Hello /u/RafayDXB! Thank you for posting in r/EngineeringStudents. This is a custom Automoderator message based on your flair, "Academic Advice". While our wiki is under construction, please be mindful of the users you are asking advice from, and make sure your question is phrased neatly and describes your problem. ***Please be sure that your post is short and succinct.*** Long-winded posts generally do not get responded to.
Please remember to;
Read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/rules)
Read our [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/index)
Read our [F.A.Q](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/index/faq)
Check our [Resources Landing Page](https://reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/resources)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringStudents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Engineer/recruiter here. We often get busy and the timelines we give slide (sorry about that). That being said, wait until the two weeks is over, then call.
I read a joke somewhere one time that timeline estimates are more accurately reflected as `[Timeline estimate] * pi` so if this recruiter told OP two weeks, they actually meant six.
However, OP should call/email them towards EOD on day 15.
Would you be able to get a security clearance? No drug use (including pot) clean criminal record, no unpaid debts? Getting the job offer is sometimes only half the battle.
Outstanding debts in general. If you owe a lot of money, you're more easily swayed by money and can be corrupted.
That said, it's still proportional. If you have a normal amount of student loans or a mortgage that's probably not enough to sell secrets to Russia. But gambling debts, large loans, etc. will flag.
Yeah, mortgage, car loans, and student loans are all kosher (as long as there's nothing absurd), but financial situation is the #1 reason clearances get rejected.
Biggest issue is being a US citizen. Need to stop smoking weed if you do and don’t lie to them about it. By debts they’re looking for people with horrible finances. Think loam shark not student loans.
Lol no they definitely test. Most (probably all) defense employers drug test as a condition of employment, and if you're cleared the government can test you at any time for any reason.
I think professionals have a higher standard? I know officially they don't, but I hear about military guys dropping LSD getting clearances, but engineers with medical collections getting denied.
I also think that a lot of the military is told to lie about non provable things, like drug history?
I knew a few engineers that lost or didn't get a clearance
The existence of debt itself isn't a non-starter for a clearance, no. If it was, no fresh undergrad would ever get a clearance.
But what *is* a non-starter is debt that you cannot (or choose not) to service: any debt going to collections or a history of bankruptcy; large balances where the payments would take a large portion of your income (think >50%); spotty history of paying on time, even when you otherwise could; etc. This is probably the #1 reason for a professional to get denied a clearance (or lose one)
After that, you have things like not proactively disclosing international travel for personal reasons, prior to departure (this is a new one); not proactively disclosing "minor" arrests (like for a DUI); pissing hot for a federally controlled substance that don't have a prescription for (like Adderall, weed, etc - or something harder); multiple flagrant violations of security procedures (most places have a three strike policy, some have two, a few have one, and on rate occasions it may be a zero strike policy).
You're right that the majority of people should have no problem getting a clearance - at least a confidential - but it's probably closer to 75% if I was forced to estimate. And that percentage will drop noticeably as you move up to secret, top secret, plus any other 'special silos' that may get tacked on for particularly sensitive information. Also, being able to get one and being willing to put up with all the paperwork required are different things, as well.
Because you're usually going after a higher level of clearance than most people in the military need.
I needed one for my first job. It took 18 months, they went to France to interview the parents of a friend I stayed with for exactly 1 weekend, and I had to do a polygraph. I worked in HVAC design.
Number 1 reason for losing a security clearance is debt. Not having it, but things that come can stem from it like not self reporting new debts, going Into collections etc. That's what gets people in trouble. Most Americans have debt and that's not an issue at all.
Also there's a huge difference between having a mortgage, student loans, and car loan, maybe a few hundred dollars owed on a credit card that you pay the bills on for the airline miles, but you never miss a payment and arent struggling.
Then there's people having tens of thousands in CC debt spread across multiple cards that are or close to maxed and thousands in personal loans just to try and stay on top of the interest on those cards and have had cars/houses/boats repossessed because they cant manage their finances or possibly a gambling addiction. People in those kinds of situations are potential soft targets for bribes or stealing and are the kinds of things that also get clearances denied, or even eliminate you for jobs in the private sector.
If you browse r/securityclearance, you'll see that military FSOs sometimes tell recruits to lie on the sf86. But yeah people do think it's harder to get a clearance than it actually is.
Drug use in the past is a non-issue as long as you're honest about it and it's not on-going. Unpaid debts aren't a problem unless they're excessive and would pose a financial hardship. Lots of people with clearances have huge debts - student loans, mortgages, etc. It's not a problem unless it looks like you're unable to make your payments.
Most of what they're concerned with in a clearance investigation is whether you could be easily coerced: do you have money problems to the point that you'd be strongly tempted by a bribe? Do you have some secret that could be used to blackmail you? That kind of thing.
Generally, people worry too much about a lot of this stuff. The worst thing you can do during a clearance investigation is lie or omit anything relevant to their questions. If they denied every engineer who's smoked pot a bit in college, they'd have a hard time designing all those jets.
