Agree with the first part. However, I think that as long as you were fairly firm that you were only interested in building technology that saved lives (no RC toys with guns on them), I would not feel guilty in the slightest. After all, this truck can't really be used to hurt anyone, just save lives.
Any device designed to operate in a war zone is an implicit support of the activity. Even life-saving devices. If you made bullet-proof jackets and sold them to the US military, you are supporting the military. You may even be impacting the outcome of an engagement, or influencing the endgame.
If the truck did not exist, 6 US soldiers would likely be dead. The insurgents would probably prefer this. Because the truck existed, the soldiers may now go on to fulfill their missions, which may result in insurgents being killed.
Basically, war is an ugly thing. Don't expect to get involved without getting a little dirty.
P.S. In the interest of transparency, I am an American and a strong supporter of the US military. I have family currently serving, and I'm glad that there was a device like the truck that saved lives.
It absolutely can be. The XM-7 Spider is basically the same thing, except over secured remote control, and it holds munitions instead of video cameras. It's pretty difficult to build technology that only saves lives.
"To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell." - Bhuddist Proverb, via Feynman on whether science can be good or bad
I was going to reply, but dkokelly below summed up my thoughts exactly. By saving the lives of our soldiers, there is a very real chance that they will go on to take the lives of some enemy soldiers in the future. So, doing any business with the DoD you have to think about the possibility that your products will either directly or indirectly cause the loss of human life. Whether you agree with the mission or support the troops or not, some people don't like selling products that cause the indirect loss of human life.
