Search

Begin New Search Topic Defense Policy Political Geography United States

531. Corporate Welfare for Weapons Makers the Hidden Costs of Spending on Defense and Foreign Aid

Author:
William D. Hartung
Publication Date:
08-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The defense and foreign aid budgets are the largest single source of government funding for private corporations. More than half of U.S. weapons sales are now being financed by taxpayers instead of foreign arms purchasers. During fiscal year 1996 (the last year for which full statistics are available), the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in agreements for new international arms sales. The annual $7.9 billion in subsidies includes taxpayer-backed loans, grants, and government promotional activities that help U.S. weapons makers sell their products to foreign customers. Also, the provision of low-cost facilities and extensive subsidies for research and development and mergers and acquisitions to major contractors fosters a “risk-free” environment in which weapons makers have little economic incentive to produce effective systems at affordable prices. Furthermore, a portion of the $120 billion the Pentagon spends each year on contracts with U.S. defense contractors is being wasted on defense pork—that is, redundant or unneeded weapons systems. Such subsidies and spending for defense pork can interfere with the fulfillment of legitimate security needs.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Climate Change, Government, and Industrial Policy
Political Geography:
United States

532. Old Wine in New Bottles: The Pentagon's East Asia Security Strategy Report

Author:
Doug Bandow
Publication Date:
05-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
To contain Soviet-led communism and, secondarily, to prevent a militarily resurgent Japan, Washington established a network of alliances, bases, and deployments throughout East Asia after World War II. By the 1990s the Soviet Union had imploded, China had become a reasonably restrained international player, and other communist states had lost their ideological edge. At the same time, the noncommunist nations had leaped ahead economically. Despite such momentous developments, however, U.S. policy remains fundamentally the same.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Washington, Israel, and Soviet Union

533. Nonlethal Technologies: Progress and Prospects

Author:
Richard L. Garwin
Publication Date:
07-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The 1999 Independent Task Force on Nonlethal Weapons (NLW) was sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations to assess the current status of nonlethal weapons development and availability within the Department of Defense (DoD), in light of their potential to support U.S. military operations and foreign policy. The Task Force found that the DoD has made only limited progress developing and deploying nonlethal weapons since 1995, when a previous Council Task Force studied the issue. This shortfall results from a continued lack of appreciation for NLW among civilian and military policymakers. It will take stronger leadership to overcome the traditional reluctance of individual military services to share information with each other and create a truly joint program in nonlethal weapons and technology. Until this happens, the administration will continue to lose key diplomatic and military opportunities. In situations in which the decision has not yet been made to use lethal force, nonlethal weapons could give policymakers a more potent weapon than economic sanctions, which tend to be both indiscriminate and ineffective. Used alone, NLW could penalize civilian economies without high civilian casualties. NLW could also add weight and credibility when used in conjunction with economic sanctions, thus strengthening America's diplomatic hand. A new emphasis on nonlethal weapons would reinforce current American information warfare and psychological warfare capabilities. It would also enhance the tactical ability of U.S. forces to control crowds and focus firepower on troops or paramilitary, rather than on noncombatant civilians. Senior civilian and military leaders should make NLW development a priority. Once developed, these weapons must be deployed coherently, in synergistic coordination with information/psychological warfare technologies and conventional weaponry. Finally, various NLW programs dispersed throughout the individual services should be coordinated by the existing Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD).
Topic:
Defense Policy and Science and Technology
Political Geography:
United States and America

534. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Tactical Battlefield Communications

