It’s funny how our new frugal mindset goes out the window when “national security” is involved. Thankfully, there are signs that this trend is ending: the $1 Billion Border Fence was recently cancelled, and the $1 Billion Fighter Plane Project eliminated last year. However, there are some who argue that technological sophistication is needed to fight the wars of the future and serve as a deterrent to countries like Russia and China. So do we need to throw those $1 Billion Dollar Cool Sounding Things for our defense purposes?

Surprisingly, they do have their uses. For example, hundreds of millions were poured into the drone program in Afghanistan. Though its application is debatable, it’s pretty clear that it played a big part in decimating Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership while minimizing risk to American airmen. Also, the Army recently developed a grenade launcher targeting system that can target insurgents hiding under cover. Such high-tech weapons systems cannot be cheap to R&D.

Then consider the recent billion-dollar failures. Both the border fence and the fighter plane project share similar failures. They were very rhetorically appealing- ok, they sound cool to voters and senators. Parts were commissioned in manufacturing areas heavily dependent on defense spending. Then they were mired in delays in cost overruns until the projects were years behind schedule and the costs ran double or triple the original estimate.

Most importantly, they were built to fight the “last war”, a modern-day Maginot line if you will. Large fences and fancy large vehicular weapons are a product of the Cold War mindset, where psychological warfare depended on who can intimidate their enemies with bigger and better weapons. The U.S. strategy, especially in the 80s, was to bait Russia into increasing its military spending to the point of bankruptcy. That involved pouring billions into designing Very Intimidating Sounding, Shiny Big Weapons.

However, we face a very different enemy now. We have to accept the idea that Islamist insurgents, with their suicide bombings and religious fervor, are not going to be cowed by big dollars nor be coaxed into a spending war. Instead, they thrive in two types of environments: urban locations where big weapons are not precise enough to take out the insurgents without harming civilians, and isolated deserts where said big weapons cannot find them.

Therefore, we need technology aimed towards precision rather than conspicuousness. Weapons like the grenade launcher system that work in the urban environments, and the drones that are suited for covert desert operations. They are adapted to the realities of insurgency warfare; planes are not. Likewise, large border fences do not eliminate the economic and safety reasons that Mexicans cross the border. Spending money for weapons can be worth it, but it must be to counter a real threat, not to fulfill our sci-fi fantasies.


(Photo: Mike D. Logan)