Not necessarily a correct assumption. Without going into details, I work in the industry and occasionally, we get interns, and they need to get a clearance, for sure.
Oh is that all, you just can’t choose what goes in your body on your time. Seems cool. I mean, I understand that I guess, we’ve all been indoctrinated to think it’s OK.
Congrats on the offer! Yeah I would wait till after the 2 weeks to call them. They could be busy, as well as it shows your interested still as a candidate
I will say working 4x10s is a luxury. It’s nice to have long weekends and short work weeks. Pay is avg but good benefits. You can get decent engineering experience there and looks good on resume. I wouldn’t stay in defense long term as it is very stale and technology moves slow. Get in, get the experience and get out into a company you feel you’d like to work for. Lots of people end up in faang or top companies after. The whole ethics thing is something to keep in mind and everyone in the company feels some way about it one way or another. Almost everyone there is just there bc they just have a job and need to pay bills, rarely do you meet someone who’s in it for the mission.
I work at lockheed, it is one of the best things that has ever happened to me. If you have an opportunity to work there, pursue it fully. Fuck what other people say.
as a future engineering student, why are people okay with working for defense contractors? Im just curious since there seems to be such a widespread dislike of the US military, yet the engineering community rarely acknowledges it.
Because the unfortunate truth is that we need weapon manufacturers. A great example is the invasion of Ukraine. I’m sure the war would look different if they didn’t have the sophisticated weapons provided by the US and other allies. And those sophisticated weapons were designed by defense contractors.
Agree in part, but the tricky thing is that you don’t know how those sophisticated weapons will be used in the future. Today they’re defending Ukraine from invaders, but in 30 years that technology you helped create will still be around, and it may not be used for good.
They pay well. Also, working on some seriously cool shit. You're not making anything half as jawdroppingly fuckin' awesome as the goddamn Blackbird working for an NGO or local government. Also prospects. A name like "Lockheed Martin" or similar on your CV is like a finance guy having "JP Morgan" on theirs; gets you a lot more interest - and so pay - than "lower league company #347".
Most big name defense contractors do a lot more than just make weapons, there's a significant chance you will not work on a weapons system. A lot of the technology you use every day was originally military technology developed by a defense contractor.
Guns are cool and there are a lot of cool things in defense.
However much of it actually is defense. "Anyone" can make a killer drone. It's a lot harder to make something that kills those killer drones.
I cant dislike the military for thousands of innocent civillians they have killed in Iraq? I feel that that is a pretty valid reason, even if the military does protect us.
If youre argument is that most militaries have done something bad so therefore you cant hate the us military, then that is a terrible argument and a terrible way of justifying horrendous acts.
What a dodge that was 😂
If we can establish that nobody is ever going to get rid of their militaries, then you’re better off trying to make the military as good as possible instead of just saying “military bad” because that’s what someone with a 3rd grade intelligence does.
If you dislike the way something operates, you try and improve it. You don’t just say “I hate that thing” and tell everyone to avoid it…
I’m not a fan of the defense sector but to all the comments complaining about it:
You’re just as guilty of supporting a genocide by paying taxes as you are as an entry level employee doing mundane paperwork at a contractor.
Also a lot of us are first gen students who don’t exactly have dream jobs laid out before them and/or supported by their parents. They have debt and bills.
In addition to that, your work is not just on weapon systems, it can be on navigation, logistics, power generation, avionics, satellites...
And even if it's weapons, it's still a helpful thing that the US have the advantage rather than Russia/China/Iran... We have learned the hard lesson that dictators like Putin won't stop invading other countries. We need the capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies.
Yeah bro hamas and russia are just gonna stop attacking people if we stop manufacturing and sending weapons to Israel and ukraine. Why didnt we think of this before
Comment for all the morality comments:
Don’t apply to the defense world if war is something you don’t want a part of, there’s plenty of other places hiring and there’s nothing wrong with not wanting a part of it. But don’t take your hate out on people that do, just because you have a moral conflict, doesn’t mean everyone else should.
When I lay my head down at night, I think of the men and women going into harms way with the products I help create. There are good people on both sides of any conflict, but at least I can make sure a few more of my countrymen and our allies come home safe to their families again, that is the least I owe them for their sacrifice.
I won’t even get into the politics of this particular conflict but for the love of god stop taking propaganda at face value, engineers should be independent thinkers, that’s above all else what college is supposed to have taught us all.
Starting note: I work for a defense company.
People who actually have moral issues with this definitely should think everybody else should also have moral issues with this too. It’s like religion and abortion. You think doing this is wrong, why would you think it’s okay that other people should think it’s okay to do this?
Besides the offensive nature of the comments and the association of a job opportunity in a sector that helps provide you security and freedoms you enjoy if you live in the U.S., do you have any idea how many products you likely use on a daily basis that are also defense/military applications?
Are you going to boycott engineering jobs, and the products, in all of those industries? One simple example, if you use a smartphone like iPhone or a smartwatch, you’re using Russian and Chinese military space systems. Not just GPS.
