www.ndu.edu/inss dh No. 73 1 

Additive manufacturing (AM)—commonly referred to as “three-dimensional” or “3D” printing—is a prospective game changer with implications and opportunities that affect not just the Department of Defense 

(DOD) but the economy as a whole. The technology allows the “art to part” fabrication of complex objects from a computer model without part-specific tooling 

or human intervention.1 AM has already impacted a variety of industries and has 

the potential to present legal and economic issues with its strong economic and 

health-care benefits. Because of its remarkable ability to produce a wide variety of 

objects, AM also can have significant national security implications. The purpose 

of this paper is to provide a general introduction to these issues for nontechnical 

readers through a survey of the recent history and the current state of technology. 

Included in this paper is a brief review identifying key individuals and organizations shaping developments as well as projected trends.

AM refers to the production of a three-dimensional object through the layerby-layer addition of material according to a geometrical computer model. AM contrasts with other forms of manufacturing that require either the removal or alteration 

of material to produce a completed object. For example, a 3D printer could build a 

crescent wrench by adding a layer of material and stacking another layer on top of 

that one and fusing them together, repeating the process until the wrench is complete.

There are distinct benefits to objects produced in this manner. Considering the 

above example, if a customer wanted a wrench to be fashioned with a grip unique to 

his hand, he could scan his hand by computer and modify the existing design accordingly before the 3D printer begins production. Additionally, since the wrench is not 

Toward the Printed World: 

Additive Manufacturing 

and Implications for 

National Security

by Connor M. McNulty, Neyla Arnas, 

and Thomas A. Campbell

Defense Horizons

National Defense University

Center for 

T

e

chnology and 

National Se

curity Poli

c

y

About the Authors 

Connor M. McNulty is a former intern 

and Neyla Arnas is a Senior Research 

Fellow in the Center for Technology 

and National Security Policy at the National Defense University. Dr. Thomas 

A. Campbell is Research Associate 

Professor at Virginia Tech.

Key Points

◆ Additive Manufacturing is becoming more cost-effective and 

widely available. Products ranging 

from titanium components to human tissue can now be “printed.” 

Its use is increasing dramatically 

with new materials and applications, so national security opportunities and challenges must be 

addressed proactively.

◆ National security advantages 

come from manufacturing and 

medical applications, namely, the 

ability to create specialized parts 

cheaply from an ever-growing list 

of materials. Additive manufacturing could reduce material use, 

build time, weight, and delivery 

times. This will bear directly on 

U.S. security operations.

◆ The ubiquity of this technology 

means that these advantages will 

be available to consumers and 

America’s rivals. Its consumer applications may create legal challenges.

◆ This technology could be part of a 

U.S. manufacturing revolution, allowing innovation and production 

especially when considered with 

other technologies. 

September 2012
2 dh No. 73 www.ndu.edu/inss

Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing)*

Material

(Filament)

Liquefier

(Heating coil)

Nozzle

(Print Head)

Material is applied one 

layer at a time.

1

2

3

3D object is scanned 

and digitized.

Software creates a 

series of 2D-files, one fi le 

for each layer of desired 

thickness and detail.

Individual fi les are sent to

the 3D printer.

Material is layered, 

creating a 3D object.

* Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) is only one example of the many available 3D printing 

processes. As building materials such as metals, food, and tissue cells become more 

sophisticated, so do the manufacturing processes and machines.

Source: Figure concept by Neyla Arnas, illustration by Olivia Foss, and layout by Joshua McGee.
www.ndu.edu/inss dh No. 73 3 

assembled from preexisting parts, it would be a complete 

entity—unable to break into component parts as there is 

only one “part.” Since the wrench is made by additive manufacturing as opposed to conventional “subtractive manufacturing”—taking a block of raw material and removing 

excess until the finished product remains—the process as a 

whole is more efficient and less wasteful. 

Another major benefit of AM is the fact that complexity is “free.” In conventional manufacturing, increasing 

design complexity entails increased costs. AM allows for 

complexity to increase independently of cost.  By AM’s 

very nature of layer-by-layer additions, one can optimize 

in advance via 3D software a given engineering component’s strength, durability, and other material properties. 

For example, in the aerospace industry, one typically desires high strength but low weight. Weight savings translate into savings on fuel consumption. Traditional subtractive manufacturing is fundamentally limited in its ability 

to remove material from the interiors of aerospace components to optimize these conflicting parameters. With 

AM, however, one can design a part to have more material 

where strength is needed, and less where it is not. Moreover, the changing of a digital design and reprinting of it 

via AM are more cost-effective than retooling subtractive 

systems and remanufacturing the same part.

Developed in the late 1980s, 3D printers are becoming more affordable and dynamic, able to handle a greater 

variety of material than before. Researchers at Wake Forest University have used AM to produce a range of living tissue, including human skin. This potential has not 

gone unnoticed by the defense community—the Armed 

Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM) 

has funded such initiatives and fostered collaboration 

between research institutions. Commerce and industry have also been shaped by these developments. The 

relative ubiquity of 3D printers, combined with the increasing range of materials these devices can handle, has 

fostered the growth of a new industry around manufacturing specialized components. Likewise, this technology has begun to remove barriers between innovation and 

production, with smaller firms producing goods quicker 

and cheaper than ever. This has attracted the interest of 

government research organizations such as the Office of 

Naval Research (ONR) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

The propagation of this technology has generated a 

host of national security considerations, which connect 

to broader economic and policy developments. AM can 

benefit the national security and defense community because of its economic potential. Additionally, it can allow 

for greater interaction between the national security community and the private sector, as businesses will be able to 

produce prototypes and sophisticated components more 

inexpensively and quickly than before. The health-care 

applications of this technology are remarkable, with 3D 

“bioprinters” producing viable human tissue and simple 

organs, for which Food and Drug Administration approvals are pending. Researchers under AFIRM and National 

Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsorship are now pursuing more ambitious goals, such as producing kidneys and 

livers viable for human transplantation, as well as durable 

bioprinters that could be deployed to the battlefield to 

provide more immediate treatment of soldiers’ wounds.

Nevertheless, like any new technology, AM has the 

potential for uses both good and bad. As AM brings economic benefits, it will also be easier for individuals or small 

organizations to counterfeit goods and steal intellectual 

property. Several recent criminal activities have used AM 

to support fraud and theft. It will be incumbent upon law 

enforcement and the legal profession to cooperate in protecting entrepreneurs; furthermore, the diplomatic community will need to work with foreign partners to protect 

American intellectual property abroad. A more troubling 

prospect involves the technology being used to render detection of nuclear proliferation more difficult, which by itself makes the case for understanding the possible uses of 

the technology.2

 Addressing criminal and legal concerns 

will require active cooperation across multiple agencies in 

the national security community.

