Summary
Chapter 16 looks at
the lack of thought put into military and weapon research and development by
American citizens. Woodhouse explains the reason for the ignorance is a
nation-wide attempt at "dealing with distant threats over which one has no
control" (215). For those in control of the R&D, there are monetary
incentives like salary and the act of creating jobs, and moral incentives that
the R&D are repelling or defeating danger to citizens. However, Woodhouse’s
main argument is that in order to think holistically about innovations in the
sector, innovators must realize the downsides and complications that go along
with these. First that the world is more complex than being able to defeat or
deter enemies; that the development of weaponry makes the world more dangerous
for everyone; third that the nature of warfare is constantly changing and
weaponry simply cannot keep up; there always will be unintended consequences;
someone must make the hard, sometimes catastrophic decisions; finally that
humans are inevitably influenced by the potential of what they are given.
Analysis & Synthesis
The complications
Woodhouse argues we must take into account when thinking about military
research and development showcase the dangers of legacy thinking and technology
as legislature. Legacy thinking, “ideas, assumptions, beliefs, values, and ways
of thinking inherited from the past rather than thought through for oneself”
(254), is why “military R&D is so uncontroversial” (211), the very reason
that Woodhouse wrote this chapter. By following the strategies and designs of
the past the United States continues to innovate slowly, unable to address the
first flaw of R&D: the world being more complex than merely defeating or
deterring enemies. In the same way this also leaves the U.S. with the third
problem of R&D: the inability to keep up with the constantly and globally
changing war environment. This is why even as the U.S. is not at war, there is
development of "The F-35 Jet Fighter[, which] may be outdated by the time
it is finally delivered starting in 2016 at a total program cost of roughly
$400 billion, fifteen years after initial conception" (219).
The idea of
technology as legislature says that “as laws (including governmental
regulations and court rulings) constrain or encourage certain behaviors, so
also with technologies” (256). The more the U.S. contributes to military
innovation, the more dangerous technologies are used throughout the world. This
is the third problem of R&D: it feeds a greater potential for harmful acts
on a global scale, making the world a more dangerous place for everyone. The
more direct correlation is the fifth problem: making the hard decisions. The
literal legislature of R&D requires a human being make the difficult
decisions to harm, control, or kill other human beings. Once they make the
decision, the 3rd problem comes into play: unintended consequences. Unintended
consequences inevitably legislate the political relations between countries,
branches in government, the scientific and military communities, the public and
political bodies. If something catastrophic happens someone must be to blame,
and all other associated parties will be aggressively pointing fingers and
taking action against the guilty. The final problem with R&D is the
definition of technology as legislature: human beings are inevitably influenced
by the potential of what is available to them. If more dangerous technology is
made available, those in power are more likely to use it.
These are cyclical
systems of harm and the buildup of harmful potential. Yet, these same systems
can be seen in the public world of rapidly advancing technology. Technology as
legislation is why “military innovation often drives civilian innovation” (211),
and vice versa. It is both surprising and unsurprising based on this that
"there is a sense in which you and I do not really understand weaponry and war" (217). As citizens in America
we are part of weaponry and war on a daily basis, and it is a part of us,
fueling the technologies we use every day and vice versa.