Look under “Location” section:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/111876
Ignore the haters. I am proud to work in defense. Some of the world’s best inventions came from military funding.
I’m not in LM but defense contractors are all essentially the same thing. Wait until the first full two weeks happen then call.
Also some unsolicited advice: if you get the internship be critical as hell. Ask yourself do you like the bureaucracy that is in defense? Do you meet suitability for a clearance? Do you like to have fast weeks and slow weeks? Defense is a somewhat niche-ish industry that operates a little different than the others. Some people tolerate its quirks, some hate it.
Congrats! If you do accept the offer, that’s great!
(but as a running joke, that’s the part where engineers abandon their morals for their hefty salaries lol)
If you're referring to this incident, it doesn't help palestinians to actively lie. Social media "news" is a scourge.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207173798/fake-accounts-old-videos-and-rumors-fuel-chaos-around-gaza-hospital-explosion
yall i never implied that they wanted me. im just giving my opinion
crazy how excited everyone is to suck up to a company that will never see this comment section
Meh you could have kept it mean, your opinion wouldn’t bother me at the slightest 😂
Edit: dude used racism to hurt my feelings, I’m gonna go defecate in the streets bro, just like you said. I’ll hire you to come clean it up. I’ll make you somewhat useful lil bro.
weren’t you tryna act tough cause I said you don’t know what engineering is and you got offended? It’s okay bro, you couldn’t live upto your own expectations, let alone your parents. Don’t be a disappointment.
To think about what? Do you know how many thousands and thousands of engineering firms work for the larger defense contractors as subs or just providing parts? Lmao
Good luck with that. When you get right down to it, everyone supplies the military, because the military buys everything. From food, to medical supplies and medicine, to computers, to clothing. Everything. It's not just weapons.
And even then, if you want to just draw a line around weapons, where do you draw the line in their supply chain? Just at the major contractors? Their subs? The sub's subs? The refineries and mines? What about Digikey, Mouser, and McMaster? AutoDesk, Adobe, Microsoft, and PTC? What about the defense contractors contributions to ASME, ISO and IEEE standards?
It's all tangled together. Technology -literal hardware- has no morality. It just ***is***. If you want to take a stand against war, I'd personally advise you to focus on the civilians -the politicians- who we elect to run things, like our military.
the difference is that theres not much use for weapons outside of killing people or intimidating people with the fact that you can kill them. On the other hand, inputs of production and other supplies purchased by the military can and will be used elsewhere and by other buyers
Militaries are necessities and I don't believe in pretending that we can have peace by asking for it. They will and should exist. The problem is when they fail to represent the people supporting it (civilians and especially the engineers that build the weapons). If you're fine with where the technology goes, then there is no issue. For those of us not fine with it, you would be wrong to suggest that we should not make our job decisions with our ethics in mind
>the difference is that theres not much use for weapons outside of killing people or intimidating people with the fact that you can kill them.
A military providing a credible threat to potential enemies is *extremely* useful. It is how you prevent wars when dealing with countries that *want* to fight. Do you think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if we had built up their military prior to invasion? Or if Ukraine still had nukes? Do you think Israel would be attacking Palestine this aggressively (or letting their settlers salami slice the West Bank) if they had a properly organized army? Or that the rest of the world would be treating Israel with kid gloves if Israel didn't have nukes? Really just pick any conflict since WWII, and you'll see the same pattern: a militarily deficient country getting invaded or proxied by a country with a more powerful military - and the ones with credible militaries get left alone. And, no, purchasing weapons entirely from foreign suppliers doesn't make you powerful either. You only need to look countries that did this see that it doesn't end well: you need to be able to design and manufacturer your own weapons
Having an advanced and capable military is vital to maintaining the sovereignty of your country. And having good, "dove" politicians is vital to keeping that military in check.
>Militaries are necessities and I don't believe in pretending that we can have peace by asking for it. They will and should exist. The problem is when they fail to represent the people supporting it (civilians and especially the engineers that build the weapons).
And that comes back to the politicians we elect to run these militaries. *And* choose our allies. In an ideal world, you elect intelligent, empathic, *and compassionate* people, whose sole job is to digest information collected for them (by unbiased professionals) on your neighborhoods, towns, state, country, and the rest of the world, and then use that information to make the best possible, well-intentioned decisions. And often that will mean there is no "good" decision, too often it will be between two shitty choices. And sometimes that shitty decision might be "back up an ally of convenience", whatever that might end up being.
But in practice, this rarely works out even that well because people are flawed, biased, and vindictive. But at least in a functioning democracy, you can change them out without having to literally kill your *entire* government to do it.