Just as the Internet changed the flow of information, 

AM has the potential to change the range of goods and 

services available to individuals. Commercial AM systems 
4 dh No. 73 www.ndu.edu/inss

are now available for purchase (desktop 3D printers cost a 

few thousand dollars); these systems bring manufacturing 

to the individual, enabling customized design and printing 

of anything from hearing aids to shoes.3

 Leaders in the 

national security field have a unique opportunity to capitalize on these nascent developments and confront emerging concerns stemming from this technology.

Technology Overview

Additive manufacturing is a fundamentally different process of creating a product from raw materials than 

more traditional manufacturing. Consider a coffee cup: 

a traditional artisan would take a piece of clay and then 

mold it into the necessary shape before allowing it to dry 

or baking it in a kiln. A modern factory would take a block 

of raw material and then use machinery to pare away unnecessary material until a coffee cup remained (a process 

referred to as “subtractive manufacturing”). In contrast, 

AM would stack successive layers of materials until the 

product was in the shape of a coffee cup and would then 

fuse it together.4

 Depending on the specific product and 

manufacturing throughput desired, AM presents a potentially more efficient and environmentally friendly manufacturing approach than traditional manufacturing.

History. AM was initially conceived by several European, Japanese, and American inventors as early as the 

1970s, but the technology emerged more rapidly around 

the same time personal computers and peripherals began to see widespread commercial use. Chuck Hull established the company 3D Systems in 1986, following 

his invention of the Stereolithography Rapid Printing 

System.5

 Two years later, Scott Crump developed Fused 

Deposition Modeling and established Stratasys to market his inventions.6

 Both firms were early pioneers of 

AM, creating a niche market for specialized components. 

AM met this need because it could respond to minute 

variations in design and produce small orders more costeffectively than could traditional manufacturers.

These two technologies were referred to as “rapid prototyping” for the segment they occupied in the market. 

Their speed, efficiency, and minimal material waste allowed 

these early companies to cheaply produce models and small 

prototypes before mass production would begin. At the 

same time, others sought to use lasers to melt metal powders for AM. Ross Housholder’s 1981 patent first described 

this process, but the technology was further developed and 

commercialized by the DTM Corporation, which licensed 

Housholder’s patent.7

 DTM combined Housholder’s work 

with the work of Carl Deckard, then a graduate student at 

University of Texas, Austin. DTM produced the first 3D 

printing device that employed Laser Sintering. Finnish researcher O. Nyrhilä drew upon this work to develop Direct 

Metal Laser Sintering. The former process uses a laser to solidify metal powder layer-by-layer, while the latter uses laser 

sintering to build metal parts during the building process.8

Since the development of these processes, there have been 

myriad novel variations on them to manipulate different 

materials and create more complicated products.

The basic research for AM was dominated by the 

United States through the late 1990s when public funding decreased, hoping that industry would fill the gap. 

Today, the applied research is dominated by Europe, especially Germany.

The aforementioned developments in manufacturing 

processes have also dramatically changed the range of materials that AM can employ. Whereas early systems employed only plastics, higher temperatures and lasers have 

allowed for the use of metals, including titanium, which 

has a high melting temperature. Using a variety of materials, different composites can be manufactured, as 3D 

printers can join many materials together seamlessly. Recently, Objet announced that one of its AM systems can 

print with over 100 materials.9

 This sophistication encouraged recent experimentation with organic materials.

With the increasing commercial availability of AM, 

medical researchers and bioengineers are working to adapt 

this technology to develop bioprinting, where 3D printers 

produce organic material.10 Gabor Forgacs, a professor at the 

University of Missouri, is leading a team of researchers to 

develop the underlying bioprinting technology. Forgacs is 

the founder and current Chief Scientific Officer at the biotechnology company Organovo.11 Though this technology is 
www.ndu.edu/inss dh No. 73 5 

in its infancy, the ability to produce a three-dimensional biomodel directly from a design could create a new generation 

of capabilities for tissue regeneration and organ transplants.

State of the Art. As with the personal computer, the 

maturation of this technology has seen the price per unit 

decrease. As 3D printing technology became more readily available, the range of materials it can handle has also 

expanded. The combination of these two factors has resulted in a steadily increasing output of goods and services provided by additive systems. This technology is 

widely distributed throughout the developed economies, 

especially in the United States, Europe, and Asia. 

For manufacturing and services, AM has strong potential. Niche manufacturers and producers of specialized components have used the new technology to produce specialized components, especially complicated ones and devices 

whose function could not be adequately performed if they 

were produced by older types of manufacturing. Examples 

include aircraft components and customized health-care 

devices such as hearing aids. 3D printers are now able to 

produce titanium and steel components, which will greatly 

expand the range of goods that these devices can produce. 

As with personal computers, miniaturizing 3D printers has 

done much to help their distribution.12

The “printing” of food is also being explored by several groups. For example, students at Cornell University 

designed and built the Fab@Home extrusion printer for 

its unique capability to extrude food pastes into products 

such as wedding cakes.13 More recently, a graduate student researched the design and construction of a printer 

for making burritos.14

Beyond their potential for revolutionizing production, 3D printers have fostered significant developments 

in health care. The Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative 

Medicine (WFIRM), based at Wake Forest University, has 

successfully used 3D printing technology to create human 

tissue. Cells were used in place of an inkjet cartridge to create a two-chamber heart. While this process is strictly experimental and not for use in patients, its potential could 

revolutionalize organ transplants.  Dr. Anthony Atala of 

WFIRM has demonstrated an ongoing effort to grow human kidneys using 3D printers. To describe the process succinctly, the 3D printer constructs a frame from organic material and then places human tissue into the frame so that 

it grows and connects to form a functional human kidney. 

Creating an implantable kidney would represent a quantum leap in medical progress. At present, Atala’s team has 

produced a kidney; however, additional research is needed 

before this process can be used clinically.15

The above examples provide a sample of the various 

projects being undertaken using AM. These changes in 

manufacturing and product distribution, as well as the 

potential revolution in regenerative medicine, are inextricably linked to national security issues.

