Helsing at Eurorust and the Oxidation of Defense(cafkafk.dev)
cafkafk.dev
Helsing at Eurorust and the Oxidation of Defense
https://cafkafk.dev/p/eurorust-2024-helsing/
54 comments
I think the fact that Anduril in particular is involved is relevant because Palmer Luckey and the whole Thiel company orbit around it are extremely divisive and there's a military / civil divide along political axis in the US. Here in Europe that's usually not the case and Helsing being a European company in particular now with the security situation on the continent just isn't going to cause much furor.
The irony is that Luckey and Musk, despite their personal issues and divisiveness, are some of the better defense contractors in terms of actually providing good value for dollar and getting things done on time. Compare against, say, Boeing.
I suggest that the Europeans should get over their moral reservations about military industries quickly because the upcoming US administration is not likely to be as helpful as previous ones in the event that Russia decides to test the integrity of NATO.
I suggest that the Europeans should get over their moral reservations about military industries quickly because the upcoming US administration is not likely to be as helpful as previous ones in the event that Russia decides to test the integrity of NATO.
> I suggest that the Europeans should get over their moral reservations about military industries quickly
Which of us Europeans are you referring to exactly?
Sweden joined NATO and many countries in the bloc have increased spending. In the Netherlands we sent fighter jets to Ukraine to try and help in the war against Ukraine.
This comment is just downright ignorant and condescending. I guess this is how Trump voters view Europe though?
Which of us Europeans are you referring to exactly?
Sweden joined NATO and many countries in the bloc have increased spending. In the Netherlands we sent fighter jets to Ukraine to try and help in the war against Ukraine.
This comment is just downright ignorant and condescending. I guess this is how Trump voters view Europe though?
I agree - and what's funny is that according to this blog it was the US community that rejected US MIC companies, and the EU community didn't reject the EU MIC company.
We're commenting on a long essay about making tech conferences hostile to any kind of defense contractor presence, that prefaced itself with a "content warning" simply because a handful of defense contractors were mentioned. That kind.
That obviously doesn't represent most Europeans, and of course there are many Americans that hold similar views. But I do also think it's true that Europe still hasn't really "woken up" to the scale of the problem on their hands.
On spending, most nations that don't directly border Russia are only barely meeting the goals they set forth a decade ago and they're doing so at the last possible moment, to say nothing of the complete inadequacy of that goal given the largest war since WWII is now happening at their doorstep.
That obviously doesn't represent most Europeans, and of course there are many Americans that hold similar views. But I do also think it's true that Europe still hasn't really "woken up" to the scale of the problem on their hands.
On spending, most nations that don't directly border Russia are only barely meeting the goals they set forth a decade ago and they're doing so at the last possible moment, to say nothing of the complete inadequacy of that goal given the largest war since WWII is now happening at their doorstep.
This is one of those "the internet isn't reality, and it is self selecting" issues.
Depending on the day and topic, a lot of things look all one way depending on who's commenting on them.
Depending on the day and topic, a lot of things look all one way depending on who's commenting on them.
"When did defense work stop being taboo" etc.
There's a good quote in the Economist story on autonomous drones that's also linked from the front page [1]. The idea that you can ethically shun defense work is itself a privilege and a luxury that many people throughout the world don't enjoy.
“It’s the best feeling to see your drone enter a tiny opening in an enemy trench,” says Denys, an engineer at The Fourth Law, the Ukrainian firm which makes these autonomous drones. “I used to be a pacifist, but Russia’s war has stripped me of that privilege.”
As long as there are countries like Russia, there will have to be a strong defense industry. The leaders of such countries understand nothing but violence, so unfortunately, violence it is.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42352871
There's a good quote in the Economist story on autonomous drones that's also linked from the front page [1]. The idea that you can ethically shun defense work is itself a privilege and a luxury that many people throughout the world don't enjoy.
“It’s the best feeling to see your drone enter a tiny opening in an enemy trench,” says Denys, an engineer at The Fourth Law, the Ukrainian firm which makes these autonomous drones. “I used to be a pacifist, but Russia’s war has stripped me of that privilege.”