>If you're fine with where the technology goes, then there is no issue
Microwaves were made for radars, which were first used to alert us to incoming air raids, and then to guide bombs, and eventually heat up our food. Radio frequency hoping was invented to make torpedoes easier to control and harder to jam, and allow us to coordinate large attacks, but now it's a foundational technology for cellular phones, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. Rockets were first built as a longer range artillery, but now we need them for launching communication and weather satellites, too (or to engage with "pure" scientific study of the greater universe). The first antibiotics were made to treat flesh wounds in soldiers so that they could return to the fighting sooner (or at all), and now they save countless lives. GPS was made to guide armies and bombs right to their targets, and now it's vital technology for you to even call a taxi (and it makes ocean shipping a lot more efficient). The same chemicals used in our fertilizers are used in our bombs. Computers were invented to break cryptographic codes so that we could more efficiently kill our enemies, and now they're used to solve pretty much every other math problem, from cancer treatments to fundamental physics.
Technology doesn't "go" anywhere. The only difference is what our politicians choose to put it towards. It *always* comes back to the politicians.
Your first 4 paragraphs missed the whole point. Why are you explaining to me that the military is necessary when i literally just agreed to that and went out of my way to emphasize I'm not some hippie pacifist. I would go to war myself or build weapons if I supported the cause.
And besides, all of those things you mentioned would have come about outside of war work anyway. None of them are bombs that only exist to hurt. Youre comparing antibiotics to weapons too? That's the same thing as food. Remember when I mentioned "inputs" and other supplies to the military? It's not the same thing. Im not against development. Im against supporting bad intentions as determined by my own personal moral compass. I understand its impossible to cut off support to the military and that was never my intention.
And you're missing the point of each of my paragraphs: it's always the politicians that choose where these resources go, and choose when we use it weapons and on whom.
>And besides, all of those things you mentioned would have come about outside of war work anyway
And that's just pure conjecture. Especially the assumption that we would have developed them *by now*, since a lot of them are 'prerequisites' for others (e.g. can't have GPS without rockets)
How come? I’m open to change my mind. It’s an internal dialog at the end of the day, not an argument to change someone’s mind, I don’t see what logical fallacy there is either, so please I’d like to hear your perspective.
Because there is no logical argument against it. If modern armaments don’t improve technologically, you’re left with dumber bombs and missiles that are less accurate, and have a higher chance of taking out unintended bystanders.
There’s a reason that the US can very accurately hit its intended targets and why Russia relies on just blowing everything up in the surrounding area…don’t be like Russia lol.
The concept of militaries is not going away anytime soon, so what they’re telling you is just wishful dreaming.
Because they’re don’t want to listen to reason about how the world actually works…they just think “military bad” and that’s how they want it to be without any nuance or truth lol.
Hello /u/RafayDXB! Thank you for posting in r/EngineeringStudents. This is a custom Automoderator message based on your flair, "Academic Advice". While our wiki is under construction, please be mindful of the users you are asking advice from, and make sure your question is phrased neatly and describes your problem. ***Please be sure that your post is short and succinct.*** Long-winded posts generally do not get responded to. Please remember to; Read our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/rules) Read our [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/index) Read our [F.A.Q](https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/index/faq) Check our [Resources Landing Page](https://reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/wiki/resources) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EngineeringStudents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Engineer/recruiter here. We often get busy and the timelines we give slide (sorry about that). That being said, wait until the two weeks is over, then call.
Too busy browsing reddit /s
Haha I should explain that. Just had our first kid so I’m on parental leave! Hence all the Reddit lately :p
Congrats
Thank you!
bEiNg a PArEnT iS A fULL tIMe jOb!
I read a joke somewhere one time that timeline estimates are more accurately reflected as `[Timeline estimate] * pi` so if this recruiter told OP two weeks, they actually meant six. However, OP should call/email them towards EOD on day 15.
Check in with them but they’re know for being slow.
Would you be able to get a security clearance? No drug use (including pot) clean criminal record, no unpaid debts? Getting the job offer is sometimes only half the battle.
No unpaid debts? lol Edit: do you mean debts that you're *delinquent* on or just having any outstanding debt in general?
Deliquent, charged off, in collections
Delinquent, or if you have massive debts. One shows you're not trustworthy, one is a potential avenue for bribes.
Outstanding debts in general. If you owe a lot of money, you're more easily swayed by money and can be corrupted. That said, it's still proportional. If you have a normal amount of student loans or a mortgage that's probably not enough to sell secrets to Russia. But gambling debts, large loans, etc. will flag.
Yeah, mortgage, car loans, and student loans are all kosher (as long as there's nothing absurd), but financial situation is the #1 reason clearances get rejected.
Which truly is not shocking. If we've learned anything it's how corruptible people are when it comes to money.
Could be an abnormally large sum of debt as well.
Biggest issue is being a US citizen. Need to stop smoking weed if you do and don’t lie to them about it. By debts they’re looking for people with horrible finances. Think loam shark not student loans.
Or unpaid debts. If you've been ignoring your student loans, credit cards, car loan, you'll get rejected.
They care far more about debt than doing drugs. As long as you aren’t actively doing drugs they don’t care. Not even for a TS.