Economic Impacts and National 

Security Implications

Developments in AM have captured the imagination 

of many writers and commentators. They see the technology as strengthening entrepreneurship by removing entry 

barriers in the manufacturing sector, while appealing to 

the green movement by substantially reducing waste. The 

predominant development of this technology in the United States has led some analysts to claim that AM offers a 

means to achieve an economic advantage in the face of rising Chinese manufacturing.16 The Economist predicts the 

technology will have as profound an impact on manufacturing as modern assembly-line factories have had, since 

3D printing will undermine economies of scale by making 

it as cheap to produce one item as many.17 Further, by undermining the need for some factories, 3D printing could 

challenge the necessity of low-cost, low-wage countries to 

produce goods.18 It is also worth exploring the potential 

impact on employment rates. The New America Foundation, a Washington, DC–based nonpartisan think tank, 

has noted these trends and detailed an economic recovery 

strategy that highlights this technology as one of several 

that could stimulate American manufacturing.19

Though forecasters see tremendous economic potential, there has been little analysis of the national security 

implications of this technology. For example, questions 

remain about the impact of AM on energy consumption. 
6 dh No. 73 www.ndu.edu/inss

According to the Department of Energy (DOE), generalizations cannot be made in terms of the entire AM sector. 

Energy savings are product-specific and vary extensively.20

In fact, the low-end, high-volume consumer market poses 

the biggest potential for environmental waste. The plastic 

materials most commonly used in commercial 3D printers 

could pose recycling challenges.21

DOD has aggressively pursued these technological 

developments through its various research arms. Partnering with industry and academia, DOD has pursued AM 

initiatives to address strategic needs, especially through 

the ONR. The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) announced the single awardee for a 

$30 million pilot institute with a focus on AM.22 Funded 

by multiple agencies, including DOD, DOE, Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation (NSF), this pilot institute serves to accelerate commercialization of various AM processes. These initiatives, 

as well as emerging opportunities and concerns presented by this technology, are considered in this section.

Several organizations have been involved in fostering 

this technology. Of these, AFIRM and ONR are directly 

promoting the development of additive manufacturing. 

In 2010, AFIRM funded several completed and ongoing 

Potential AM Implications for DOD

Revolutionary Production

Efficient use of resources

Fewer processing steps, net-shape, less assembly, post-processing, less waste material, 

less energy

Small lot productions Production in lot size of 1, mass customization

Rapid manufacturing Tool-less, extreme cycle time reductions

Agile manufacturing Spare parts on demand, no stockpiles, simplified supply chain/logistics

Reverse engineering Scan and manufacture parts for legacy systems

Cost reduction Expendable/disposable products

Enabling New Technology

Lightweight structures Weight removal increases mission capabilities

Modularity New designs to switch components in and out

Complexity

Exotic structures, functionally-graded 

materials, fabricated moving joints, 

embedded electronics

Local Production

Factory-less production Remote, mobile fabrication

Agility/flexibility Rapid response to changing missions

Shortening of supply chain Potential use of local raw materials

Source: Jennifer Fielding, National Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Institute (Additive 

Manufacturing Symposium, Washington, DC, August 20, 2012)
www.ndu.edu/inss dh No. 73 7 

research projects that contributed to miniaturization or the 

use of novel materials in additive systems.23 ONR contributed by providing grants to academic institutions active in 

advancing the technology,24 and by soliciting designs from 

industry to meet future strategic goals and operational requirements. ONR has shown special interest in desktop 

manufacturing, a process developed by Stratasys (and commercialized by firms such as Makerbot) using smaller and 

cheaper additive systems to produce plastic components.25

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has shown interest in this technology, most recently 

partnering with Georgia Tech and Stratasys to provide 3D 

printers for high schools across the country.26

As the volume of investment suggests, the defense community sees significant potential for AM. The above pattern 

of investment suggests that there is pressure to integrate the 

currently developing technology into ongoing defense projects. The joint initiative between Georgia Tech and DARPA 

was conducted through the latter’s MENTOR (Manufacturing Experimentation and Outreach) program. As noted 

above, there are parallels between the development of the 

personal computer and the gradual propagation of additive 

systems. As the personal computer became both affordable and easy to use, information-sharing dramatically increased while the associated cost decreased. By funding this 

technology before it fully enters the consumer market and 

collaborating with those developing the systems, the aforementioned government agencies will have an advantage in 

its future gains. Likewise, DARPA’s investment demonstrates the possibility of addressing U.S. science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) deficiencies while 

creating a pool of individuals who have experience with a 

technology that a Forbes columnist claimed could keep U.S. 

manufacturing ahead of China’s.27

Despite the decreasing costs and lowered barriers to entry, Terry Wohlers of Wolhers Associates, 

Inc., writes that additive systems will not become a 

household product in the same way the personal computer did.28 The vast range of materials used in creating household products will make personal use prohibitively expensive and impractical, while the average 

user would not have the requisite skills to use the device effectively. Instead, Wolhers contends that retailers such as Amazon may become directly involved in 

producing the products they market.29 For example, 

if Amazon wanted to offer customers greater variety 

in its electronic reading device, the Kindle, it might 

invest in 3D printers to make the casings rather than 

outsourcing to an outside manufacturer. Likewise, a 

company would hypothetically invest in 3D printing 

to cheaply produce replacement parts rather than ordering in bulk from a manufacturer and keeping the 

stock in inventory, or requiring the customer to purchase a new device. Taken a step further, one could 

imagine a digital library from which parts or objects 

would be built on demand, on site. This sort of “focused logistics”—the right part, at the right place, in 

the right time—would translate into important implications for the DOD supply chain and logistics.

The ability to produce replacement parts seems like 

an attractive notion from the perspective of the military, by 

allowing reduction of logistics costs associated with transportation and storage, for example. One of the big issues regarding the potential for AM in the military is the “diminishing sources of manufacturing supply,” or DSMS. While 

DSMS is not an issue solely related to AM, the challenges 

posed by DSMS to the use of AM for replacement parts 

are illuminating. For instance, DOD has the challenge of 

maintaining equipment for which the replacement parts 

have gone out of production. This is a complex problem 

because, in many cases, not only has the part gone out of 

production but the capability to produce the part has gone 

away. The ability to affordably produce components in small 

quantities is a key element of supply. The challenge is that 

producing these replacement parts is intimately tied up 

with reverse engineering: it is not enough to print something that looks like the replacement part in question; it 

has to meet the same specifications so the original item will 

function as intended. Therefore, the companion problem is 

that in many cases the critical specifications have not been 

recorded. This means that while we may know the size and 

shape and weight and material of an item, we do not know 
8 dh No. 73 www.ndu.edu/inss

which of those are there because they are essential to working the system. Reverse engineering the critical characteristics of replicating a part is very important. This in turn raises 

pervasive policy issues such as the kind of data we need to 

capture for everything we buy that we may need to replace 

in small quantities later.30

The long-term macroeconomic effects of this technology are difficult to predict; however, some of the possible 

developments could directly impact national security. As 3D 

printers become cheaper, prototyping becomes cheaper and, 

as noted above, more firms can become directly involved 

in production. As the defense and security community addresses a greater variety of threats, small firms or even individual entrepreneurs can use this technology to provide 

a wider range of services to the government. Though there 

are many benefits to such cooperation, the downside is that 

more individuals will have access to sensitive information. 