As long as there are countries like Russia, there will have to be a strong defense industry. The leaders of such countries understand nothing but violence, so unfortunately, violence it is.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42352871
blueflow(1)
I don't think this post applies much critical considerations on the reality we live in. Just pulling some of the examples at the start of the article and giving an alternative interpretation:
> Helsing has a contract making German Eurofighters able to detect radar lock-on (which indicates the aircraft may be being targeted by AAW, Anti Aircraft Warfare). This could help make German Eurofighters more “survivable”, which includes the ones that carry Nuclear Weapons for deterrence. They argue this helps ensure German nuclear deterrence isn’t nullified by AAW, ensuring peace.
Germany does not own their own nuclear weapons. It may host US/NATO nuclear weapons, but they're not German. Perhaps this German fighter was destroying an unoccupied bridge to stop the advance of enemy troops that were about to kill and rape a village of citizens. Does this now make the plane "good" and no longer "evil"?
> Autonomous drone flight control systems for Ukraine, including “GPS Denied” option (navigating while GPS is being jammed). It was impossible to confirm IRL whether or not this is purely reconnaissance or navigating and dropping payloads on targets. However, it is likely part of a kill chain, as even SIGINT will likely be used for e.g. artillery fire.
Perhaps this will also be used by the civilian aviation industry which currently suffers the same GPS interference. Would the author prefer a precise artillery strike that disables an opponent or imprecise artillery that may destroy kilometres of land and housing and ancillary buildings (and potentially innocent lives)?
> Helsing has a contract making German Eurofighters able to detect radar lock-on (which indicates the aircraft may be being targeted by AAW, Anti Aircraft Warfare). This could help make German Eurofighters more “survivable”, which includes the ones that carry Nuclear Weapons for deterrence. They argue this helps ensure German nuclear deterrence isn’t nullified by AAW, ensuring peace.
Germany does not own their own nuclear weapons. It may host US/NATO nuclear weapons, but they're not German. Perhaps this German fighter was destroying an unoccupied bridge to stop the advance of enemy troops that were about to kill and rape a village of citizens. Does this now make the plane "good" and no longer "evil"?
> Autonomous drone flight control systems for Ukraine, including “GPS Denied” option (navigating while GPS is being jammed). It was impossible to confirm IRL whether or not this is purely reconnaissance or navigating and dropping payloads on targets. However, it is likely part of a kill chain, as even SIGINT will likely be used for e.g. artillery fire.
Perhaps this will also be used by the civilian aviation industry which currently suffers the same GPS interference. Would the author prefer a precise artillery strike that disables an opponent or imprecise artillery that may destroy kilometres of land and housing and ancillary buildings (and potentially innocent lives)?
> Germany does not own their own nuclear weapons. It may host US/NATO nuclear weapons, but they're not German...
Correct, but some of them are part of the so called 'Nukleare Teilhabe',
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing ,
meaning we are not only entitled, but even mandated to shoot us into our own foot with them, just in case...
Which was the case since the days of the F-104G Starfigther, F-4F Phantom, MRCA/Panavia Tornado, and is now with the Eurofigther.
Which was also the point of controversy from several points of view. For one, the range of the aircrafts, loaded with these free-falling 'firecrackers'. (See shooting into our own foot abvove... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb )
For another, the unwillingness(for some time, got resolved) of the USA to make sure the avionics of the Eurofighter get the necessary codes for integration. "Nice plane you got there, but wouldn't you rather wanna buy the superior F35?" (To shoot yourself into your own foot with our own firecrackers, just in case?)
Correct, but some of them are part of the so called 'Nukleare Teilhabe',
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing ,
meaning we are not only entitled, but even mandated to shoot us into our own foot with them, just in case...
Which was the case since the days of the F-104G Starfigther, F-4F Phantom, MRCA/Panavia Tornado, and is now with the Eurofigther.
Which was also the point of controversy from several points of view. For one, the range of the aircrafts, loaded with these free-falling 'firecrackers'. (See shooting into our own foot abvove... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb )
For another, the unwillingness(for some time, got resolved) of the USA to make sure the avionics of the Eurofighter get the necessary codes for integration. "Nice plane you got there, but wouldn't you rather wanna buy the superior F35?" (To shoot yourself into your own foot with our own firecrackers, just in case?)
