There are many arguments both for and against continued
sponsoring and development of advanced military technology. Before examining
the arguments, though, a brief analysis of the purpose of the armed forces
should be examined. The mission of the United States department of defense is
to (in abbreviated form): “to provide the military forces needed to deter war
and to protect the security of our country. ( http://www.defense.gov/)”
These goals are ones that I believe many Americans would support. Deterring war
is a noble goal, as most reasonable individuals wouldn’t condone unneeded death
and destruction. Similar is the goal to protect the security of our country.
Americans want to safeguard their ways of life, culture, and wellbeing. The
Department of Defense, housed in the Pentagon building, is also the source of
many of the cutting edge developments in military technology as well, making
them the perfect case study in this analysis. Many opponents of continued
military development (or war in general) would claim that those goals are
flawed, however, in their regulation and implementation. The United States has
engaged in numerous wars over its short existence, and it seems doubtful that
all of them would meet the strict criteria of deterring war or protecting the
security of America. This desire to keep an upper hand on the global stage is
one of the most popular arguments supporting military innovation. Another important
argument is that of the safety of our soldiers. The United States wants to do
whatever it can to support the troops risking their lives on our behalf. While
both these points have merit, I cannot conclude that the current regulation of
military spending and technology is adequate. The better solution to military
development may lie somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
First we will return to the first justification for weapons
innovation: the desire to discourage war through the process of “outgunning” or
intimidation. This can certainly be effective, as the chances of success
against an enemy that is substantially better armed are very low. No doubt,
some engagements have been avoided through this policy of non-violent “preventative
measures”. At the same time, as noted in the class text, this policy can often escalate
into an uncontrolled arms race between competitor nations. This was precisely
the result of the nuclear weaponry development program of the cold war.
Additionally, the temptation to use the advanced weaponry grows with time, as
outdated technology tends to decrease in value over time. Without substantial,
continued funding such a policy could quickly become ineffective. One of the
political ways this effect is avoided is through organizations such as NATO.
The idea of distributing requirements for defense through alliances and
treaties is a far more sustainable long term solution. The continued
development of institutions like this could help reduce the necessity of
deterrence through force in the future.
Protecting the troops that defend our nation is a necessity.
Regardless of one’s opinion on the conflict or specifics of the situation, most
citizens want to support the wellbeing of those who risk their lives for us.
Oftentimes, the suggestion of a reduction in military funding or innovation is
interpreted as having grave consequences for our troops for these reasons.
Having listened to the opinions of veterans in my daily life, I hear this
concern repeated frequently. The problem stems from the belief that a reduction
of funding will reduce the resources going to each soldier, rather than a reduction
of total deployed troops in combat zones. The loss of flow of new equipment,
support, and tactical intelligence would increase the likelihood of casualties
for those in the field. It is easy to see how these concerns are justified.
There is no guarantee from the United States government or higher levels of military
organization of how cuts in funding and new technology would be dealt with, or
how the backlash could affect the safety of the troops. Furthermore, those in the
position of making these decisions have an interest in continuing to secure
funding, making an honest evaluation even more difficult. While a reduction in
the development of certain military technology or funding may be justified,
further research or agreements should be secured before making any radical
changes.
Many of the topics touched on here hold further interest for
myself and many of my peers studying as engineering and science majors. The ethics
and opinions surrounding this issue hold direct consequences for us in terms of
choosing jobs and industries to work in that may contribute to weapons development.
While the potential to jump into a well-paying job in defense is tempting, it
is a decision that might require greater personal thought than other career
choices. Unfortunately, the arguments of the debate are not simple, and neither
extreme appears to hold a realistic answer. Important topics like this
illustrate yet another reason why global awareness and an understanding of
technological consequences are essential for techno-scientists of the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment