Divorce Politics From Weapons Development
“High-tech military,” “precision guidance lasers,” “smart weapons,” “satellite intelligence,” “cruise missiles,” “surgical strikes.” We’ve all heard these terms, seen them on CNN, read about them in newspapers. They performed dramatically in Iraq and were used again in Kosovo where NATO’s effort was deliberately restricted to the use of our high-tech weaponry. Yet, how many of us know the history of the science and technology that have nurtured the development of these precision weapons and tools of modern warfare? Our modern weaponry has evolved from knowledge developed over the past five decades. To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, our modern warfighters stand on the shoulders of the scientists and engineers of yesterday. Maintaining this technological superiority is vital to our armed services. We must continue to invest in the research and development efforts that will foster it.
Make no mistake: U.S. dominance is a result of planned, major and enduring investments in research and development. These achievements stem from the decision after World War II to establish a set of military labs with prime responsibility for advancing the capability of our defensive and offensive weaponry.
But appropriations for these labs have been cut as general funding has been reduced. The cost effectiveness of individual labs is at or below a prudent level; the infrastructure has become an overwhelming expense. A consequence is that efficiency is at an all-time low. The end result will be predictable: Our military capability will wither and battlefield dominance will be severely eroded.
History has demonstrated that private industry can’t satisfy this need for sustained R&D.Scientists; and engineers working on weapons systems need an incentive stronger than the financial bottom line for their employer; they must be driven by the needs of national security and specific experience with military requirements. Defense research has rarely, if ever, been economically profitable. Private industry is rarely willing to make that major dollar commitment accompanied by high risk.
Finally, as amply demonstrated in all of our recent conflicts, the armed services need “quick response teams”--groups of problem solvers, current in the technology and familiar with military needs, available immediately to go to work without the precursor of contract negotiation.
The challenge is to maintain or improve this capability while reducing overall costs. The solution is clear: Military service in-house resources must be realigned and consolidated. These must remain within the Department of Defense. But, we can no longer afford to have each military service maintain its own set of labs. Facility duplication is unwise and expensive. Nor can we afford the luxury of maintaining labs and ranges where the only guiding philosophy is political: the desire of a congressman to keep a base open in his district.
Consolidation of research, development, testing and evaluation are readily divorced from the political challenge of base closure. Duplicate facilities and ranges can be eliminated. Personnel can be reassigned so that all labs and related facilities are staffed and funded above the critical mass. When the dollars and numbers of people are counted, it will be seen that they are minimal while the gain to our national security, is immense.
The secretary of Defense has the authority to reallocate DOD resources without legislation. All that is needed is the will to do so.