Publication Date:
12-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Abstract:
At the outset of this study, the Task Force observed that there was no such thing as “just” tactical communications. Rather, it saw requirements for conducting military operations in two major theaters of war as well as for conducting a wide variety of other missions. It also saw emerging requirements for a telecommunication infrastructure to support rapid force projection, early entry, reachback/split-base, and high mobility operations. Furthermore, Joint Vision 2010 (JV2010) assumed information superiority to be necessary for dominant maneuver, precision engagement, full dimensional protection and focused logistics. All these factors have led our Military Services to express a need for a fully integrated, strategic/tactical, voice/data/information telecommunications infrastructure rather than merely “tactical” communications. This infrastructure must bring post-camp-station information services to deployed forces and, conversely, bring information from our deployed forces to the continental United States (CONUS) or to other locations geographically distant from areas of operations.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Industrial Policy, and Science and Technology
Political Geography:
United States

535. 100 Companies Receiving The Largest Dollar Volume Of Prime Contract Awards - Fiscal Year 1998

Publication Date:
01-1999
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
U.S. Economic Statistics Briefing Room
Abstract:
This report presents summary data on the 100 companies, and their subsidiaries, receiving the largest dollar volume of Department of Defense (DoD) prime contract awards during fiscal year (FY) 1998. Table 1 lists the 100 companies in alphabetical order and gives their associated rank. Table 2 identifies the parent companies in rank order, with their subsidiaries, and gives the total net value of awards for both the parent company and its subsidiaries. In many cases, the parent company receives no awards itself, but appears on the list because of its subsidiaries. Table 2 also shows what percentage of the total awards each company's awards represent, as well as the cumulative percentage represented by all companies. Table 3 lists the top 100 companies DoD-wide in rank order and breaks the totals into three categories of procurement: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT); Other Services and Construction; and Supplies and Equipment. Table 4 lists the top 50 companies for each of the Reporting Components in rank order, and by category of procurement.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Development, and Economics
Political Geography:
United States

536. 100 Contractors Receiving The Largest Dollar Volume Of Prime Contract Awards for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation - Fiscal Year 1998

Publication Date:
09-1999
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
U.S. Economic Statistics Briefing Room
Abstract:
This report presents summary data on the 100 prime contractors receiving the largest dollar volume in Department of Defense (DoD) awards over $25,000 for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT) work during fiscal year (FY) 1998. RDT work can include research (basic and applied) and development (exploratory, advanced, engineering, operational systems, or management and support services). Full definitions for each of these categories are provided in Section 235.001 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. These data rank each corporation according to its relative standing. The order of ranking is based on the net value of each contractor's RDT awards. Beginning in FY 1994, the contractors have been ranked by the parent company vs. subsidiaries or divisions of the company as in past issues of this publication. For example, figures for General Motors Corporation include awards to Hughes Aircraft Company. Also, classification of a company as foreign is based on the parent company. Beginning in FY 1996, only the top 100 contractors are listed in this publication. When percentages are used for dollar amounts they are based on whole dollars. Table 1 lists the 100 contractors in alphabetical order, displays the order of ranking for each, and shows how each has been categorized for reporting purposes. The categories are business firm (B), foreign contractor (F), and nonprofit institution (N). Table 2 shows the net value of awards to U.S. business firms. Those firms which qualify as small businesses are further identified by an "S." The net value of awards to each of the firm's reported locations is also provided. Tables 3 and 4 provide the net value of awards to U.S. educational and other nonprofit institutions and foreign contractors. As in Table 1, contractors in Tables 2 through 4 are shown by order of ranking, with their total awards indicated by an asterisk (*). The value of awards to each of the contractor's reported locations is also shown for these tables.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Economics, and Science and Technology
Political Geography:
United States

