Of course, financial ties between the Pentagon and American universities are nothing new. As Stuart Leslie has pointed out in his seminal book on the topic, The Cold War and American Science, “In the decade following World War II, the Department of Defense (DOD) became the biggest patron of American science.” Admittedly, as civilian institutions like the National Institutes of Health grew larger, the Pentagon’s share of federal research and development did decline, but it still remained a source of billions of dollars in funding for university research.
The Pentagon Goes to School
Yes, the Pentagon’s funding of universities is indeed rising once again and it goes well beyond the usual suspects like MIT or Johns Hopkins University. In 2022, the most recent year for which full data is available, 14 universities received at least — and brace yourself for this — $100 million in Pentagon funding, from Johns Hopkins’s astonishing $1.4 billion (no, that is not a typo!) to Colorado State’s impressive $100 million. And here’s a surprise: two of the universities with the most extensive connections to our weaponry of the future are in Texas: the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) and Texas A&M.
In 2020, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and former Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy appeared onstage at a UT-Austin ceremony to commemorate the creation of a robotics lab there, part of a new partnership between the Army Futures Command and the school. “This is ground zero for us in our research for the weapons systems we’re going to develop for decades to come,” said McCarthy.
Not to be outdone, Texas A&M is quietly becoming the Pentagon’s base for research on hypersonics — weapons expected to travel five times the speed of sound. Equipped with a kilometer-long tunnel for testing hypersonic missiles, that school’s University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics is explicitly dedicated to outpacing America’s global rivals in the development of that next generation military technology. Texas A&M is also part of the team that runs the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the (in)famous New Mexico facility where the first nuclear weapons were developed and tested as part of the Manhattan Project under the direction of Robert Oppenheimer.
Other major players include Carnegie Mellon University, a center for Army research on the applications of AI, and Stanford University, which serves as a feeder to California’s Silicon Valley firms of all types. That school also runs the Technology Transfer for Defense (TT4D) Program aimed at transitioning academic technologies from the lab to the marketplace and exploring the potential military applications of emerging technology products. (...)
A Science of Death or for Life?
Graduating science and engineering students increasingly face a moral dilemma about whether they want to put their skills to work developing instruments of death. Journalist Indigo Olivier captured that conflict in a series of interviews with graduating engineering students. She quotes one at the University of West Florida who strongly opposes doing weapons work this way: “When it comes to engineering, we do have a responsibility… Every tool can be a weapon… I don’t really feel like I need to be putting my gifts to make more bombs.” By contrast, Cameron Davis, a 2021 computer engineering graduate from Georgia Tech, told Olivier about the dilemma faced by so many graduating engineers: “A lot of people that I talk to aren’t 100% comfortable working on defense contracts, working on things that are basically going to kill people.” But he went on to say that the high pay at weapons firms “drives a lot of your moral disagreements with defense away.”
The choice faced by today’s science and engineering graduates is nothing new. The use of science for military ends has a long history in the United States. But there have also been numerous examples of scientists who resisted dangerous or seemingly unworkable military schemes. When President Ronald Reagan announced his “Star Wars” missile defense plan in 1986, for instance, he promised, all too improbably, to develop an impenetrable shield that would protect the United States from any and all incoming nuclear-armed missiles. In response, physicists David Wright and Lisbeth Gronlund circulated a pledge to refuse to work on that program. It would, in the end, be signed by more than 7,000 scientists. And that document actually helped puncture the mystique of the Star Wars plan, a reminder that protest against the militarization of education isn’t always in vain.
Scientists have also played a leading role in pressing for nuclear arms control and disarmament, founding organizations like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (1945), the Federation of American Scientists (1945), the global Pugwash movement (1957), the Council for a Livable World (1962), and the Union of Concerned Scientists (1969). To this day, all of them continue to work to curb the threat of a nuclear war that could destroy this planet as a livable place for humanity. (...)
That was then, of course. But today, resistance to the militarization of science has extended to the growing use of artificial intelligence and other emerging military technologies. For example, in 2018, there was a huge protest movement at Google when employees learned that the company was working on Project Maven, a communications network designed to enable more accurate drone strikes. More than 4,000 Google scientists and engineers signed a letter to company leadership calling for them to steer clear of military work, dozens resigned over the issue, and the protests had a distinct effect on the company. That year, Google announced that it would not renew its Project Maven contract, and pledged that it “will not design or deploy AI” for weapons.
Unfortunately, the lure of military funding was simply too strong. Just a few years after those Project Maven protests, Google again began doing work for the Pentagon, as noted in a 2021 New York Times report by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Kate Conger. Their article pointed to Google’s “aggressive pursuit” of the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability project, which will attempt to “modernize the Pentagon’s cloud technology and support the use of artificial intelligence to gain an advantage on the battlefield.”
by William D. Hartung, TomDispatch | Read more:
Image: Bold Type Books
[ed. This insanity has been a constant all my life. Obviously, there are too many interests vested in keeping the money flowing (as we see here ie., military and educational industrial complex; states and cities that rely on it). Very much like dealers and junkies. But beyond the lost opportunities to transform society, strengthen our national infrastructure, prepare for climate-related security issues, etc. our political system has been hijacked, with the military appropriating the role of Congress in disbursing taxpayer dollars for its own wasteful, destabilizing, and life-threatening purposes. See also: Militarism Abuse Disorder (TD):]
And that’s your money, your tax dollars. That means you, like the rest of us in this country, are in some strange fashion — to steal an apt phrase from Berrigan — “military dependent.” Or put another way, believe it or not, the global military stance of the United States, which hasn’t won a war of significance since World War II, is distinctly dependent on you and me. Given all the money that’s gone into that military and the wars it hasn’t won from Korea in the 1950s and Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s to the “forever wars” in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond of this century, if we were “investing” in anything else with similar results, there would be serious calls for us to stop.
No such luck, of course, when it comes to the ever-rising Pentagon and “national security” budget, which by 2022 had already reached an estimated $1.4 trillion annually! And with that, let Berrigan introduce you to one of the great sicknesses of our all-American age, MAD or Militarism Abuse Disorder.
***
It’s strange when you think about it. Today, TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan offers a look at the staggering number of taxpayer dollars that go to just one major arms manufacturer in one city in America, New London, Connecticut, where she lives. It’s a company that’s focused there on creating world-ending naval vessels — nuclear submarines, to be exact. (Just what this world of ours doesn’t need, of course!) But the money that’s channeled into being a military power beyond compare (but never, it seems, beyond defeat) is hard even to take in. Consider just what it costs to support the 750 or so military bases that the U.S. still maintains across more than 80 countries, colonies, or territories on every continent except Antarctica. Best guess: approaching $100 billion annually.And that’s your money, your tax dollars. That means you, like the rest of us in this country, are in some strange fashion — to steal an apt phrase from Berrigan — “military dependent.” Or put another way, believe it or not, the global military stance of the United States, which hasn’t won a war of significance since World War II, is distinctly dependent on you and me. Given all the money that’s gone into that military and the wars it hasn’t won from Korea in the 1950s and Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s to the “forever wars” in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond of this century, if we were “investing” in anything else with similar results, there would be serious calls for us to stop.
No such luck, of course, when it comes to the ever-rising Pentagon and “national security” budget, which by 2022 had already reached an estimated $1.4 trillion annually! And with that, let Berrigan introduce you to one of the great sicknesses of our all-American age, MAD or Militarism Abuse Disorder.