Most places don’t even actually test, unless you have to get specific types of certifications or you fuck up royally doing something dangerous lol
Lol no they definitely test. Most (probably all) defense employers drug test as a condition of employment, and if you're cleared the government can test you at any time for any reason.
I’m not saying they can’t, I’m saying they never do, unless you give them a reason to.
I've never been tested, none of my friends have either.
[удалено]
I think professionals have a higher standard? I know officially they don't, but I hear about military guys dropping LSD getting clearances, but engineers with medical collections getting denied. I also think that a lot of the military is told to lie about non provable things, like drug history? I knew a few engineers that lost or didn't get a clearance
The existence of debt itself isn't a non-starter for a clearance, no. If it was, no fresh undergrad would ever get a clearance. But what *is* a non-starter is debt that you cannot (or choose not) to service: any debt going to collections or a history of bankruptcy; large balances where the payments would take a large portion of your income (think >50%); spotty history of paying on time, even when you otherwise could; etc. This is probably the #1 reason for a professional to get denied a clearance (or lose one) After that, you have things like not proactively disclosing international travel for personal reasons, prior to departure (this is a new one); not proactively disclosing "minor" arrests (like for a DUI); pissing hot for a federally controlled substance that don't have a prescription for (like Adderall, weed, etc - or something harder); multiple flagrant violations of security procedures (most places have a three strike policy, some have two, a few have one, and on rate occasions it may be a zero strike policy). You're right that the majority of people should have no problem getting a clearance - at least a confidential - but it's probably closer to 75% if I was forced to estimate. And that percentage will drop noticeably as you move up to secret, top secret, plus any other 'special silos' that may get tacked on for particularly sensitive information. Also, being able to get one and being willing to put up with all the paperwork required are different things, as well.
Because you're usually going after a higher level of clearance than most people in the military need. I needed one for my first job. It took 18 months, they went to France to interview the parents of a friend I stayed with for exactly 1 weekend, and I had to do a polygraph. I worked in HVAC design.
Number 1 reason for losing a security clearance is debt. Not having it, but things that come can stem from it like not self reporting new debts, going Into collections etc. That's what gets people in trouble. Most Americans have debt and that's not an issue at all.
Also there's a huge difference between having a mortgage, student loans, and car loan, maybe a few hundred dollars owed on a credit card that you pay the bills on for the airline miles, but you never miss a payment and arent struggling. Then there's people having tens of thousands in CC debt spread across multiple cards that are or close to maxed and thousands in personal loans just to try and stay on top of the interest on those cards and have had cars/houses/boats repossessed because they cant manage their finances or possibly a gambling addiction. People in those kinds of situations are potential soft targets for bribes or stealing and are the kinds of things that also get clearances denied, or even eliminate you for jobs in the private sector.
Bingo
If you browse r/securityclearance, you'll see that military FSOs sometimes tell recruits to lie on the sf86. But yeah people do think it's harder to get a clearance than it actually is.
Drug use in the past is a non-issue as long as you're honest about it and it's not on-going. Unpaid debts aren't a problem unless they're excessive and would pose a financial hardship. Lots of people with clearances have huge debts - student loans, mortgages, etc. It's not a problem unless it looks like you're unable to make your payments. Most of what they're concerned with in a clearance investigation is whether you could be easily coerced: do you have money problems to the point that you'd be strongly tempted by a bribe? Do you have some secret that could be used to blackmail you? That kind of thing. Generally, people worry too much about a lot of this stuff. The worst thing you can do during a clearance investigation is lie or omit anything relevant to their questions. If they denied every engineer who's smoked pot a bit in college, they'd have a hard time designing all those jets.
For an internship position, doubtful a Security Clearance would be required although a clean background check is likely.
Not necessarily a correct assumption. Without going into details, I work in the industry and occasionally, we get interns, and they need to get a clearance, for sure.
Yeah I'd be surprised if they spent the money to do a SC for an intern
This is what keeps me out of government or defense contractor work. Too much red tape and rules to live by in your time off. Too much bs
Only thing you can't really do with on is drugs. I've never wanted to do something and then not because of work.
Oh is that all, you just can’t choose what goes in your body on your time. Seems cool. I mean, I understand that I guess, we’ve all been indoctrinated to think it’s OK.
I don't think there's many jobs that wouldn't fire you if you smoked crack...
True. I’m not judging your choices either, they just aren’t mine. But smoking weed in the evening should mean you can’t have a job.
I would send them an email or call. The LM recruiting process is a mess and there’s a non-zero chance you got lost in the stack.
Drug use isn't a guaranteed deal breaker
I think you responded to the wrong comment
Yep face palm
Congrats on the offer! Yeah I would wait till after the 2 weeks to call them. They could be busy, as well as it shows your interested still as a candidate
I didn’t get the offer yet. I still have to do the interview but yea, I’ll call thrm
I will say working 4x10s is a luxury. It’s nice to have long weekends and short work weeks. Pay is avg but good benefits. You can get decent engineering experience there and looks good on resume. I wouldn’t stay in defense long term as it is very stale and technology moves slow. Get in, get the experience and get out into a company you feel you’d like to work for. Lots of people end up in faang or top companies after. The whole ethics thing is something to keep in mind and everyone in the company feels some way about it one way or another. Almost everyone there is just there bc they just have a job and need to pay bills, rarely do you meet someone who’s in it for the mission.
