Harry Targ
“Purdue is one of 11 universities initially selected to join the UPP (University Partnership Program). Establishing strategic partnerships with this select set of nationally renowned universities allows the Space Force to recruit and educate a diverse, high-caliber workforce, offer opportunities to advance research in specific areas of interest, and develop a 21st-century, technology-savvy service” (“Space Force, Purdue partner on STEM education, innovation,” Purdue Today, September 29, 2021).
“We
are eager to serve the national security interest of this country any way we
are asked to do so,” he said. “We’re expanding our capacity. We’re about to do
more classified work than Purdue ever has.”
Mitch Daniels (https://indianapublicradio.org/news/2021/09/purdue-university-announces-partnership-with-u-s-space-force/)
\
“The promise of aerospace-related jobs that
Purdue President Mitch Daniels for years has insisted the university was ripe
to get finally landed on Wednesday...Saab will invest $37 million
and employ up to 300 people at a facility expected to make fuselages
for the Boeing T-X, advertised as the U.S. Air Force’s next generation jet
trainer…. Holcomb (Governor
of Indiana) called it “a proud patriotic day for Indiana and its place
in advanced manufacturing in the name of cutting-edge national
defense.” (Dave Bangert, “Purdue Lands SAAB Plant,” Journal and
Courier, May 9, 2019).
“Purdue University’s Discovery Park has
positioned itself as a paragon of collaborative, interdisciplinary research in
AI and its applications to national security. Its Institute for Global Security
and Defense Innovation is already answering needs for advanced AI research by
delving into areas such as biomorphic robots, automatic target recognition for
unmanned aerial vehicles, and autonomous exploration and localization of
targets for aerial drones….
It has become apparent that
the United States is no longer guaranteed top dog status on the dance card that
is the future of war. To maintain military superiority, the focus must shift
from traditional weapons of war to advanced systems that rely on AI-based
weaponry...we must call upon the government to weave together academia,
government and industry for the greater good.” (Tomas Diaz de la Rubia,
(former)Vice President Discovery Park, Purdue University “Academia a Crucial
Partner for Pentagon’s AI Push,” National Defense Magazine, February
11, 2019).
“President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first president to grapple with the effect of space
technology on international relations and so began championing what is known as
the “sanctuary
doctrine” of space. Eisenhower
put forth the idea that space should be preserved for use by all mankind, with
weapons of mass destruction prohibited.”( Gregory Niguidula, “
Trump’s Space Force is a strategic mistake,” Bulletin
of Atomic Scientists, January 21, 2019).
******
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan
was instituting a military budget that in total was greater than all US
military expenditures from the founding of the nation until the 1980s. Military
doctrine, in accordance with the huge increase in military spending, shifted
from maintaining a capability to deter aggression from other nations,
particularly the former Soviet Union, to the development of a first strike
capability, that is to be able to strike an enemy first. This shift in
policy was coupled with the president claiming that the former Soviet Union
constituted an “evil empire,” one that had to be pushed back, weakened, and
destroyed.
As part of the reinstitution of a New
Cold War with the Soviet Union, after a decade of détente, Reagan announced in a
dramatic speech the development of the new Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI),
which became known as the “Star Wars” program. The president claimed that the
United States could develop a space-based defensive shield that could protect
North America from any attack from a foreign power.
SDI became a boondoggle for the
military/industrial complex. Especially universities saw the project as a
source of significant increases in revenue. However, large sectors of the
scientific community declared that Star Wars was wasteful and technologically
impossible to achieve. (Many Purdue professors signed a petition promising not
to accept any Star Wars funding).
Along with its lack of feasibility, most
strategic analysts questioned the President’s claim that SDI was merely a
defensive weapon. They argued, in the context of Reagan’s hostile rhetoric
about the Soviet Union and the claim that the US could achieve physical
protection from attack, that the Soviets would perceive SDI as an offensive
weapon. They might conclude that the United States was developing a defensive
shield so that it might choose to launch a first-strike against the Soviet
Union.
