In 1969, the US Department of Defense invested in a project called ARPANET. It was initially designed to connect military research labs and university computer networks, potentially providing a robust communication backbone in the event of a nuclear attack. ARPANET would go on to form the basis of the modern Internet, paving the way for multi-billion dollar commercial companies such as Google and Facebook.
Historically, military spending has had a significant impact on the creation of all sorts of innovative new technologies with civilian application. The development of everything from ballpoint pens, to radar, to GPS, to radio, to communication satellites, has involved the armed forces in one way or another.
At a time when the defence budgets of most European countries are shrinking, could investment in so-called “dual-use” technologies (i.e. technologies with both military and civilian application) help bolster European industry?
Our partner think-tank, Friends of Europe, has been running a series of discussion papers on dual-use technologies recently, examining their benefits and drawbacks. Europe has globally competitive companies engaged in aeronautical, scientific and engineering research. Could the defence sector reduce costs by relying more on technologies and R&D from these civilian companies?
Or is there a conflict between what is strategically important and what is commercially viable? Would an emphasis on dual-use technologies just be an excuse to cut defence budgets and prioritise drones and cyber technologies at the expense of “boots on the ground”?
Should defence research focus on technologies useful to civilians? Or would so-called “dual-use” technologies be used as an excuse for defence cuts? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
10 comments Post a commentcomment
any device invented by humankind has double use! all depends HOW it is used!
.
No, it’s role is to supply the technology to defend the realm, anything else is just a by-product.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth.jpg
.
They make equipment to defend the British people from their enemies, they do not make toasters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9797738/British-stealth-drone-to-undergo-first-test-flight.html
Dual use of latest technology and materials is fine with me. I don’t see nothing wrong with that at social or ethical level. If this is the cost of humanity advance then be it. I would love to see more “iPhone” like (leap instead of step forward) impact on several fields of technology.
Uhm… Doesn’t that sort of emply that they are focussing on military hardware that nonmilitary personnel could potentially use? That’s basically saying we’re focusing on guerilla tech from here on out :S
If the armed forces do any research for civilians, then pass the funds to private or public entities that know what that is.
If the armed forces do any research for civilians, then pass the funds to private or public entities that know what that is.
Just like the Internet that was developed by university types with military funding.
Yes but belive it always allreddy have one way or the other. Like dynamite that was invented to be able to transport nitroglycerin in an safe way by civil use. But military was fast in taking advantage of it.
Yes, of course!
If defence research is not prepared for civilian use, research would become unsustainable. The more advance defence technology becomes, the more the military wants to have it protected so that it would maintain an overall advantage position. Making the research sustainable would only be going to war and test the product. The more public money assigned for military/defence research, the less civilian can enjoy. This would eventually encourage arm race and destruction of man and the earth …