn..... ;-)

Posted by rowanboy at 2002/11/11 09:47:14.

By the way, at 1100 GMT, I'll be stopping work/the car/the radio/whatever for two minutes. Please feel free to join me wherever you are. Remember those who have been lost *on both sides* of conflict.

Posted by rowanboy at 2002/11/11 09:49:23.

Perhaps you're right, John. It's the "you will not be free..." that bugged me in particular. Reminds me of all the brainwashing that was so readily attempted when I was a child.

You still haven't answered the question! Would you bear arms to defend your family?

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/11/11 10:43:30.

This is such a difficult question to answer Rob. Part of me does want to say yes. My family are so precious to me. Chie also particularly comes to mind, I couldn't bear to think of any harm coming to her, and I imagine in the heat of the moment, in an extreme situation, I might do things I'd later hate myself for, in order to protect her. But then something in me can't just say yes because of what other acts it may legitimise. Where does the line get drawn? Did the nazis think they were protecting their families by "securing" Europe as they often considered it...? Did the Americans think they were protecting their families by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Japanese people in Hiroshima?

Posted by John at 2002/11/11 11:11:14.

(John! Check the time and date of your last comment. How poetic! 11:11 on the 11th of the 11th. To the minute, John sums up peace!)

Posted by rowanboy at 2002/11/11 24:22:41.

Hello, I'm Greg Mitchel, and I don't want to be patronising but...

Perhaps John is right about killing people not being nice.
And that Rob is right about there being occasions when trying to 'understand' an invading army will not do you any good.
And Tom is right about John being peace.
And Jimmy is right about whingy-rant/spin-boy losing the plot a bit and completely bang on about the moral-dilema.com website being a great idea.
And Mike is right to have the last word.

There.

Now we can all play nicely again and concentrate on our main goal of legitimising acts of physical violence... D'oh no, what am I saying? My wife's going to kill me!!!!

Posted by dsp at 2002/11/11 14:34:29.

Furry muff, Mr. Hawkins. It is difficult to say. It's a difficult and dodgy line to draw.

I would hope that, given the chance you would fight verbally for something you believe in without ever having resort to violence. :)

Posted by Rob Lang at 2002/11/11 15:23:31.

2 things proverbs spring to mind.

"There is beauty because there is uglyness"

and

"Don't pray for an easy life, but pray for the strength to cope with a hard one"

Posted by Karl at 2002/11/11 23:15:53.

An apropriate proverb for you John would be...

"A thousand mile journey starts with the first step".

You will not change mankind to became more peaceful, but your existance increases the chances (a nano-bit).

Posted by Karl at 2002/11/11 23:37:31.

We are not evil, we ae doing our jobs. Proesters and goddamn net geeks. SMH

Posted by BAE employee at 2006/01/28 04:11:39.

Post a comment