Military Technology 06/2020

In the context of the various measures being implemented in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of governments in different parts of the world have announced cuts to their defence expenditures; cuts that most particularly affect procurement programmes. This seems to reflect both a shift in priorities – easily understandable, given the circumstances – and a psychological component, linked to influencing public opinion. Unfortunately, there is very little reason to hope – or believe – that money diverted from defence (or from any other sector, for that matter) could immediately be re-invested to improve national sanitary and medical infrastructure virtually overnight and thereby, hopefully, dramatically reduce the potential number of deaths. If the war against the pandemic were but a question of money, we should have no particular difficulty in winning it. However, changes in the distribution of available state resources appear to have been perceived as necessary in order to remedy what is emerging as by far the most serious medium to long-term negative impact of COVID-19 – the economic ravages caused by the indispensable lockdowns and resulting disruption of most industrial production activities. The result is that real ‘growth’ rates in almost all industrialised nations have plunged sharply into negative territory. Virtually all macroeconomics experts, commentators and analysts – including those of a hyper-liberal persuasion – seem currently to agree that the best way out of this major crisis will necessarily involve programmes of massive state intervention, to artificially stimulate the economy in a Keynesian manner and ‘kick-start’ it into renewed growth. In Keynes’ own words, “The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up.” Were this to be the case, I’m not so sure that diverting money from defence in order to pay for like activities is such a clever idea – for a number of reasons. To start with, the pandemic has done absolutely nothing to diminish, let alone cancel, the many excellent reasons nations have always judged it prudent to invest a certain percentage of available resources into guaranteeing their own defence and survival against external threats. Indeed, if anything, the COVID-19-induced economic crisis is not only honing the edge of a range of existing tensions, it is also resurrecting rivalries and animosities that seemed long buried and forgotten. Further, and perhaps more to the point in the circumstances, defence happens to be a high-tech, high added value sector – not infrequently, the most advanced industrial sector in a country – that sustains many thousands of highly-qualified jobs. For a responsible government to deliberately starve this sector – with the resulting unavoidable economic downturn in terms of bankruptcies, plant closures and lay-offs – in or- der to free the resources required to have a number of holes dug and then filled in, has some perplexing implications. Indeed, I would suggest that defence should rather be the most appropriate candidate for relevant state investments, to create or maintain jobs and to provide an economic stimulus. Consider, for instance, key industrial sectors such as aerospace and shipbuilding, both of which are being very badly hit by the COVID-19 crisis as regards their civil activities, with no realistic hopes for a quick recovery. States can provide very little help here, beyond disbursing unemployment benefits, because they cannot influence the market. But they certainly could – indeed should, in my view – guarantee survival of these industries by means of a minimal but steady flow of defence contracts – with the added benefit that these would also perform as investments in very important national goals, not ‘helicopter money’ perceived as a rescue operation. All the above is probably irrelevant, however: I suspect that the main rationale for the ongoing defence cuts is not so much a perceived need to divert resources that are urgently needed elsewhere, but rather stems from a desire to offer the public a reassuring impression of governmental action. In other words, we are back to the old ‘guns vs butter’ cliché – or a new ‘guns vs ventilators’ one – and politicians fear their constituencies might punish them for ‘wasting’ money on ‘useless toys,’ when pressing health and unemployment issues clamour for resolution. At least as regards the West, I believe the chances for politicians of any hue taking nearly suicidal risks and trying to explain that defence investments have multiple advantages over hole-digging are virtually non-existent. It seems more appropriate that the defence industries – particularly those organisations involved in activities that affect both civil and military markets – should launch a large-scale campaign and patiently, clearly educate the public about the economic significance of their activities – not only for their own employees, but for the nations at large. We could provide some support in that regard. Ezio Bonsignore COVID-19 and Defence Spending 4 · MT 6/2020 Comment With a background that includes service in the Italian Navy, Ezio Bonsignore edited MilTech from 1980 till 2011, and continues to support the magazine as Editor at Large.