Sharon-Weinberger-In.. - American Antigravity

Weinberger: I think most of them are below the administration’s radar screen, and that
perhaps is part of the problem. Top officials are focused on Iraq. So, it’s more a problem of
neglect.
AAG: What role does general fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about enemy capabilities
play in pushing through otherwise untenable technologies? I mean, it seems like some of these
initiatives are really sold on the idea that "somebody might beat us to it", which seems to play
into a culture of generalized anxiety in the defense industry. Any thoughts on this?
Weinberger: That’s a huge, huge driving
factor in a lot of what the Pentagon does. Just
about every defense technology official you’ll meet
will say, “My job is to prevent technological
surprise.” And then they’ll talk about Sputnik,
Japanese torpedoes, Soviet subs, etc. All those
things that “surprised us” in one way or another.
But when you look at the things that surprised us,
you have to think about why they surprised us. It
wasn’t typically things that we thought violated the
laws of physics, but rather technological advances
that competitors had made and where our
intelligence wasn’t very good. So, when we speak
about the hafnium bomb and competitors, we have
to ask: is this an intelligence problem or a physics
problem?
AAG: Speaking of FUD, I've heard rumblings
about China being the next "Soviet Union", and I'm
wondering if you have any thoughts on this aspect
of military programs driving foreign policy? Could
there be a "trickle-up" effect from the defenseindustry
to the administration pushing this anxiety
into the foreign policy area?
DTI 2006: A focus on radar coverage in
Jan/Feb 2006, a bimonthly AvWeek feature.
Weinberger: Organizations operate like human beings—they want to grow, become
richer, and live forever. The China threat might indeed be real, but certainly I see a tendency to
hype their capabilities in specific areas as a convenient way to garner support for favored U.S.
defense projects. But is the tail wagging the dog, as your question suggests? That I’m not so sure.
Rather, I think those with interests in these technologies are simply happy to play upon an
existing belief within the current administration.
Just for the record, I think the notion of a “military-industry complex” is misunderstood. This
idea presumes much more power than these industries have. The influence is less at the
strategic level and more at what I call the tactical level (i.e. the revolving door of defense officials
who move into private employment and vice versa).
AAG: Do you think that our military intentionally inflates their claims about enemy
capabilities to sustain their budgets? I think that the difference between the cold-war picture of
the Soviet Union and the reality of their defense-capabilities was shocking to most people, and
I'm wondering if this might have been intentional, or just a runaway side-effect of selfreinforcing
perceptions about the unknown?
American Antigravity.Com Page 6 of 11