On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Chad Cooper wrote:
> There are tremendous benefits that are gained in the private sector from
> defense spending. I think someone already mentioned the technology related
> to laser weapons. Laser weapons need a tremendous amount of power real fast.
> This has spurned flywheel technology, more efficient lasers, probably a
> number of other technologies I am unaware of. All of these we will all
> benefit from.
I don't disagree that defense research has been a catalyst for other
useful technological & scientific developments. But those side benefits
are the natural benefits of reasearch as such, not of weapons-building as
such. If we pump billions and billions into research we're going to
discover lots of stuff.
The disadvantage of defense spending is that missiles and bullets and
guns, (Oh my!) cannot be used in turn to make other things. They are not
capital investments the way a Chevrolet factory is a capital investment.
> How many of these innovations help the environment? How many of these save
> lives? In my mind, you get two for one with defense spending. World Wars
> must never happen again. Defense spending gets us closer to this goal.
?? I think that last point is very arguable, but it's an argument about
human nature. Still, if you did the research and then built factories
instead of bombs, you'd get a three-for-one return, if I follow your
reasoning. :-)
> So the position that a missile defense system cannot be used in turn to
> build or create anything would be unprecedented in history.
No, a simple fact. You can't hire people to work in a missile to make GPS
locators, say. But you *can* hire a people to work in a factory to make
GPS locators. Or you can pump the missile money into further research.
The trick of course is to convince people that the benefits purely
civilian research would outweigh the benefits of making the research
dependent on feeding and supporting the arms industry.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
Nuke the straight capitalist wildebeests for Buddha!