> To me, this sounds partially like an anachronistic appeal to big data, an unsurprising marketing spin for an industry still far behind the bleeding edge of software engineering.
Let's leave the politics aside for a moment, but is there any benefit to even be on the "bleeding edge of software engineering"? I would assume these engineers are measured by reliability of their product instead of a techstack that looks good on a resumee?
Let's leave the politics aside for a moment, but is there any benefit to even be on the "bleeding edge of software engineering"? I would assume these engineers are measured by reliability of their product instead of a techstack that looks good on a resumee?
Suppose that you're a bridge engineer. Ten years ago, when you learned your craft it was usual to build larger, sturdy, bridges from cast iron, however recently (say five years ago) high quality bulk steel I-beams became available at a very affordable price.
The bleeding edge of your discipline is use of these I-beams, they enable you to build a comparatively elegant bridge which is far stronger and yet is less easily damaged by the elements than the iron bridges.
A "traditional" bridge engineer can point to examples of their preferred materials which have lasted fifty, a hundred years, and say look - we know cast iron works. You don't have that, and so there may be people who say "I don't want your new steel bridge", but on the other hand, clients may be swayed by the affordable yet better looking and more capable product.
In fifty years it's no contest, your steel bridges make sense, iron bridges made by your competitors are seen as old-fashioned and unnecessarily conservative. "Didn't they have steel?" "They didn't trust it". "Huh".
Now, of course it's not always so clear whether whatever you consider "Bleeding edge" is use of steel beams in bridges, or use of flammable aluminium cassette "weather cladding" on high rise buildings (a choice now seen as unacceptably dangerous). But just because it's how things were done by your grandfather doesn't mean it's a good choice today.
The bleeding edge of your discipline is use of these I-beams, they enable you to build a comparatively elegant bridge which is far stronger and yet is less easily damaged by the elements than the iron bridges.
A "traditional" bridge engineer can point to examples of their preferred materials which have lasted fifty, a hundred years, and say look - we know cast iron works. You don't have that, and so there may be people who say "I don't want your new steel bridge", but on the other hand, clients may be swayed by the affordable yet better looking and more capable product.
In fifty years it's no contest, your steel bridges make sense, iron bridges made by your competitors are seen as old-fashioned and unnecessarily conservative. "Didn't they have steel?" "They didn't trust it". "Huh".
Now, of course it's not always so clear whether whatever you consider "Bleeding edge" is use of steel beams in bridges, or use of flammable aluminium cassette "weather cladding" on high rise buildings (a choice now seen as unacceptably dangerous). But just because it's how things were done by your grandfather doesn't mean it's a good choice today.
A more like comparison with tech is more that there are now steel ibeams but no one at all knows how to design a bridge with an ibeam to maximize its benefit. You get certain alpha build bridges that will be totally unsafe despite using the new technology of the new material. The designs haven’t had a chance to hit their bugs and be iterated out and new bugs are expected to emerge very often.
In your example your bridge builder presumably has a mature and stable software build equivalent of a steel ibeam bridge design that is basically going to be the same going forward. That’s more like when people still use cobol for decades because it works than when people are testing out the bleeding edge of software.
In your example your bridge builder presumably has a mature and stable software build equivalent of a steel ibeam bridge design that is basically going to be the same going forward. That’s more like when people still use cobol for decades because it works than when people are testing out the bleeding edge of software.
Physical infrastructure has expected lifetimes measured in years/decades. The half-life for a line of code could be as little as a year. I think being conservative in adopting new technology for something concrete is a sensible choice.
When the edge is less bugs in code bases which have much less contributers and which might need fast iteration due to adverserial environment, the ability to deploy with confidence might be a real advantage.
"bleeding edge" may also be unproven and more importantly it is not standardised. This is why people would muse that they trust a civil engineer over a software engineer - sectors that include physical engineering have rigorous standards. Software projects that interface with this (say, a flight computer of a new jet) also have strict standards. Ones that do not (currently) cover the "bleeding edge" in software development.
attracting capable engineers building a reliable product would require that the employer ensures they get to work with an interesting & modern tech stack (e.g. regardless what one thinks of Rust or Nix).
Whether Rust is mandatory to create defense Tech, that decision might have been influenced by many factors that apply also to any other start-up (time to market, access to talent, maturity of the ecosystem, skill distribution in founding team, etc)
Whether Rust is mandatory to create defense Tech, that decision might have been influenced by many factors that apply also to any other start-up (time to market, access to talent, maturity of the ecosystem, skill distribution in founding team, etc)
I wouldn't say it requires that though. That is one way to attract solid engineers, but you can also do it with better pay, better benefits, better work-life balance, or sometimes even by just having a really compelling mission or project that people feel excited to work on.
[deleted]
I mean, I feel like we've made a lot of progress on "how to do a good job" that's valuable- we've learned a lot about the value of automated tests, how to write fast ones, how to manage changes, how to design languages and systems that prevent errors.
You go look at older companies shipping product.zip.3 files around from someone's desktop and then it all comes in to focus.
You go look at older companies shipping product.zip.3 files around from someone's desktop and then it all comes in to focus.
And…cue comments in support of defense tech.
While this article is definitely long-winded, I’m definitely on the side of pushing defense tech out of these circles.
Private defense does not care about your safety. If it was profitable to harm you (similar to private healthcare) it can and will happen. You just happen to be in a position where this is unlikely. I’m happy for everyone on this comment section, but this is not the reality for civilians who get buried in the rubble from AI-targeting drones.
While this article is definitely long-winded, I’m definitely on the side of pushing defense tech out of these circles.
Private defense does not care about your safety. If it was profitable to harm you (similar to private healthcare) it can and will happen. You just happen to be in a position where this is unlikely. I’m happy for everyone on this comment section, but this is not the reality for civilians who get buried in the rubble from AI-targeting drones.
>I’m happy for everyone on this comment section, but this is not the reality for civilians who get buried in the rubble from AI-targeting drones.
Western drone development reduces the chance of you being bombed by belligerent drones far more than it increases the chance of you being bombed by allied drones.
The AI drone bombing is coming to both the West and everyone else, and leftist tech worker objection is not going to prevent that. What we can prevent is Western weapons being inferior to ones developed and deployed by authoritarian and illiberal governments.
Western drone development reduces the chance of you being bombed by belligerent drones far more than it increases the chance of you being bombed by allied drones.
The AI drone bombing is coming to both the West and everyone else, and leftist tech worker objection is not going to prevent that. What we can prevent is Western weapons being inferior to ones developed and deployed by authoritarian and illiberal governments.
> Western drone development reduces the chance of you being bombed by belligerent drones far more than it increases the chance of you being bombed by allied drones
Bombing people in the name of drone development is not worth the moral cost. If you are specifically referring to anti-drone tech, maybe I can agree with some aspects of your statement.
> The AI drone bombing is coming to both the West and everyone else
I find this hard to believe because it doesn’t seem to generalize to most weapons advancements in the last 100 years. Correct me if I’m wrong, not a weapons nut here.
> and leftist tech worker objection is not going to prevent that
It is. It’s a form of pressure that can make a difference to talented individuals who have options.
> What we can prevent is Western weapons being inferior to ones developed and deployed by authoritarian and illiberal governments.
If you believe this, then your entire argument rests on the myth of the west being right, and the rest being wrong. Since this is HN I’m not going to comment further.
Bombing people in the name of drone development is not worth the moral cost. If you are specifically referring to anti-drone tech, maybe I can agree with some aspects of your statement.
> The AI drone bombing is coming to both the West and everyone else
I find this hard to believe because it doesn’t seem to generalize to most weapons advancements in the last 100 years. Correct me if I’m wrong, not a weapons nut here.
> and leftist tech worker objection is not going to prevent that
It is. It’s a form of pressure that can make a difference to talented individuals who have options.
> What we can prevent is Western weapons being inferior to ones developed and deployed by authoritarian and illiberal governments.
If you believe this, then your entire argument rests on the myth of the west being right, and the rest being wrong. Since this is HN I’m not going to comment further.
All I got out of this was more companies are using Rust so maybe it's worth investing in.
German Eurofighters do not carry nuclear bombs. That's Tornados (and soon F35s).