Likewise, reduced cost and increased efficiency make illicit 

reproduction of this sensitive technology easier. On a larger 

scale, the productivity gains of AM could plausibly lead to 

increased productivity per employee in the United States, 

which itself could result in additional economic benefits. As 

mentioned earlier, however, it could also displace currently 

employed workers producing results similar to the impacts 

automation and robotics had on the U.S. manufacturing 

industry. In any case, widespread manufacturing use of the 

technology will require a workforce specifically trained for it. 

The machinist in an AM future would be a worker skilled in 

computer-aided design (CAD)31 who understands materials 

and process options as well as capabilities and limitations.

The propagation of this technology also entails new 

crime concerns that need to be considered. Recently, there 

have been reports of criminals reproducing small parts of 

computers or other machines (including guns which we 

discuss below) and using them to defraud consumers. For 

example, a criminal group used a 3D printer to produce a 

device that, when installed on an ATM, stole bank customers’ information.32 This suggests both the potential for criminal activity and the possibility of using additive systems to 

reproduce proprietary technology. The legal considerations 

of both these issues are considerable. The potential economic disruption, insofar as it applies to national security, is that 

with the spread of this technology, there will be a new need 

for law enforcement to protect inventors’ rights. Likewise, 

it will raise issues regarding security of export-controlled 

technology, especially since 3D printers will make reproduction easier. Shortening the distance between innovation 

and production means the relationship between inventor 

and invention will change; protection of both the inventor 

and the consumer should be a priority for policymakers as 

this new technology develops.

Impacts on Health Care and 

National Security

As earlier sections of this paper show, substantial 

innovations in health care made possible by AM have 

allowed small firms and individuals to produce unique 

objects that would have otherwise been impractical or 

required increased investment. The bulk of this has come 

in the field of regenerative medicine—the synthetic reproduction of lost or damaged tissue, organs, or limbs. 

AFIRM has contributed extensively to the financing 

and direction of this research. Wake Forest University 

and the firm Organovo have succeeded in growing several varieties of human tissue, with the latter considering using laboratory-grown human tissue to test experimental drugs on behalf of pharmaceutical companies.33

The implications of this technology suggest a Kuhnian 

revolution.34 By scanning a patient’s organ to create a 

three-dimensional template on a printer, a replacement 

organ could be constructed that is specific to that patient. In doing so, many complications from transplantation could be avoided, while the supply of organs for 

transplantation could theoretically be rapidly expanded. 

Critical injuries sustained on the battlefield or in a mass 

casualty incident could be treated more effectively than 

current technology permits. The availability of living human tissue for experimentation would lead to a wealth 

of new empirical data to improve both treatment and 

understanding of the human body. Worth remembering, 

however, is that much of this technology is still largely 

theoretical and requires substantial development before 
www.ndu.edu/inss dh No. 73 9 

application. Issues such as cost, access to the technology, 

and patient security will accompany positive developments in this field and cannot be overlooked by policymakers in considering this technology.

Wake Forest University has developed one of the 

first successful printers to produce human skin; it is 

presently capable of printing skin directly onto a patient’s wounds.35 AFIRM has leveraged this technology 

and, collaborating with Dr. James Yoo of Wake Forest 

and with industrial partners Lexmark and Organogenesis, Inc., is undertaking a program for the printing of 

skin on the battlefield to treat wounds. This program 

has so far resulted in a portable skin-printing device 

that has produced full-thickness human skin.36 Both 

Organovo and Wake Forest have yielded significant 

advances, and many other researchers are finding potential uses for bioprinting, from bone regeneration to 

industrial-scale production of biomaterials.37

Additive manufacturing impacts health care beyond 

bioprinting. As noted earlier, one of the most significant 

segments for firms using AM is specialized medical components. Beyond orthodontics and hearing aids, manufacturers such as Bespoke Innovation use the customizable 

aspects of AM to produce parts for prosthetic limbs.38 As 

specialized components become easier to produce, there is 

the potential that associated health-care costs could decline. 

An implication that has not yet been discussed within AM technology circles is personalized body enhancement. Inorganic hybrid materials (electrical, optical, etc.) 

are being intensively researched now.39 The potential for 

printing a bio-compatible heart with perhaps an Olympic athlete’s capability or a prosthetic leg with enhanced 

performance is hypothetically feasible. The authors here 

anticipate such innovations will be considered once the 

technology becomes available.

The impact from AM on health-care economics will 

most likely be much more complicated than a matter of 

changing costs. Many economists have observed a growing 

disparity between the capabilities of a technology and the 

skills required to use it, especially in health care. Though 

new components and tissue may become available, additional expenses are also likely as this industry will require 

a new class of experts. This disparity could also potentially 

require fundamental reconsideration of how health-care 

resources are made available to patients. These issues will 

be critical in the future and require further evaluation, but 

an extended analysis falls beyond the scope of this paper.

Despite the uncertain impact 3D printing will have on 

health-care economics, this technology has the potential to 

take part in a larger trend in medicine: namely, the growing potential for care specifically tailored to the patient. Dr. 

Henry Miller at Stanford University recently commented 

on the potential that individual biological indicators could 

have in guiding treatment. These indicators can show how 

receptive a patient is to certain drugs or other therapy and 

can allow physicians to deliver more sophisticated care.40 As 

noted earlier, developments by Wake Forest University researchers have shown the possibility for growing tissue using biological material from the patient, while the company 

Organovo is exploring the potential for growing organs to 

better study how drugs are absorbed. AM can potentially 

contribute to this larger trend of delivering more personalized medical care, whether through the design of specialized medical components or printing organs using material 

harvested from the patient as a template.

In sum, AM’s contributions to health care have a 

direct bearing on U.S. national security. As discussed, 

technological developments now allow for the efficient 

production of human tissue, which, under certain conditions, can be applied directly to a wound or infection. 

This could dramatically change the way battlefield injuries are treated and reduce the number of fatalities 

during combat operations. This potential has not gone 

unnoticed—indeed, DOD is both funding and actively 

directing research in this field. Furthermore, bioprinting 

has the potential to significantly reduce organ shortages and provide a host of tissues grown from a culture 

provided by the patient. If successfully developed, this 

technology could make future transplants much more 

successful, as the human body would not reject something produced from its own DNA. Such a major change 

in health care would have concomitant impacts on the 
10 dh No. 73 www.ndu.edu/inss

national health-care system, the health-care industry, 

and the general practice of medicine. These changes, in 

turn, have a direct bearing on societal functions, and will 

bring with them a new generation of security questions.