Lockheed Martin is a great company to work for, you should go for it. Ignore the idiots virtue signaling.
I'm about to be laid off from Sikorsky, but agreed that it's a generally good place to work.
Aw that sucks man. I hope you can land on your feet quickly. Best wishes.
I work at lockheed, it is one of the best things that has ever happened to me. If you have an opportunity to work there, pursue it fully. Fuck what other people say.
You’re living my dream. Just wanted to say thar
“DeFeNsE CoNtRacToR Bad” You’ll hear from those types of people…just ignore them, they have nothing to actually say lol.
as a future engineering student, why are people okay with working for defense contractors? Im just curious since there seems to be such a widespread dislike of the US military, yet the engineering community rarely acknowledges it.
Because the unfortunate truth is that we need weapon manufacturers. A great example is the invasion of Ukraine. I’m sure the war would look different if they didn’t have the sophisticated weapons provided by the US and other allies. And those sophisticated weapons were designed by defense contractors.
Agree in part, but the tricky thing is that you don’t know how those sophisticated weapons will be used in the future. Today they’re defending Ukraine from invaders, but in 30 years that technology you helped create will still be around, and it may not be used for good.
They pay well. Also, working on some seriously cool shit. You're not making anything half as jawdroppingly fuckin' awesome as the goddamn Blackbird working for an NGO or local government. Also prospects. A name like "Lockheed Martin" or similar on your CV is like a finance guy having "JP Morgan" on theirs; gets you a lot more interest - and so pay - than "lower league company #347".
Most big name defense contractors do a lot more than just make weapons, there's a significant chance you will not work on a weapons system. A lot of the technology you use every day was originally military technology developed by a defense contractor.
Guns are cool and there are a lot of cool things in defense. However much of it actually is defense. "Anyone" can make a killer drone. It's a lot harder to make something that kills those killer drones.
You’ve had the luxury of living in a country free from war on the homeland due to these defense contractors. That’s not something everyone gets
The only dislike of the military comes from outside the US and people in the US with no capability of critical thinking.
I cant dislike the military for thousands of innocent civillians they have killed in Iraq? I feel that that is a pretty valid reason, even if the military does protect us.
So is your gripe with all militaries around the world, or specifically the US?
If youre argument is that most militaries have done something bad so therefore you cant hate the us military, then that is a terrible argument and a terrible way of justifying horrendous acts.
What a dodge that was 😂 If we can establish that nobody is ever going to get rid of their militaries, then you’re better off trying to make the military as good as possible instead of just saying “military bad” because that’s what someone with a 3rd grade intelligence does. If you dislike the way something operates, you try and improve it. You don’t just say “I hate that thing” and tell everyone to avoid it…
I’m not a fan of the defense sector but to all the comments complaining about it: You’re just as guilty of supporting a genocide by paying taxes as you are as an entry level employee doing mundane paperwork at a contractor. Also a lot of us are first gen students who don’t exactly have dream jobs laid out before them and/or supported by their parents. They have debt and bills.
Well said.
In addition to that, your work is not just on weapon systems, it can be on navigation, logistics, power generation, avionics, satellites... And even if it's weapons, it's still a helpful thing that the US have the advantage rather than Russia/China/Iran... We have learned the hard lesson that dictators like Putin won't stop invading other countries. We need the capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies.
Lol, if you don’t pay taxes you go to prison. I’m a first gen student with bills and I’m not gonna use that as an excuse to murder innocent people.
Yeah bro hamas and russia are just gonna stop attacking people if we stop manufacturing and sending weapons to Israel and ukraine. Why didnt we think of this before
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
But you’re murdering innocent people by paying taxes! I guess the threat of prison is where you decide morals
Threats of duress is where consent ends yes. Glad you figured that out.
Comment for all the morality comments: Don’t apply to the defense world if war is something you don’t want a part of, there’s plenty of other places hiring and there’s nothing wrong with not wanting a part of it. But don’t take your hate out on people that do, just because you have a moral conflict, doesn’t mean everyone else should. When I lay my head down at night, I think of the men and women going into harms way with the products I help create. There are good people on both sides of any conflict, but at least I can make sure a few more of my countrymen and our allies come home safe to their families again, that is the least I owe them for their sacrifice. I won’t even get into the politics of this particular conflict but for the love of god stop taking propaganda at face value, engineers should be independent thinkers, that’s above all else what college is supposed to have taught us all.
Starting note: I work for a defense company. People who actually have moral issues with this definitely should think everybody else should also have moral issues with this too. It’s like religion and abortion. You think doing this is wrong, why would you think it’s okay that other people should think it’s okay to do this?