The military doctrine of “deterrence,”
dominating military thinking on both sides of the Cold War for years was that
neither power could afford to launch a first-strike attack on the other because
the second-strike response would be so devastating that functioning societies
in both countries would be destroyed. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
aptly labeled this doctrine Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD). In short, with
SDI, an enemy of the US could believe that they might be attacked at any time. As
a consequence “Star Wars” was profoundly destabilizing, increasing the
possibility of nuclear war.
Twenty-six years later, President Trump
declared that the United States henceforth would recognize that space should be
the site for military preparedness to defend national security. To achieve this
goal the US Space Force would lead the way (Gregory Niguidula, “Trump’s Space
Force is a Strategic Mistake,” Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, January 21, 2019). In the National Defense
authorization Act of 2020, Congress approved the idea of establishing a new
sixth branch of the military, the United States Space Force.
Meanwhile, the United States in 2021
continues to have over 700 military bases of various sizes around the world and
military programs with almost 40 countries, sometimes including private
military contractors. The United States also pursues what VJ Prashad calls “hybrid
wars,” economic sanctions, covert operations, and ideological campaigns against
so-called “authoritarian” states.
Perhaps most threatening from the
standpoint of increasing the probability of war is a dramatic increase in
verbal hostilities toward China. The rhetoric has been coupled with warnings
from influential think tanks that the United States, “the world’s leading
democracy,” was falling behind Chinese in influence, power, economic
capabilities, and mostly technological advances. In addition, the Obama
Administration declared that the United States was pivoting its security
concerns to Asia. Trump and Biden have moved US ships to the South China Sea, sought
an alliance with Asian nations against China, and most recently President Biden signed a naval agreement
with Australia.
Observers of the international scene
regard these developments in US/China relations, over the last three administrations
as profoundly destabilizing, perhaps a “New Cold War.” Of course the most
horrific possibility is escalation from conventional to nuclear war. Therefore,
it is in this context that the creation of a sixth branch of the military, the
United States Space Force, and its growing penetration of major domestic
institutions, including universities, is troubling.
This new branch of the military, seeking
legitimacy and the expansion of its own power and resources, is embedding
itself in what could be called the military/industrial/academic complex. And,
from the standpoint of universities, which are experiencing declining financial
resources, new space-oriented research constitutes a vital source of revenue
paralleling that provided by the dubious Star Wars program of the 1980s.
In this context, President Mitch Daniels
announced on September 29, 2021 that
Purdue University has signed a memoranda of understanding to increase research
and educational collaboration with the USSF. Ten other universities were also
making commitments to work with the USSF.
The USSF/Purdue agreement raises at
least three concerns:
First, the Purdue arrangement skews the university’s research
agenda further in the direction of militarism. It is logical to assume that resources,
research and production, related to the militarization of space take away funds
that could be used to address issues of health, the environment, human rights
and reducing the likelihood of war.
Currently Congress is engaged in a
conflict over President Biden’s Build Back Better economic program that will
serve the needs of the vast majority of Americans. Many of the same Congress
people who oppose the $3.5 trillion ten-year program supported the largest
military budget in US history. President Daniels has written often about the
dangers of deficit spending. Ironically a long-term commitment to building a space
force would parallel, if not exceed, expenditures for the fulfillment of human
needs.
Second, and President Daniels made this clear, the role of the
university is being reconceptualized as an institution that serves United
States “national security.” University administrators, ever since the onset of
the Cold War in the 1940s, justified support for higher education in “national
security” rather than educational terms.
Third, and perhaps most dangerous, the university/USSF connection
is justified as a necessity because of the “Chinese threat.” In the dark days
of the conflict with the Soviet Union trillions of dollars were wasted on both
sides in military expenditures, wars were fought all around the globe, and on
numerous occasions conflicts almost escalated into nuclear war. The “enemy” was
the Soviet Union. Now it is China.
So the USSF and its memorandum of
understanding with Purdue University, a new arm of the military and a major
university, are collaborating in projects that may be wasteful and dangerous
for the stability of the international system.