National Security and 

Legal Considerations

As noted previously, AM dramatically reduces overhead costs and material requirements for creating finished products, especially complex, individualized ones. 

This allows for a host of new producers, each capable of 

making specialized components to meet specific needs. 

Though it appears unlikely that additive systems will 

reach the same popularity in the near term as the personal computer (due to material, cost, and skill constraints), 

they will be readily available to those who see financial 

incentive to engage in small-scale manufacturing. This 

creates the potential for criminal activity. Much of the 

value produced in the U.S. economy arises from research 

and innovation. AM makes it easier for small-scale producers to violate copyright laws and patent restrictions, 

especially if they are servicing a discrete market or operating outside the range of U.S. enforcement. This presents 

a novel threat to U.S. economic interests that will need 

to be addressed as part of larger national security policy. 

An associated threat is the easier propagation of U.S. 

export-controlled technology. Since AM is already used 

to produce highly sophisticated components, the spread 

of this technology will make it easier for foreign agents 

to simply copy a physical component after scanning an 

original. Finally, there remains the concern arising from 

criminal use of this technology to defraud consumers or 

circumvent security measures. This will require renewed 

cooperation between law enforcement and industry to 

prevent such criminal efforts.

As AM has made the production of simple components easier, the distinction between original idea and physical product becomes blurred. Michael Weinberg reviews 

the host of legal issues presented by AM.41 Of particular 

concern is how the enforcement of copyrights, trademarks, 

and patents should be handled given the potential to easily 

reproduce components or entire parts; the oncoming struggle between intellectual property holders and small producers needs to be resolved. The outcome of the legal battle will 

necessarily determine how law enforcement and prosecution are conducted, which will require the participation of 

national security policymakers. The precise role of law enforcement and the national security community will have to 

be determined by the legislative and judicial branches.

Legal and security challenges are emerging from 

AM because of its relative availability and the range of 

products the machines can be used to produce. As noted 

earlier, a group of criminals used a 3D printer to produce 

devices which could retrieve bank customers’ information 

from an ATM to steal several hundred thousand dollars.42

Weapons production is also a concern. August 2012 

news articles43 describe the complete fabrication of a .22 

caliber pistol (excepting the precision metal rifle bore) via 

3D printing. The finished system was able to shoot 200 

rounds with no evidence of wear or tear. More complex, 

perhaps even enhanced, weapons will be made eventually 

by individuals. National security implications of such 

weapons production are obviously substantial. These 

developments raise a host of concerns for law enforcement 

and antiterrorism organizations as 3D printers could allow 

production of firearm parts which otherwise would require 

a license to purchase commercially.44

The security and legal concerns presented by AM 

come from the equipment’s ability to cheaply and efficiently produce fully functional components on demand. 

At present, 3D printers can create a limited range of products, but their capability is expanding. With increased 

availability, these printers will make it easier for local and 

foreign producers to circumvent U.S. intellectual property 

law. Protecting American manufacturers and businesses 

will require cooperation from the law enforcement and 

legal community, as well as the diplomatic community, to 

disrupt overseas counterfeiting activity. Additionally, since 

this technology will open manufacturing to smaller producers, the national security community will need to exercise 

additional care in protecting information and technology 

when working with the private sector. Lastly, relevant actors 
www.ndu.edu/inss dh No. 73 11 

in the government will need to be aware that 3D printing 

technology in the immediate future may afford individuals 

and small organizations access to weapons or other devices 

they may not have previously had access to. Weapons supplier middlemen could be removed from the supply chain 

if terrorists were to obtain high-end 3D printers and digital 

designs of weapons systems. Addressing such concerns 

requires foresight and cooperation across all organizations 

involved in national security policy.

The recently launched National Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII)—a pilot program within the National Network for Manufacturing 

Innovation—is poised to help AM transition to commercialization of products and processes, and by doing so, 

improve U.S. economic competitiveness. NAMII aims to 

bridge the gap between basic and applied research with a 

strong emphasis on workforce development. The education component will focus on enabling the future workforce to be cognizant of and trained in AM.45

The Center for Technology and National Security 

Policy (CTNSP) at National Defense University (NDU) 

has proposed an additive manufacturing initiative that 

will be launched in the form of a challenge under the 

America Competes Act. This challenge will examine 

the uses of additive manufacturing for humanitarian 

assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) operations. The 

challenge will be to produce a fabrication environment 

under austere field conditions (such as might be found 

during HA/DR situations) using additive manufacturing 

systems. The initiative will also leverage the knowledge 

base within Transformative Innovation for Development 

and Emergency Support (TIDES), a DOD knowledgesharing research project located within CTNSP.46

Significant Actors and Trends

Recent developments in AM have been closely linked 

with the development of the personal computer and CAD 

software. Some of the earliest technology that expanded 

the range of materials that designers could use came from 

engineering students and researchers at the University of 

Texas, Austin. Drawing upon early theoretical work, engineers and researchers there received the first patents. 

These patent-holding, individuals-turned-entrepreneurs 

successfully commercialized 3D printing technology, with 

Scott Crump of Stratasys, Inc., and Chuck Hull of 3D 

Systems as prime examples. These early firms have successfully continued to develop the field while acquiring 

additional patents and licenses from other noncommercial 

entities. 3D printing has gained an increased commercial 

presence, with firms such as MakerBot producing desktop 

3D printers—small, cheap 3D printers that offer a robust 

array of design options. Reports are coming from China 

about the development of the MakiBox, “an easy-to-assemble 3D printer that will retail for about $300. It will 

also offer a new way to feed plastic source material into 

the machine, eschewing the conventional string filament 

used by most printers in favor of much cheaper pellets.”47

It is this combination of an increased variety of 

materials handled by the printers, miniaturization, and 

declining cost that has accelerated development. The 

unclassified literature and news reports show that the 

Department of Defense and Federal Government research organizations have been and will continue to 

encourage these developments, with the former seeing 

immediate tangible benefits for national security. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) researchers Thomas Campbell and Christopher Williams have partnered with NDU to explore 

incorporating AM into NDU projects such as TIDES; 

they are also advancing the AM field even further by 

researching its convergence with nanotechnology.48

Commercial application has become extensive, ranging from a British firm “printing” cars,49 to Reebok using 3D printers to prototype new shoes,50 and even to 

Hollywood producing costumes in movies.51 These commercial applications, as noted above, have attracted the 

defense community, with the military looking to use this 

technology to produce replacement parts for vehicles.52

Also of interest to the defense community is the notable 

potential this technology presents for the elimination of 

the costly logistics chain by allowing on-site production 

of parts, eliminating costly transportation and storage. 
12 dh No. 73 www.ndu.edu/inss

AM has successfully propagated through much of the 

advanced manufacturing sector,53 but, to quote a blogger 

for Computer World magazine, it has yet to reach its “iPad 

moment”—the point at which it is easy to use and attractive to the average consumer.54 The potential that AM has 

for changing the innovation process has also impacted art 

and design, with sculptors using it to create novel threedimensional figures.55 In Washington, DC, the Renwick 

Gallery’s exhibit “40Under40: Craft Futures” features an 

artist whose works are manufactured from a 3D printer.

