Air University Review, July-August 1983

More Paradox and False Economy

I HAVE carefully studied the article, "Paradox and False Economy,"* and conclude that "He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17)

*Captain Forrest E. Waller, Jr., "Paradox and False Economy: Military Reform and High Technology," Air University Review, May-June 1983, pp. 11-23.

Captain Forrest Waller is critical of those in a military reform group who advocate simpler, less-costly weapons. The bottom line of his criticisms deals with the issues of cost-effectiveness, conformance, and economies.

The vital concern of the reformers is not cost-effectiveness, per se, but a concern that America will not survive if the use of utmost technology causes our weapons to be second-best in combat and fewer in numbers than those of an enemy using simpler weapons. The issue so difficult for antireformers to comprehend is that airplanes and other weapons cannot only be cheaper by being smaller and simpler but in fact can also be more effective in combat.

Captain Waller justifies America’s pursuit of weapons using utmost technology by stating that our allies and even the Soviet Union are doing likewise. If the Germans had used this logic prior to World War II, they would have built another Maginot Line to oppose France instead of tanks that beat the French with maneuver and surprise.

Most reformers are not looking for economies to fund other nondefense programs but instead are looking for ways to assure America’s survival with sufficient numbers of weapons that work and are effective in combat. Reformers are opposed to high technology that forfeits to the enemy the advantage of maneuver and surprise. They are opposed to high technology that is unreliable and unsupportable in the harshest war conditions where shops, skills, and supplies may be unavailable, as in Western Europe when bases and supply lines are under heavy siege. They are opposed to high technology that is unproved in realistic battle-type testing. They are opposed to high technology that warns the enemy of one’s presence and perhaps serves as a homing beacon for an enemy missile They are opposed to high technology that costs so much it cancels programs or causes cutbacks or stretch-outs, driving up unit cost and denying funds for additional numbers of weapons that work. They are opposed to high technology that is disproportionately costly for the advantage gained. They are opposed to high technology that in fact makes a weapon less combat-effective rather than more combat-effective. And they are opposed to high technology, that makes a weapon into a multirole item that does all things but does nothing superior, as needed in combat.

Reformers do not believe that the military is infatuated with high technology. They simply understand and are trying to communicate the fact that reality in battle is far different from what many perceive during peacetime. There is a big difference between what the user perceives in weapon performance and reliability and what the designer delivers. In the heat of battle, a pistol that works is better than a rifle that doesn’t. The reformers want technology, but, even more, they want reality.

Lancaster, California

James Neher, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (Ret), is Assistant Chief, Safety and Quality Assurance, for NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards Air Force Base, California. The views expressed here are those of the author.

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor