| |
|
Web version of Notes for a lecture at Lancaster University Engineering Dept (Engineers in Society course) on 26th May 2004 given by Dr Stuart Parkinson, SGR
UK military spending per head 6th highest in world (£25 billion/ year) (Smith, 2003)
UK arms exports 4th highest in world (Smith, 2003) (or 2nd according to other statistics)
Recipients of UK arms include countries with bad human rights records eg China, Saudi Arabia, Columbia (CAAT, 2003)
UK one of 5 official nuclear weapons states - currently deploys approx. 200 nuclear missiles on Trident submarines
UK home to several large military corporations
UK 2nd highest funder of military Research & Development (R&D) after USA (Smith, 2003)
2003 spending on R&D is approx £2.7 billion
UK specialists in military aircraft and ships; guided weapons; and other mechanical, electrical and communications equipment for military purposes
MoD's Defence Procurement Agency spends £6 billion a year on buying military technology
MoD spending on R&D in 2003 is £2.6 billion - 33% of UK Government R&D budget. This is a rise since Sept 11th attacks. (OST, 2003a)
40% of Government R&D staff work for MoD (12,000 staff) (OST, 2003b)
Main research arm is Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL)
Advisory panels on science and technology issues include National Defence Aerospace and Systems Panel (NDASP) - supported by 9 National Advisory Committees, Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC), National Defence Industries Council (NDIC). All have significant industry representation (many from BAE Systems).
Graph of UK Government-funded R&D 2000-01 (OST, 2003b) - see Appendix
UK home to…
MoD funds R&D in universities, both directly (through Joint Grants Scheme) and through contractors (DSTL and QinetiQ) - many details are unavailable. "The MoD does not hold centrally information about the number of sub-contracts placed by our contractors with either academia or industry."
Universities involved…
DTCs
Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Cranfield, De Montfort (Leicester), Imperial College London, Southampton, Surrey
ToEs
including Cranfield, Imperial College London
DARPs
including Cambridge, York
UTCs
Birmingham, Cambridge, Cranfield, Imperial College London, Loughborough, Nottingham, Oxford, Sheffield, Southampton, Strathclyde, Sussex, Swansea, York.
National defence
Economic benefit from exports
Provides employment
While the UK armed forces clearly can and do have a role in defending the country from attack, they also have a large-scale offensive capability, ie
nearly 200 nuclear long-range weapons (Trident)
medium and long range missiles, aircraft, ships
general capability to fight large conflicts overseas
Such a capability:
contributes to an international arms race
leads to a greater emphasis on solving international disputes through the use of force, rather than negotiation
UK is major exporter of arms and military equipment to many countries
this also contributes to an international arms race, potentially causing recipient countries to divert resources away from important public programmes (eg health, education) to pay for the arms - a particularly serious problem in poorer countries
despite UK and EU restrictions on arms exports, arms still go to countries with bad human rights records, while other banned countries use loopholes to get arms (see eg CAAT, 2004)
UK arms exports worth approx. £5 billion per year (DESO, 2004) - large income!
But each arms export job subsidised by approx. £8,500 (CAAT, 2002; ORG & Saferworld, 2001) - most subsidised industry apart from agriculture - meaning net income is rather lower
York University study concluded that cutting UK arms exports by 50% would lead to a one-off cost of between £40 and £100 million (Chalmers et al, 2001) - but the study omits some indirect subsidies, so the cost of such a cut in arms exports may be close to zero.
The military argues that there are 'spin-off' technologies from the science and engineering they fund which are good for the economy/ society. The evidence for this is limited. Military technology often requires substantial investment to convert it for civil use, which industry can be reluctant to spend if military markets are more lucrative, eg Ferranti, Vickers (Mort & Spinardi, 2004). Even if the major investment is forthcoming, the close connection with military applications means weapons proliferation is a constant headache (eg nuclear power, chemical pesticides). Attempts such as the UK's Dual-Use Technology Centres have been plagued by conflicting priorities. It would be more efficient to invest directly in civil science and technology.