Bioprinting has grown through the collaboration of 

federal research organizations and academia, and has since 

drawn attention from the private sector as medical and 

high-tech industries seek access to organic materials similar to human tissue without endangering human or animal 

subjects. The NSF grant to Gabor Forgacs led to the research that the firm Organovo uses in its business. Likewise, a researcher at the ONR, Douglas B. Chirsley, collaborated with University of Manchester researcher Brian 

Derby and several other academics to hold an international 

conference on bioprinting in the early 2000s. Convergent, 

if not collaborative, developments have also occurred at the 

McGowan Institute and Wake Forest University. The latter 

recently demonstrated the capability to grow a variety of organs, including kidneys, which are much more complicated 

than earlier tissues produced. Bioprinting continues to grow 

both independently and in partnership with government 

research organizations such as the NIH and AFIRM.

The most attentive coverage of developments in the 

field has come from the consulting firm Wohlers AssociA Sampling of Firms Employing Additive Manufacturing

Firm Product/service

Apple Prototype custom design service and 3D

printer

Bathsheba Sculpture, LLC Custom design and sculpture

BMW Car manufacturer

Boeing, Inc. Aerospace systems

Choc Edge Limited Baking and confectionary equipment

EADS Aircraft and defense company

EnvisionTec Dental equipment manufacturer

Fisher-Price Toy company

Ford Car manufacturer

General Electric Electronics, defense, and heavy manufacturing

Harley Davidson Motorcycle manufacturer

Northrop Grumman Defense company

Raytheon Embedded electronics

Reebok Footwear and clothing company

Shapeways New York City–based specialty design firm

Stratasys AM systems supplier

3D Systems AM systems supplier

Note: This list is by no means complete or extensive, but it illustrates at a glance the extent 

to which this technology is employed across a range of industries and products.
www.ndu.edu/inss dh No. 73 13 

ates, which offers periodic reviews and projections of future developments. Media coverage most reliably comes 

from science and technology–focused publications, notably 

Wired magazine and the The New York Times science section; also, articles in The Economist and Financial Times have 

drawn increasing media attention.56 Such media coverage, 

technological developments, and growing federal interest 

have led several think tanks to consider AM’s impact on 

science and technology policy. The Atlantic Council and the 

Brookings Institution have issued reports on the matter, and 

additional coverage will likely be forthcoming as new developments are announced.57

In spite of growing media visibility of AM, impediments to its wider adoption remain. Barriers include material types and properties, part accuracy, surface finish, 

fabrication speed, data formats, among others. Of particular note is the lack of AM standards, domestically 

or internally. Improved measurements and standards will 

help overcome existing AM limitations. The National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is working on new measurement methods and standards with 

promise to drive industry growth and widespread adoption of AM technologies.58

Additive manufacturing/3D printing has the makings of becoming a game-changing technology that 

would impact applications of critical importance to 

DOD. It bears continued monitoring and DOD involvement. The Center for Technology and National Security 

Policy at NDU will continue to assess this technology’s 

impact on science and technology policy, while monitoring and advising on its effects on national security.

Conclusions

Recent developments in additive manufacturing 

have exhibited the potential to improve manufacturing 

and create new products. Using less base material and 

capital equipment than other manufacturing procedures, AM has led to affordable, commercially available 

3D printers and has been a boon to designers seeking 

custom-designed, inexpensive prototypes and to manufacturers of specialized components requiring variation 

from product to product. The marketing and development of 3D printers may be led by broad consumer interest, especially as the availability of affordable desktop 3D 

printers grows. The increasing array of materials these 

devices can handle means that a wider variety of products 

could be made by 3D printers. That said, much growth 

potential remains in the field of materials research and 

development as well as hardware and software improvements and innovations. AM has benefited some designers who have been able to use it to cheaply and quickly 

build their designs, shortening the distance between the 

design and production phases. The technology has also 

been expanded into research in organic materials. As 

AM can respond to minute variations between production runs better than earlier manufacturing processes, it 

would be ideal for producing human tissue to help the 

sick or injured. Already producing skin, bladders, intestinal segments, and bones, this technology could possibly 

create viable kidneys and other organs in short supply. 

The benefits of AM to the national security community stem largely from economic and health-care 

developments. Additive manufacturing is already used 

to make specialized components such as aircraft parts 

and health-care devices, and could be used to respond to 

the various needs of government agencies. Likewise, the 

military is actively investing in this technology through 

its programs in regenerative medicine, seeing this as a 

means to treat severe battlefield injuries. ONR sees 3D 

printers as a way to address its own equipment needs, 

and DARPA is supporting the further propagation of 

this technology. It is difficult to predict future outcomes, 

but current trends suggest that AM has much to contribute to U.S. national security.

Nevertheless, the same factors that make this technology so potentially beneficial also give rise to concerns. Because AM can produce equipment for the national security 

community, additional security measures for government 

projects may be necessary. Since there will be fewer barriers 

to entry for potential manufacturers, the legal, law enforcement, and diplomatic community will need to take steps 

to prevent counterfeiting and protect intellectual property 
14 dh No. 73 www.ndu.edu/inss

both locally and abroad. Likewise, the national security 

community will need to be aware of potential moral hazards as it invests in the health-care capabilities of AM, as 

well as the economic impacts of health-care developments. 

Lastly, the spread of this technology brings associated legal 

concerns ranging from how patents, trademarks, and copyrights will protect improvements made by additive systems, 

to individuals using 3D printers to perform increasingly sophisticated criminal activities.

