What if Wingcopter were to enter the defense industry?

What is this about?

We are undoubtedly living in crazy times. Although we have enough problems to deal with, such as the climate crisis, we are preoccupied every day with the wars going on around the world.

Every day, a large number of press reports focus on the alleged threat posed by Russia. The question is no longer “if,” but rather how quickly and with how much money we urgently need to rearm. Diplomatic and conflict-resolving solutions are mostly dismissed as naive and unrealistic — contrary to all the lessons learned from history.

In the business world, and especially in the startup world, the new mindset has been clear for some time. I remember very well when the Russian army attacked Ukraine, causing defense company shares to skyrocket, and I was in the process of setting up my own startup. It didn't take long for some investors to call me, dollar signs in their eyes, asking me about possible “alternative” uses for aircraft..

There has never been any doubt that technology such as that developed by Wingcopter could be used for a variety of military applications. That is why this issue has always been important within the company. All employees have always been keen to ensure that Wingcopter, as one of the few drone startups, consistently positioned itself as a purely civilian company—even if this was sometimes the more difficult path financially.

But today, it can be assumed that: The company still has no significant revenue to show for itself. Every year, it becomes more difficult for the startup to raise the necessary funds. And each time, the pressure on the founders to offer investors sufficient profit promises and company shares increases.

I have therefore been increasingly concerned with the following questions lately:

• Will Wingcopter also bow to defense spending sooner or later?
• Would the company betray its old promises with such a change of course, and how much responsibility would today's employees bear in this regard?
• Would Wingcopter make such a decision together with its employees?
• What would that mean for the original vision and mission, and how would I personally feel about it?

Wingcopter's vision and mission

Wingcopter has always prided itself on its morally and ethically sound values and goals, which have been aimed exclusively at commercial and humanitarian purposes. This stance has won over many people, including investors, politicians, the media, and, most importantly, its own employees.

According to the company's current website wingcopter.com, the vision remains the same:

"[…] to improve and save lives"

Another point of the mission is:

"Wingcopter solutions have a clear civil purpose […]"

In press releases, CEO Tom Plümmer is also regularly quoted with statements such as this: (https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/10/wingcopter-drone-delivery-startup-eib/)

"[…] if Wingcopter’s drones could help form part of the fleet of drones being sent to Ukraine to help with its defense against Russia. Wingcopter refused: The company, he said, is committed to its drones never being used in combat situations. […]"

So the message is clear: Wingcopter is clearly committed to civilian missions and has always taken this stance. Through years of consistent public relations, Wingcopter has built up a kind of trust and moral assurance. They have successfully used this to obtain their financial and human resources to date.

The civil or even humanitarian mission was a decisive factor, especially in recruiting employees, and ensured that the best people were attracted and motivated. Otherwise, in the early days, people like me, but also virtually all of my colleagues at the time, would never have worked for the company. And the same is most likely true of many of the initial financiers, which, incidentally, included not only the investors themselves, but also support from politicians and numerous initial showcase projects in collaboration with NGOs such as UNICEF.

It is therefore clear that hundreds of thousands of hours of work and millions in subsidies have gone into the current Wingcopter product and its quality, which were raised specifically for this civilian mission. Given the clear commitment to civilian applications to date, a shift in mission to military applications would therefore be a stark departure. I am sure that many current and former employees and investors would feel betrayed and deceived if such a change were to occur.

Defense at first, then later... ?

Unfortunately, it is alarming to see how many people, 80 years after the end of World War II and amid steadily rising global tensions, want to be “fit for war” again and agree to such massive rearmament as is currently taking place. The worst thing about it is that I often can't blame people themselves: if you keep yourself informed with average effort from the usual media or even just scroll through social media feeds, the threat situation sounds more than plausible and the black-and-white classification of “the good guys” and “the bad guys” in the world is completely clear-cut.

It is clear that there are people with evil intentions and that there are many terrible decisions and deeds in this world. No one should be protected here. However, we should never forget that these kinds of people are always on both sides of conflicts, do not only speak Russian, and, above all, have virtually nothing to do with the general population of a country.