Employment in UK arms industry is 345,000 (1% of total employment); 90,000 of these jobs are export related (0.3%) - ie very small percentage (Goudie, 2002)
Many of the science and technology skills used by the military could be used in other sectors (eg transport, energy, construction)
Centre for Defence Information estimates that per billion dollars, procurement of military technology produces 25,000 jobs, compared to 30,000 jobs in public transport; 36,000 in housing; or 47,000 in health care (Harigel, 1997).
The military focuses on trying to provide security through the threat of force against a perceived enemy. But a focus on the threat of force can undermine diplomatic and other attempts at peaceful solutions, making war more likely. War is very destructive and should be avoided! For example, 270,000 people worldwide were killed directly in wars in 1999 (WHO, 2000). Around 3 times that number die indirectly due to famine etc caused by the conflict. It is estimated that 80% - 90% of casualties in most modern wars are civilian.
MoD currently only spends 6% of its budget on conflict prevention (Conscience, 2004), while promoting arms exports which can and do inflame international tension. It needs to switch its priorities.
The definition of 'security' needs to be understood more broadly. The roots of conflict lie in problems such as poverty, environmental damage, and ethnic differences. Devoting many more resources to addressing problems in these areas would provide greater security overall. One hopeful sign is the UK Government's setting up of a Global Conflict Prevention Pool which funds projects aimed at stopping conflicts by non-military means.
Should concerned scientists and engineers act to change the current situation?
Yes!
Could work for the military and try to encourage change from within - difficult as military is very hierarchical and secretive
Could work for the military, but only on disarmament projects (eg landmine clearance)
Could refuse to work on any project that directly manufacture weapons
Could refuse to work on all military work until UK adopts ‘Non-Offensive Defence’ policy
Could look for work on, eg, clean technologies; technologies for poverty eradication
UK is a major military power
UK military involvement in science and technology is huge and spans most if not all disciplines
UK military argues that it is beneficial in terms of national defence, economics and employment
Critics argue that
Thanks especially to Dr Chris Langley for gathering much of the evidence quoted in these notes.
Many of the references are given below. Complete references will be available in the final report of the project ‘Understanding the military influence on science, engineering and technology’, which is due to be published in late 2004.
AWE (2003) Annual Report 2002. Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston. http://www.awe.co.uk/
BAE Systems (2003) http://www.baesystems.com/aboutus/index.htm
CAAT (2002) Arms trade economics - subsidies factsheet. Campaign Against the Arms Trade. http://www.caat.org.uk/
CAAT (2003) DSEi 2003: International arms market. Campaign Against the Arms Trade. http://www.caat.org.uk/
CAAT (2004) Fanning the flames: how UK arms sales fuel conflict. Campaign Against the Arms Trade, London. http://www.caat.org.uk/
Conscience (2004) Answer to a Parliamentary question tabled by Adam Price MP: reported in Conscience Update, 123, Winter.
Chalmers M., Davies N.V., Hartley K., Wilkinson C. (2001) The Economic Costs and Benefits of UK Defence Exports. Centre for Defence Economics, University of York.
DESO (2004) Why export defence goods and services? Defence Export Services Organisation. http://www.deso.mod.uk/policy.htm
Goudie I. (2002) The employment consequences of a ban on arms exports. Campaign Against the Arms Trade. http://www.caat.org.uk/
Harigel G.G. (1997) The impact of the military-industrial complex on society. In: Schroeer D. and Pascolini A (ed) The Weapons Legacy of the Cold War. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Mort M and Spinardi G (2004) Defence and the decline of UK mechanical engineering: the case of Vickers in Barrow. Business History, no 46, p1-22.
ORG & Saferworld (2001) The Subsidy Trap. Oxford Research Group and Saferworld. http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/
OST (2003a) 'The Forward Look 2003: Government-funded science, engineering and technology'. Office of Science and Technology, London. http://www.ost.gov.uk/research/forwardlook03/
OST (2003b) Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) statistics. Office of Science and Technology, London. http://www.ost.gov.uk/setstats/index.htm
Rolls-Royce (2003) http://www.rolls-royce.com/
Smith, D. (2003) The Atlas of War and Peace. Earthscan.
WHO (2000). The World Health Report 2000. World Health Organisation.
 |
For further information contact Dr Stuart Parkinson Send correspondence about the web-site to This page last modified: 26th July 2004 |
||
 |
 |
