Re: How microeconomically insignificant is Defense R&D?

[sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!netnews@hplabs.hpl.hp.com]

In article <CButuA.HIz@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian
) writes:
|>  
|>      For some time I have been arguing that many DoD software initiatives
|> are a waste of money and should be no longer funded, for the following
|> reasons - they seem to have little impact outside the DoD (STARS), they
|> waste money on extravagant services (ASSET), or they duplicate services
|> the private sector can more cheaply offer (SEI).

   I think the poster may be conflating two different problems.

   The first one, which is indicated by the Subject: line, above
   discusses DoD spending from an *economic* standpoint.  This
   being sci.econ, that's perfectly legitimate.

   But the second one, i.e, whether DoD R&D "*should* no longer be
   funded represents a logical leap from the first one.  The poster
   seems to be assuming that there's some relationship between whether
   something *should* be funded and its *economic* viability.

   DoD's function is to defend the country.   While we would certainly
   hope that this would be done economically efficiently, if a choice
   has to be made between an economically efficient method and a 
   militarily better, but economically less efficient method then
   sometimes it makes more sense to do the latter.  (of course some-
   times it doesn't).    

   I don't know anything about Ada, but the dominant programming language
   in private industry is C, which I do know quite a bit about, and I
   would submit that it didn't at all meet the list of requirements
   laid out by DoD at the time of Ada's inception (and still doesn't).
   While I'm sure that plenty of "$500 toilet seats" are a genuine 
   waste of money, it may also be the case that *some* "$500 toilet
   seats" cost that much for some very good mission-critical reasons.
   
   I don't know anything about SEI, but some services which are "dup-
   licated" in private industry may offer the same functionality, but
   not be as secure or redundant as what the military might require.
   As to whether something has "economic impact outside of DoD", since
   when is this a criterion?   As I noted above, DoD's mission is 
   national defense.   It's a bit dismaying seeing people from all
   over the political spectrum using economic factors (e.g., the impact
   of a base closing on the local economy) to make decisions that
   should mainly be determined by military considerations.


---peter