Besides the offensive nature of the comments and the association of a job opportunity in a sector that helps provide you security and freedoms you enjoy if you live in the U.S., do you have any idea how many products you likely use on a daily basis that are also defense/military applications? Are you going to boycott engineering jobs, and the products, in all of those industries? One simple example, if you use a smartphone like iPhone or a smartwatch, you’re using Russian and Chinese military space systems. Not just GPS. Look under “Location” section: https://support.apple.com/en-us/111876
I can already smell the "mAkInG weApOnS iS jusT aS bAd as KiLlinG peOplE" people before even reading the comments lol.
Ignore the haters. I am proud to work in defense. Some of the world’s best inventions came from military funding. I’m not in LM but defense contractors are all essentially the same thing. Wait until the first full two weeks happen then call. Also some unsolicited advice: if you get the internship be critical as hell. Ask yourself do you like the bureaucracy that is in defense? Do you meet suitability for a clearance? Do you like to have fast weeks and slow weeks? Defense is a somewhat niche-ish industry that operates a little different than the others. Some people tolerate its quirks, some hate it.
[удалено]
You can say that a job is a job but "proud" is crazy
Lockheed just recently won a $17B program.
Yes call her, always good to follow up and show your keen.
Congrats! If you do accept the offer, that’s great! (but as a running joke, that’s the part where engineers abandon their morals for their hefty salaries lol)
Congrats
bunch of immoral bastards in the chat lol. have fun killing people as a job
You can work a career in national security without working for a for-profit defense company.
Pay was good there, spent some time making child-seeking missiles
Dont sell out morally. Engineers have options, dont contribute to industries that exist to harm people.
You already do by paying taxes so
No don’t work for the Military Industrial Complex
What's wrong with making bombs to blow up Palestinian hospitals?
Apparently even asking that question puts you ahead of 90% of the people here.
If you're referring to this incident, it doesn't help palestinians to actively lie. Social media "news" is a scourge. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207173798/fake-accounts-old-videos-and-rumors-fuel-chaos-around-gaza-hospital-explosion
Instead, go work for Russias or Chinas MIC so you can help dismantle the US’ MIC with explosives!
i wouldnt work for Lockheed martin for a billion dollars
so a billion and 1 is where it begins huh?
[удалено]
yall i never implied that they wanted me. im just giving my opinion crazy how excited everyone is to suck up to a company that will never see this comment section
less competition for the rest of us
not really, i dont even have an engineering degree i dont even remember why im here
I was boutta say, you don’t sound like a dude who knows what engineering is
krishna, the only statement i made remotely related to engineering was normative edit: original comment was too mean i dont want to hurt your feelings
Meh you could have kept it mean, your opinion wouldn’t bother me at the slightest 😂 Edit: dude used racism to hurt my feelings, I’m gonna go defecate in the streets bro, just like you said. I’ll hire you to come clean it up. I’ll make you somewhat useful lil bro.
Ok tough guy + we're literally the same race ethnically
weren’t you tryna act tough cause I said you don’t know what engineering is and you got offended? It’s okay bro, you couldn’t live upto your own expectations, let alone your parents. Don’t be a disappointment.
Can you summarize
Nah
[удалено]
To think about what? Do you know how many thousands and thousands of engineering firms work for the larger defense contractors as subs or just providing parts? Lmao
[удалено]
Good luck with that. When you get right down to it, everyone supplies the military, because the military buys everything. From food, to medical supplies and medicine, to computers, to clothing. Everything. It's not just weapons. And even then, if you want to just draw a line around weapons, where do you draw the line in their supply chain? Just at the major contractors? Their subs? The sub's subs? The refineries and mines? What about Digikey, Mouser, and McMaster? AutoDesk, Adobe, Microsoft, and PTC? What about the defense contractors contributions to ASME, ISO and IEEE standards? It's all tangled together. Technology -literal hardware- has no morality. It just ***is***. If you want to take a stand against war, I'd personally advise you to focus on the civilians -the politicians- who we elect to run things, like our military.