537. Prime Contract Awards, Size Distribution

Publication Date:
01-1999
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
U.S. Economic Statistics Briefing Room
Abstract:
This report provides data on prime contract actions (PCAs) over $25,000 awarded by the Department of Defense (DoD) in fiscal year (FY) 1998. For reporting purposes, contracts have been distributed by dollar value into 11 different size categories. The tables provide information on the number of total actions, their net value, and their percentage of distribution, by size, and according to a variety of categories. The categories include Defense Component, type of contract involved, extent of competed procurements, kind of contract action taken, selected procurement programs, and labor standard statutes. Table 1 presents data by individual size category (e.g., $25,000 to $49,999, $50,000 to $99,999) while Tables 2 through 7 present data in cumulative categories (e.g., $25,000 or more; $50,000 or more). The information in Prime Contract Awards, Size Distribution, assists DoD management in projecting the workload that will be required by various proposed projects. For example, using data in this publication, DoD officials could determine that a proposal to review all contract actions of $500,000 or more in FY 1998 would require examining approximately 27,000 transactions, or 11.7 percent of the total transactions as shown in Table 2. These data can also be used to identify trends in DoD procurement, (e.g., to identify which of the various types of contracts were most frequently awarded, in terms of number of contract actions, during FY 1998).
Topic:
Defense Policy and Economics
Political Geography:
United States

538. Prime Contract Award: Fiscal Year 1998

Publication Date:
01-1999
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
U.S. Economic Statistics Briefing Room
Abstract:
This report presents a variety of current and historical data pertaining to Department of Defense (DoD) prime contract awards. All historical tables commence with fiscal year (FY) 1988 data. Six categories of data on DoD prime contracts are provided. Data are displayed by type of contractor, by procurement program, by competition, and by type of contract pricing provision. Awards for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT) are discussed separately, as is the DoD Small Business Subcontracting Program. Amounts in this report are shown for the DoD Agency that awards the prime contracts and not the department or agency that budgets for the supplies or services. In addition, data for the Army, Navy, and Air Force include prime contracts awarded on behalf of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other Federal Agencies, as well as for foreign countries whose Defense purchases are reimbursable. Percentages are derived by dividing the detail line or the subtotal line by the base line designated by 100 percent, unless otherwise noted. Column headings, footnotes, or section narrative are used to identify these exceptions. Indentation is used to provide assistance in recognizing total, subtotal, and detail line information. The data are collected in whole dollars and the totals given in some tables may not add due to rounding. This report includes awards made by Other Defense Agencies (ODAs), which are listed in the Glossary. It also includes tariff or regulated acquisitions under $25,000. It does not include obligations for “in house” work performed at government owned and operated establishments, such as Navy shipyards, Army arsenals, and Air Force research laboratories, except to the extent that such establishments place contracts for supplies and services with industry or other Federal Agencies. The estimated dollar amounts of indefinite quantity petroleum contracts are included in this report, but the number of individual orders written against these contracts has not been included in the totals for procurement actions. For the definition of terms used in this publication, see the Glossary.
Topic:
Defense Policy and Economics
Political Geography:
United States

539. Illuminating Tomorrow's War

Author:
Martin C. Libicki
Publication Date:
11-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The United States is midway through what may be called a revolution in military affairs (RMA). 9 This revolution opened in the 1970s with the development and refinement of precision-guided munitions 1° (PGMs), which can hit anything that can be located. It is likely to culminate with the multiplication and integration of the DOD C41SR assets, thereby creating a well-populated Grid. In the process, the physical battlespace will become illuminated better than ever. As this occurs, conventional warfare will change from force on force to hide-and-seek. Hence the need for a Grid capable of illuminating the battlespace, a case that rests on five tenets: With precision weaponry, seeing a target is tantamount to being able to kill it. The guidance for such weaponry is potentially shifting from shooters or internal sensors to externally provided information. Defenses exist against PGMs, but the link between seeing and hitting is likely to strengthen over time.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and International Law
Political Geography:
United States

540. The Revolution in Military Affairs: Allied Perspectives

Author:
Robbin F. Laird and Holger H. Mey
Publication Date:
04-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The revolution in military affairs (RMA) is an American concept that frames a debate about the restructuring of American military forces in the period of globalization of the American economy. A core task for U.S. allies is to seek to understand the American debate and to identify opportunities for and the risks to themselves in variant patterns of development of the American military in the years ahead.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and International Law
Political Geography:
United States and America