AM is already changing manufacturing, retail, 

and health care. DOD has committed substantial 

resources and effort to furthering this technology, as 

have other government organizations such as the NSF 

and the NIH. Given the wide-ranging effects of these 

AM Research Opportunities

Process modeling and simulation Need to further the basic science 

underlying AM

Process control Need for real time monitoring to adjust for 

errors to ensure quality output

Part certification and reliability Need for part quality certification with industry- wide standards

Printed electronics and hybrid AM systems

Need to develop “printable” conductive 

materials and inks that can be integrated into 

existing AM processes. Need for development 

of hybrid AM systems that incorporate multimaterial deposition capability to enable the 

creation of parts with embedded electronics.

Open architecture AM systems

Need for systems that provide researchers 

the freedom to experiment in order to advance the basic understanding of 

AM technologies

High-throughput AM systems

Need to develop AM systems with 

higher printing speed and/or reduced 

process inefficiencies

Bio 3D printing

Need to develop bio-compatible materials 

and AM processes capable of being certified 

for medical device fabrication

Anti-counterfeit measures

Need to develop anti-counterfeiting measures for AM part creation (e.g., selective 

embedding of nanoparticles to create partspecific signatures)

Design for AM guidelines and methodologies Need to create new design guidelines within 

new manufacturing paradigm

Workforce education and developments

Need to update educational curriculum to 

include AM as a merger between design 

and manufacturing

Source: Many of these opportunities were outlined in D. Bourell, M.C. Leu, and D.W. Rosen, 

eds., 2009 Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing, and were summarized and expanded by 

Christopher Williams, Virginia Tech.
www.ndu.edu/inss dh No. 73 15 

technological advancements, it is imperative that policymakers within the national security community be 

aware of these developments.

Notes

1 Joseph J. Beaman, University of Texas at Austin, “General 

Overview of Additive Manufacturing Technologies” (briefing, Additive Manufacturing Symposium, Washington, DC, August 20, 2012).

2 Bruce Goodwin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “An 

HPC/UQ Front End Is Key to Additive Manufacturing” (briefing, Additive Manufacturing Symposium, Washington, DC, August 20, 2012).

3 See <http://thelook.today.msnbc.msn.com/_

news/2012/04/06/11020541-future-of-fashion-3-d-printer-produces-stylish-shoes?lite>. 

4 The coffee cup example is ubiquitous in the AM literature.

5 “About 3D Systems,” available at <www.3dsystems.com/company/index.asp> (accessed October 31, 2011).

6 “Origins: A 3D Vision Spawns Stratasys, Inc.,” Today’s Machining World, February 2011, at <www.todaysmachiningworld.com/origins-a-3d-vision-spawns-stratasys-inc/ > (accessed November 2011).

7 Robert Housholder, “Molding Process,” U.S. Patent Application 4,247,508 ( January 27, 1981).

8 M. Shellabear and O. Nyrhilä, “DMLS—Development 

History and State of the Art,” LANE 2004 Conference, Germany, 

September 21–24, 2004.

9 “Objet Ltd sets 100-material 3D printing record,” available 

at <www.slashgear.com/objet-ltd-sets-100-material-3d-printingrecord-25235529/> (accessed June 2012).

10 For further reference, see “Standard Terminology for Additive 

Manufacturing Technologies,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards (West 

Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 

2011), 665–667.

11 “Our Management,” Organovo, available at <www.organovo.

com/about/management> (accessed November 1, 2011).

12 Christopher B. Williams, Thomas A. Campbell, Olga S. Ivanova, 

and Banning Garrett, “Could 3D Printing Change the World?” Strategic 

Foresight Report (Washington, DC: Atlantic Council, 2011), 4–5.

13 “This 3D printer makes edible food,” available at <http://

money.cnn.com/2011/01/24/technology/3D_food_printer/index.

htm> (accessed June 2012).

14 “Burritobot: A 3-D Printer That Spits Out Burritos,” available 

at <www.fastcodesign.com/1670070/burritobot-a-3-d-printer-thatspits-out-burritos#1> (accessed June 2012).

15 “Printing a Human Kidney: Dr. Anthony Atala on TED.

com,” TED Talk, March 7, 2011, available at <http://blog.ted.

com/2011/03/07/printing-a-human-kidney-anthony-atala-on-tedcom/> (accessed November 14, 2011).

16 “Manufacturing, 3D Printing, and What China Knows 

about the Emerging American Century,” Forbes, July 5, 2011, 

available at <www.forbes.com/sites/markpmills/2011/07/05/manufacturing-3d-printing-and-what-china-knows-about-the-emergingamerican-century/>.

17 “Print Me a Stradivarius,” The Economist, February 10, 2011.

18 “Special Report: A Third Industrial Revolution,” The Economist, April 21, 2012.

19 Michael Lind and Joshua Freedman, Value Added: America’s 

Manufacturing Future (Washington, DC: New America Foundation, 

April 2012). 

20 Robert W. Ivester, Department of Energy, “Additive Manufacturing in Energy” (briefing, Additive Manufacturing Symposium, 

Washington, DC, August 20, 2012).

21 <www.ebnonline.com/author.asp?section_id=1541&doc_

id=249527>.

22 Available at <www.manufacturing.gov/amp/nnmi.html> (accessed August 2012).

23 Terry Irgens, Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine

2010 Annual Report (Fort Detrick, MD: Armed Forces Institute of 

Regenerative Medicine, 2010), viii–ix, 22, 24, 160. 

24 David C. Bourell et al., Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing: 

Identifying the Future of Freeform Processing (Austin, TX: Laboratory 

for Freeform Fabrication, 2009), ii.

25 See, for example, “Navy STTR 11.A Proposal Submission,” at 

<www.dodsbir.net/solicitation/sttr11A/navy11A.htm> (accessed November 21, 2011); “MakerBot Commandos: Special Ops seeks 3D Printer,” 

Wired, August 12, 2011, at <www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/

special-ops-meets-makerbot-commandos-want-3d-printer/>.

26 “Stratasys Selected by Georgia Tech and DARPA MENTOR 

Program to Provide 3D Printers for High Schools,” Market Watch, 

September 2, 2011, accessed through <www.marketwatch.com/story/

stratasys-selected-by-georgia-tech-and-darpa-mentor-programto-provide-3d-printers-for-high-schools-across-us-2011-09-02>, 

November 21, 2011.

27 “Manufacturing, 3D Printing, and What China Knows about 

the Emerging American Century,” Forbes, July 5, 2011.

28 Terry Wohlers, Wohlers Report 20 —Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of the Industry; Annual Worldwide Progress 

Report, Wohlers Associates, Inc., 2012.

29 Terry Wohlers, “Why You Won’t Have an AM Machine in 

Your Garage,” Time Compression, March/April 2011; “Can 3D Printers Reshape the World?” National Public Radio, June 22, 2012.

30 Author interview with Director, Advanced Engineering 

Initiatives, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Systems Engineering, April 25, 2012.

31 Mark Rice, Maritime Applied Physics Corporation, “Additive 

Manufacturing: Workforce Issues” (briefing, Additive Manufacturing 

Symposium, Washington, DC, August 20, 2012).

32 “Gang Used 3-D Printer to Steal $400,000 from Bank 

Customers,” Innovation News Daily, September 20, 2011, available at 

<www.innovationnewsdaily.com/3d-printer-atm-skimmers-2270/>. 

33 “Organovo’s Bio-Printing Technology Yields Unanticipated 

Revenue from Pharma-Partners,” Xconomy, July 13, 2011, available 

at <www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2011/07/13/organovos-bioprinting-technology-yields-unanticipated-revenue-from-pharmapartners/?single_page=true>. 

34 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st ed. 

(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Dr. Banning Garrett for the introductions that led to Drs. Chris Williams and Tom Campbell’s 3D printing presentation and demonstration at National Defense University 

on August 19, 2011. Ms. Arnas would also like to acknowledge 

the extensive time Dr. Williams spent discussing the history of the 

development of 3D printing in the United States and Europe. Finally, appreciation is due to Dr. Linton Wells II, Dr. Steve Ramberg, 

Frank Hoffman, Olivia Foss, LouElin Dwyer, George Maerz, and 

Tara Parekh for their contributions.
16 dh No. 73 www.ndu.edu/inss

35 Wake Forest School of Medicine Bioprinting Web site at 

<www.wakehealth.edu/Research/WFIRM/Bioprinting.htm> (accessed November 21, 2011).

36 Irgens, 214–216.

37 N.E. Federovich et al., “Organ Printing: The Future of Bone 

Regeneration?” Trends in Biotechnology, December 2009; and V. 

Mironov et al., “Organ Printing: Promises and Challenges,” Regenerative Medicine, January 2008.

38 “3D Printing Spurs a Manufacturing Revolution,” The New 

York Times, September 13, 2010.

39 See, for example, </www.ictas.vt.edu/lens/>. 

40 Henry Miller, “Hope or Hype for Personalized Medicine?” 

Project Syndicate, November 24, 2011, at <www.project-syndicate.org/

commentary/miller14/English> (accessed November 28, 2011).

41 Michael Weinberg, “It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw 

It Up,” Public Knowledge, November 2010.

42 “Gang Used 3-D Printer to Steal $400,000 from Bank Customers,” Innovation News Daily, September 20, 2011.

43 See the following: <www.extremetech.com/extreme/133514-

the-worlds-first-3d-printed-gun>; <www.huffingtonpost.

com/2012/08/08/man-3d-printer-rifle_n_1753513.html>; 

<www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/3d-weapons/?utm_

source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3

A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top+Stories%29>; and <www.

forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/08/23/wiki-weapon-projectaims-to-create-a-gun-anyone-can-3d-print-at-home/>.

44 John Biggs, “Is Printing a Gun the Same Thing as Buying a Gun?” techcrunch.com, available at <http://techcrunch.

com/2011/09/20/is-printing-a-gun-the-same-as-buying-a-gun/?utm_

source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Tec

hcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29>.

45 NAMII was launched on August 16, 2012 in Youngstown, 

OH. It is a DOD-led private/public partnership which includes 

Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency, DARPA, DOE, 

NSF, NIST, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It 

is funded by shared resources: $30 million from the Federal Government and $40 million from private industry, academia, and local 

government. Jennifer Fielding, National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute, “NAMII Overview” (briefing, Additive Manufacturing Symposium, Washington, DC, August 20, 2012).

46 <http://open.dodlive.mil/files/2012/04/Final-DoD-OGPv2.0-2012-04-09.pdf>.

47 <http://pandodaily.com/2012/06/11/hong-kong-home-tothe-worlds-cheapest-3d-printer/>, accessed August 2012.

48 Olga S. Ivanova, Christopher B. Williams, and Thomas A. 

Campbell, Additive Manufacturing and Nanotechnology: Promises and 

Challenges; The 22nd International SFF Symposium—An Additive 

Manufacturing Conference; Conference Proceedings (Austin, TX: 

August 8–10, 2011), 733–749.

49 “Rolling off the 3D printing press ... the world’s first ‘printed’ 

car —and it actually works.” Read more at <www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2041106/Urbee-The-worlds-printed-car-rolling-3Dprinting-presses-.html#ixzz1hCowyEG6>. 

50 “Accuracy, Speed of 3D Printing Help Reebok Compete,” 

available at <www.cadalyst.com/testing-analysis/prototyping/accuracy-speed-3d-printing-help-reebok-compete-11266>. 

51 “Objet 3D Printer used for Iron Man models and 

costume,”available at <www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwqGRIsgYtA>. 

52 “3D Printing,” at <www.explainingthefuture.com/3dprinting.html>. 

53 “The Printed World,” The Economist, February 10, 2011, available at <www.economist.com/node/18114221>.

54 Robert L. Mitchell, “3D Printing: A Technology Awaits 

Its iPad Moment,” available at <http://blogs.computerworld.

com/19468/3d_printing_a_technology_awaits_its_ipad_moment>. 

55 See, for example, Bathsheba LLC, available at <www.bathsheba.com/>. 

56 See, for example, Peter Marsh, “Production Processes: A 

Lightbulb Moment,” Financial Times, December 28, 2011.

57 Larry Schuette and Peter Singer, Direct Digital Manufacturing: The Industrial Game-Changer You’ve Never Heard of (Washington, 

DC: Brookings Institution, October 10, 2011), available at <www.

brookings.edu/articles/2011/1010_digital_manufacturing_singer.

aspx>, January 4, 2012.

58 John A.Slotwinski, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, “Additive Manufacturing in Department of Commerce” 

(briefing, Additive Manufacturing Symposium, Washington, DC, 

August 20, 2012).

The Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

(CTNSP) within the Institute for National Strategic Studies 

helps national security decisionmakers and their staffs understand emerging impacts of technology and integrate 

them effectively into policies through research, teaching, 

and outreach. CTNSP supports the Department of Defense 

leadership and Congress while also encouraging wholeof-government and public-private collaboration.

The Defense Horizons series presents original research 

by members of NDU as well as other scholars and 

specialists in national security affairs from the United 

States and abroad. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are those of the 

contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the 

Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal 

Government. Visit NDU Press online at www.ndupress.edu.

Linton Wells II 

Director 

CTNSP

COL Timothy A. Vuono, USA 

Director, INSS

Director of Research

Institute for National Strategic Studies

Francis G. Hoffman

Director

NDU Press