You are mixing up nuclear bombs with american nuclear bombs. But regardless, i think eurofighters are getting U.S. B61 certification soon.
What other nuclear weapons would German Eurofighters carry? Also with Germany buying F-35s, not sure any certification for German Eurofighters is going ahead (the public discussions there seem to predates the F-35 purchase decision, I think).
> For instance, I asked if there was any mental health counseling provided for the employees, in case they had to interact with something as part of their work that disturbed them.
There are a few misconceptions layered inside this statement.
First of all, there is a <0.1% chance you'll ever see anyone actually using your company's products in their intended environment. You might see some training drills played out entirely on friendly turf. As far as I can tell, that's as close as you'll ever get. So, the idea that some dev somewhere is going to get exposed to the traumas of a battlefield is very far-fetched.
Second, every defense contractor will ask you to talk about your feelings on their product (and their customer) in your interview. They flat out tell you "we make war machines" (in marginally more flowery language) and you have to grapple with that in front of them before you even get an offer sheet.
In other words, they probably aren't worried about providing counseling, because they intentionally weed out people who would need it before they're ever hired.
I'm not endorsing this approach, nor am I suggesting it's the wrong approach either. Just my own observations.
There are a few misconceptions layered inside this statement.
First of all, there is a <0.1% chance you'll ever see anyone actually using your company's products in their intended environment. You might see some training drills played out entirely on friendly turf. As far as I can tell, that's as close as you'll ever get. So, the idea that some dev somewhere is going to get exposed to the traumas of a battlefield is very far-fetched.
Second, every defense contractor will ask you to talk about your feelings on their product (and their customer) in your interview. They flat out tell you "we make war machines" (in marginally more flowery language) and you have to grapple with that in front of them before you even get an offer sheet.
In other words, they probably aren't worried about providing counseling, because they intentionally weed out people who would need it before they're ever hired.
I'm not endorsing this approach, nor am I suggesting it's the wrong approach either. Just my own observations.
For someone living in Helsinki and currently working in steel industry, the title of the post was particularly hard to parse.
First, this was way longer than anyone not involved in those events organization would read. I'm on the board of open source projects and had a hard time keeping interested even though this is a topic very close to heart.
But the little i got out of it is that defense is a good patron and nothing else matters. That Nix is a bunch of either conscientious humans or sensitive liberals (depending on who you ask, i'm on the first group if you care), and that rust was always about the missiles anyway. Did I get it better than an AI?
But the little i got out of it is that defense is a good patron and nothing else matters. That Nix is a bunch of either conscientious humans or sensitive liberals (depending on who you ask, i'm on the first group if you care), and that rust was always about the missiles anyway. Did I get it better than an AI?
I can't take this author seriously. They seem to live in some perfect world divorced from reality. I'm sorry, but these defence companies are the reason that you can enjoy a liberal democracy that protects your LGBQT+ rights. There's no end to the authoritarian governments (or 'regimes') that oppress their citizens, and would like to oppress others through imperial ambitions. I would rather than a strong defence sector and have safety for myself, my family, and my fellow citizens than virtue signal to others that I am somehow above silly things such as 'war'.
I'm sure the author was given an appropriate spiel, but it just screams naivety. No, the guys operating recon drones in Ukraine are not in permanent PTSD at the horrors and evil of the "drone warfare", it's the highlight of their day if them looking at mostly nothing for hours can help their countrymen who are fighting in much more exposed roles.
> the guys operating recon drones in Ukraine are not in permanent PTSD at the horrors and evil of the "drone warfare", it's the highlight of their day if them looking at mostly nothing for hours can help their countrymen who are fighting in much more exposed roles.
These are not mutually exclusive
These are not mutually exclusive
Completely agree. We live in a time and world where it is extremely important that EUrope needs to have a strong defense sector. Russia won't stop just because we continue investing nothing into defense and sing kumbaya at the border.
> I'm sorry, but these defence companies are the reason that you can enjoy a liberal democracy that protects your LGBQT+ rights.
Are they really, though? Did Lockheed-Martin sponsor the Stonewall rioters? Did any arms company threaten to cancel supply contracts if the US didn't introduce nationwide gay marriage? Did they withdraw support from anti-trans legislators? How come countries without a huge military-industrial complex also have LGBTQ+ rights - often even stronger ones than the US?