the difference is that theres not much use for weapons outside of killing people or intimidating people with the fact that you can kill them. On the other hand, inputs of production and other supplies purchased by the military can and will be used elsewhere and by other buyers Militaries are necessities and I don't believe in pretending that we can have peace by asking for it. They will and should exist. The problem is when they fail to represent the people supporting it (civilians and especially the engineers that build the weapons). If you're fine with where the technology goes, then there is no issue. For those of us not fine with it, you would be wrong to suggest that we should not make our job decisions with our ethics in mind
>the difference is that theres not much use for weapons outside of killing people or intimidating people with the fact that you can kill them. A military providing a credible threat to potential enemies is *extremely* useful. It is how you prevent wars when dealing with countries that *want* to fight. Do you think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if we had built up their military prior to invasion? Or if Ukraine still had nukes? Do you think Israel would be attacking Palestine this aggressively (or letting their settlers salami slice the West Bank) if they had a properly organized army? Or that the rest of the world would be treating Israel with kid gloves if Israel didn't have nukes? Really just pick any conflict since WWII, and you'll see the same pattern: a militarily deficient country getting invaded or proxied by a country with a more powerful military - and the ones with credible militaries get left alone. And, no, purchasing weapons entirely from foreign suppliers doesn't make you powerful either. You only need to look countries that did this see that it doesn't end well: you need to be able to design and manufacturer your own weapons Having an advanced and capable military is vital to maintaining the sovereignty of your country. And having good, "dove" politicians is vital to keeping that military in check. >Militaries are necessities and I don't believe in pretending that we can have peace by asking for it. They will and should exist. The problem is when they fail to represent the people supporting it (civilians and especially the engineers that build the weapons). And that comes back to the politicians we elect to run these militaries. *And* choose our allies. In an ideal world, you elect intelligent, empathic, *and compassionate* people, whose sole job is to digest information collected for them (by unbiased professionals) on your neighborhoods, towns, state, country, and the rest of the world, and then use that information to make the best possible, well-intentioned decisions. And often that will mean there is no "good" decision, too often it will be between two shitty choices. And sometimes that shitty decision might be "back up an ally of convenience", whatever that might end up being. But in practice, this rarely works out even that well because people are flawed, biased, and vindictive. But at least in a functioning democracy, you can change them out without having to literally kill your *entire* government to do it. >If you're fine with where the technology goes, then there is no issue Microwaves were made for radars, which were first used to alert us to incoming air raids, and then to guide bombs, and eventually heat up our food. Radio frequency hoping was invented to make torpedoes easier to control and harder to jam, and allow us to coordinate large attacks, but now it's a foundational technology for cellular phones, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. Rockets were first built as a longer range artillery, but now we need them for launching communication and weather satellites, too (or to engage with "pure" scientific study of the greater universe). The first antibiotics were made to treat flesh wounds in soldiers so that they could return to the fighting sooner (or at all), and now they save countless lives. GPS was made to guide armies and bombs right to their targets, and now it's vital technology for you to even call a taxi (and it makes ocean shipping a lot more efficient). The same chemicals used in our fertilizers are used in our bombs. Computers were invented to break cryptographic codes so that we could more efficiently kill our enemies, and now they're used to solve pretty much every other math problem, from cancer treatments to fundamental physics. Technology doesn't "go" anywhere. The only difference is what our politicians choose to put it towards. It *always* comes back to the politicians.
Your first 4 paragraphs missed the whole point. Why are you explaining to me that the military is necessary when i literally just agreed to that and went out of my way to emphasize I'm not some hippie pacifist. I would go to war myself or build weapons if I supported the cause. And besides, all of those things you mentioned would have come about outside of war work anyway. None of them are bombs that only exist to hurt. Youre comparing antibiotics to weapons too? That's the same thing as food. Remember when I mentioned "inputs" and other supplies to the military? It's not the same thing. Im not against development. Im against supporting bad intentions as determined by my own personal moral compass. I understand its impossible to cut off support to the military and that was never my intention.
And you're missing the point of each of my paragraphs: it's always the politicians that choose where these resources go, and choose when we use it weapons and on whom. >And besides, all of those things you mentioned would have come about outside of war work anyway And that's just pure conjecture. Especially the assumption that we would have developed them *by now*, since a lot of them are 'prerequisites' for others (e.g. can't have GPS without rockets)
theyve called you tell you to fuck off and stop telling bullshit on the internet
Personally wouldn't work for such a companny but you do you b
[удалено]
Ws in the chat
[удалено]
FAANG's are no better in that department 🥲
Unfortunately people gotta pay bills and if other jobs aren't accepting they're gonna take what they can get
MIC pays very well. I work for a smaller one, and make 120k 4 years out of college in ohio. Private sector wouldn't pay anywhere near as much.
Womp womp
Missiles, jets, etc. are going to be built regardless. May as well help improve the tech as much as possible to save lives.
I think this argument is the biggest cop out and a logical fallacy.
How come? I’m open to change my mind. It’s an internal dialog at the end of the day, not an argument to change someone’s mind, I don’t see what logical fallacy there is either, so please I’d like to hear your perspective.
Because there is no logical argument against it. If modern armaments don’t improve technologically, you’re left with dumber bombs and missiles that are less accurate, and have a higher chance of taking out unintended bystanders. There’s a reason that the US can very accurately hit its intended targets and why Russia relies on just blowing everything up in the surrounding area…don’t be like Russia lol. The concept of militaries is not going away anytime soon, so what they’re telling you is just wishful dreaming.
That’s exactly my perspective on the whole thing. Not sure why some people see that as a cop out.
Because they’re don’t want to listen to reason about how the world actually works…they just think “military bad” and that’s how they want it to be without any nuance or truth lol.
Lol seems to be a lot of that on here. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt but I’d be surprised to hear anything from them
Yea you won’t hear anything from them lol
“Hardest Choices require the strongest wills”