Nevertheless, the relentless repetition of the image of the “evil Russian” over the last 15 years or so, as well as the consistently subtle one-sided reporting, have successfully restored the old enemy stereotype, thereby undoing the previous rapprochement between Europe and Russia. Much to the delight of the US. Today, all it takes is a brief comparison of Putin to Hitler in the heated atmosphere, and any armament, whether it actually serves peace or the profits of the arms industry, can be reinterpreted and justified as a morally acceptable or even necessary means. Unfortunately, this follows the same patterns that we should all have learned from history long ago.

And so I fear that things could be similar at a start-up like Wingcopter: investors call the shots and exert pressure. Big money beckons. The founders have to make concessions. And suddenly, the solution of glossing over military applications and not looking too closely becomes very, very attractive.

Of course, in the event of an emergency, the focus would initially be on “pure defense applications” in strict compliance with the company's values. What's wrong with supplying soldiers on the front line with medicine or providing them with aerial reconnaissance data? Especially when it comes to fighting “the bad guys.”

Well, history clearly shows that no technology can be used in only one way. It doesn't take much imagination to think of a use for a flying object that can quickly and precisely drop payloads weighing around 5 kg at any destination or carry any other payload. And I don't think we need to convince ourselves that, in the event of war and in possession of the technology, the military would still consult extensively with the supplying startup on ethical issues.

Unfortunately, there is a pressing concern that once Pandora's box has been opened, there will be no turning back, and dependence on an endless flow of money will also lead to corresponding influences on decision-making processes.

Personally, I sincerely hope that it never comes to that!

But what if it does?

Let's assume that the idea is actually being considered. Either due to pressure from investors, politicians, or even personal opinions:
How would the company have to approach such a change of course?

There is no doubt that management could not decide this alone behind closed doors. Due to the long-standing mission outlined above, but also because of the sensitive nature of the issue, the workforce would have to be involved at an early stage and a democratic approach taken when making such a fundamental decision!

A period of at least one year would probably be appropriate so that sufficient discussions could be held. This would give employees a fair opportunity to reorient themselves professionally in case of doubt. Without hesitation, that would also be my personal decision and, as I know, that of many of my colleagues at the time. A sudden announcement of the facts, on the other hand, would be clearly unfair and unjustifiable, as many would find themselves in a dilemma where they would have to choose between, for example, “I can no longer provide for my newborn child or finance my mortgage” and “I work in the arms industry.”

It would therefore be strongly advisable for managers to only decide on a change of course if a large majority were behind such a decision. Even though I would personally regret this extremely, it would at least mean that some of the responsibility for the decision, which ultimately concerns human lives, would be shared with the employees.

Appeal

If my fears are justified and considerations of this kind are pending, I would like to share the following with you:

Technical progress is not an end in itself. It is up to us to ensure that it remains compatible with the values and principles we stand for. And Germany's values in particular should not be armament and war.

I think many people are asking themselves the same questions. We are working in an era in which technology is increasingly being appropriated for political, economic, and military purposes. This makes it all the more important that we talk about responsibility—before others decide on it for us. Ultimately, it is up to us to decide what we work on. If we engineers don't develop anything and the people in the workshops don't build anything, managers, politicians, and investors can demand as much as they want—without us, they are powerless.

Hence my wish:

• Please discuss the topic at length and extensively with as many people as possible! Form discussion groups and circles if necessary, but don't get stuck in just one bubble!
• Try to gather as much information as possible. Read a wide variety of media, preferably from around the world. Question things. Try to think for yourself about who has what interests and who could benefit from certain situations.
• If you have similar qualms as I do, consider leaving the ship. Think about your priorities. It's better to say “screw it” to all the money you're earning than to have to tell yourself as a retiree, like previous generations, that you went along with it. There are so many meaningful things you can and should work on. Especially at a time when we in the West are losing touch with the relevant technologies of the future and functioning less and less properly, we should definitely be focusing on things other than weapons manufacturing.

I always swore I would never work for the military. Personally, it would be extremely upsetting for me to see a Wincopter that I once worked on covered in camouflage. So if you see any chance of preventing this, please do so.

Share

If you like, feel free to share this website: wico-goes-military.site

If you want to talk about it on social media, you could use the hashtag #wicogoesmilitary.

Questions, suggestions, criticism

Feel free to send an email to webmaster@wico-goes-military.site