The problem with the unchecked advancement of military research and development is that there does not exist a good enough system to keep the military in check. The few who do make a stand against military “progress” are shamed by the majority as unpatriotic, and nobody in a post 9/11 United States of America wants to be publicly branded as un-American. As a result, the military never faces meaningful opposition and continues its march toward bigger and more destructive weapons all in the name of patriotism.
The structure of the military is also to blame, as unlike most branches of the government, they do not directly have to answer to the people. Military generals are not elected, they are promoted from within, and once the higher ups reach their position, nobody else in the army has the authority to tell them no - the only person who has that power is the president. So despite the fact that 300 civilians in other countries have been killed by drone strikes in the past 5 years (Ahemed, 2013) few if no people have actually answered for it.
Self defense is another reason why there seems to be little backlash against military innovation. Because other countries do not release information regarding their own military power and innovation, a cold war still rages on with countries continuing to develop weaponry under the guise of defense against an outside attack.
While there are many negative aspects to military research and development, the fact of the matter is many civilian technologies today have come from military innovations. These kinds of innovation occur at such a rate due to the financial support allocated for military programs, such as DARPA.
Woodhouse comments on the lack of interrogation/investigation over weaponry research and development, however it feels as though the American public, at this point in time, has become jaded and desensitized to these topics. With the nation’s current involvement in wars abroad, Americans are becoming more and more outspoken about why our nation has been so involved in the affairs of other cultures. It’s far more pleasant for citizens to argue over “football teams, clothing styles, political candidates” (Woodhouse, pg. 216) etc. because there is a direct and tangible connection to these topics. People could have an opinion military research and development, however they likely would not see the outcome of that technology for decades since oftentimes, technological development is either classified or is not released to the public for long periods of time.
In conclusion, it is not the budget that is the issue with military research and development, but rather the allocation of that money and the lack of supervision and a system of checks and balances to control where the money goes. Perhaps by creating an electoral system much like the government within the military will give the people a louder voice in how the money is used.
References
Ahmed, Munir and Abbot, Sebastian. “Drone Deaths: 3 Percent Of People Killed By U.S. Strikes Since 2008 Were Civilians, Pakistan Reports”. The World Post. 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 April 2014.
Woodhouse, Edward. The Future of Technological Civilization. University Readers, 2013. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment