High-tech weapons are force multipliers that enable us to defend our interests with machines instead of people, and they spin off technologies that achieve other, more peaceful national goals. Such a formula does indeed hold continuing promise, but it has limits. Many scientists, engineers, and students of science policy, especially those who scruple to accept military funding themselves, worry that research bought by the military bends our scientific and technical communities down paths that may not be optimal for the nation's economic growth. And some technologies simply do not lend themselves to dual use. A second subsidy of our defense establishment comes from selling our weapons abroad.
Unit costs fall precipitously as production runs increase.
Throughout the cold war, the United States subsidized its defense establishment by selling obsolescent weapons to its allies. The market for such weapons has hardly declined with the cold war's end. The problem, of course, is that this solution requires us to embrace the role of the world's leading merchant of death. During the cold war, we could rationalize selling arms as a way to counter Soviet arms sales. When the cold war ended, George Bush committed the country to withdrawing from the international arms bazaar.