"It's morally compromising to treat large scale human-killing machinery as entertainment" is also a good reason.
This persists even with people from 'neutral' countries who are explicitly committed to staying out of war (japan, sweden, etc). I don't really judge it, because this is the water we swim in as humanity, but an alien visiting us would conclude we're a very murderous and warlike species.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/DoNotDoThisC...
We can say we didn't do that, we individually have very little control over who our government kills and how. But as long as we take delight in the implements of that destruction they are right to hate us.
Our tolerance for misery just because something is impressive is a bad thing about us and we should strive to be better than that.
These machines are not really for dealing death, even though that is what they do. They are just as capable at preventing innocents being killed. They are mainly intended as a defensive tool.
"Does america need to have the most powerful military in the world?"
"Well it certainly does now!"
Maybe it didn't have to be this way. If it does maybe we should just stand up and bear the consequences of the world we've made. If everyone wants us destroyed so badly they might be on to something.
We can't do much about the fact that intraglobal resource competitions have made it necessary to play the game. There is no opting out.
As a consequence, the money and science that is poured into space and military is immense. The products of those energies are technologically interesting, and we'd all be poorer without them.
Morally impoverished to pretend you can separate them in this way. You're here for the technology despite the murder-porn, so have the spine to stand up and admit that about yourself.
> and we'd all be poorer without them.
You can literally spin up youtube and find videos of children being killed by these tools. Do that, watch a couple. Watch children die, you owe them that at least if you're going to find value and entertainment in these weapons. Would they be poorer? their families? Be honest about whose lives are enriched by these tools and whose aren't, please. You and I might be poorer without them, sure, but that's not a "we all" that I can understand.
But unfortunately, opting out is not an option, no matter how distasteful parts of it are. If we don't have competitive or superior tools, we become victimized by those that do. For any definition of "we", where there is not enough social cohesion and control to prevent bad actors (e.g. most obviously: global politics!).
These tools are sometimes used carelessly. Some of that is inevitable, some of it is lack of accountability, some of it is malice. Some of it we can improve on, but some we cannot.
But also, military research is responsible for huge good parts of our lives. Our survival as a (country, yes, but also) species might depend on it. But it's a mixed bag. This mirrors the complexity of life.
The ideal is to have the best tools of competition imaginable, and to never need to use them. We can agree on this at least, I think.
(We can also agree that they are sometimes used unnecessarily!)
But the privilege of never needing to use them comes with the burden of constantly improving them. Fortunately, there are often great benefits to the research even if it's never used for the purpose intended by the party who paid for it.