And what about people living in other countries? The US has supported quite a lot of tyrannical regimes - often by aiding overthrowing democratic governments. Those arms companies are directly aiding authoritarian governments in oppressing their citizens. Do those people not deserve the same freedoms you enjoy?
Your comment might make some sense if defense companies were actually used for defense. You know, like Japan's Self-Defense Force, which is constitutionally forbidden from using threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. But that's not the world we live in. The US military is primarily used to start wars and oppress people, and the very recent developments in Ukraine do not change several decades of history.
Are they really, though? Did Lockheed-Martin sponsor the Stonewall rioters? Did any arms company threaten to cancel supply contracts if the US didn't introduce nationwide gay marriage? Did they withdraw support from anti-trans legislators? How come countries without a huge military-industrial complex also have LGBTQ+ rights - often even stronger ones than the US?
And what about people living in other countries? The US has supported quite a lot of tyrannical regimes - often by aiding overthrowing democratic governments. Those arms companies are directly aiding authoritarian governments in oppressing their citizens. Do those people not deserve the same freedoms you enjoy?
Your comment might make some sense if defense companies were actually used for defense. You know, like Japan's Self-Defense Force, which is constitutionally forbidden from using threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. But that's not the world we live in. The US military is primarily used to start wars and oppress people, and the very recent developments in Ukraine do not change several decades of history.
> How come countries without a huge military-industrial complex also have LGBTQ+ rights - often even stronger ones than the US?
I'm guessing these countries already have existing ties to the 'west' and would be militarily protected by them. How many countries have both strong LGBTQ+ rights and also categorically wouldn't be militarily aided by the US/the west in case of war?
There are many small progressive countries without a strong MIC, but rely on others for protection and use their existing MIC. For example most NATO countries.
I'm guessing these countries already have existing ties to the 'west' and would be militarily protected by them. How many countries have both strong LGBTQ+ rights and also categorically wouldn't be militarily aided by the US/the west in case of war?
There are many small progressive countries without a strong MIC, but rely on others for protection and use their existing MIC. For example most NATO countries.
you seem to imply you are personally benefiting from wars abroad and that they somehow protect you.
Yes, a strong military protects you. See: all of human history. Do you think Ukrainians would perhaps have personally benefited if they still had their nuclear deterrence? Or if they had been given 10x military aid before February 2022? The fact is Anduril systems are deployed in Ukraine today, helping to protect Ukrainian lives. If you want to see what happens when you don't have a strong military, look to Bucha.
having a strong military defense and being an active imperialist invader is completely different. in fact, the later will bring violence to you which the strong military cannot or is not willing to protect you against.
I live in a NATO country, less than 200 kilometers from the Russian border. I personally benefit from any and all military edge that the West has.
Why would England declare war on Germany for invading Poland? Because security and deterrence involves a lot more than just 'is Russia invading us right now'.
Today I learned that there is a EuroRust converence.
I have about that level of involvement with the mentioned technologies.
Whom are these kinds of tech conferences actually for in 2024, I wonder? For what kind of person and in which circumstances is it a good idea to go?
Whom are these kinds of tech conferences actually for in 2024, I wonder? For what kind of person and in which circumstances is it a good idea to go?
While I did not visit to the conference, I did attend the workshop the blogpost author mentioned.
It was an excuse for a train trip to beautiful Vienna. Also, I met Jon Gjengset for whom I hold a lot of respect, especially his ability to think and talk and explain.
It was an excuse for a train trip to beautiful Vienna. Also, I met Jon Gjengset for whom I hold a lot of respect, especially his ability to think and talk and explain.
Some people like to read books. Some of them join a book club.
The statement that Anduril sponsoring a NixOS conference was inherently damaging as opposed to the reaction causing the damage, "When did defense work stop being taboo" etc.
I've worked in the US Midwest->SFBay->US West and defense work never seemed particularly taboo in my circles, moreso that the work was boring and constricting.
Traditionally cautious sectors adopting a particular technology seems like a sign that a technology is viewed as having a particular level of dependability. That's a good thing.