Wednesday, October 6, 2021

STAR WARS AT PURDUE

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.

 


 

The Bookshelf

CHALLENGING LATE CAPITALISM by Harry R. Targ

Read Challenging Late Capitalism by Harry R. Targ.