The Precautionary Principle switches sides to the Military Industrial Complex

Benjamin H Friedman claims US defense policymakers have adopted the precautionary principle in his paper "The Terrible 'Ifs'".

The USA spends huge amounts on defence against uncertain threats unlikely to affect Americans.  War can be considered a type of risk or uncertainty. The PP applies in two ways:

1. American national security policy is precautionary (as are most countries) and so suffers from the application of the PP as in any other area.
2. PP reasoning advanced to defend security hides political motives as in many other policy areas.

Security interests are interwoven with politics, and so are more uncertain than say environmental risks with their basis in physical sciences.  However, the dangers in security can be catastrophic and sudden, and do require preventative actions which is why countries spend significantly on defence budgets.  But can the costs be ignored?

American governments have depicted a world of uncertainty, danger and terrorist threats that require expensive preventative measures.  Unexplained and ambiguous threats makes it harder to deal in risks and probabilities, and makes comparisons over costs more difficult.

But statistically, the world is a better place.  The cold war is over, rogue states are reined in.  Communism has moved towards capitalism.  Being safer, should we spend less on defence?

Psychologically, catastrophes like 911 figure in people's minds more than simple tragedies like road deaths, so spending to prevent the big ticket catastrophes is expected.  In environmental and other areas of PP interest, both sides of the argument are able to debate.  However in security, the government holds all the cards; they hold the information that is not open to outside view, and they also know the politics is in preaching danger.  On the other side, there is no other side as former defence secretary Les Alpin said.

While Friedman writes about the USA, the lesson applies to Australia.  Who can forget the Howard government's use of the terrorist and refugee menace to ramp up security concerns.    Even through there are two party political systems in both Australia and the USA,  politics for both parties are driven by the electorate to inflate threats, be it law and order or national security.

The security "industry" made up of security agencies, think tanks, military forces, arms suppliers and lobbyists are all driven by the financial rewards of ramping up insecurities and uncertainties in the population.  There is nothing to be made by proclaiming a lessening of danger.  The ability of applying cost benefit analysis and risk assessment to the expenditures is clouded in claims of lessening our security.

A crude comparison can be made between the military industrial complex and the deep green environmental movement in their application of the PP.  Both apply their version of the strong PP. Neither can be questioned over the appropriateness of large expenditures on uncertain possibly catastrophic events.  Action must be taken to prevent improbable risks.

Who would have thought two diametrically opposed groups would cohabit under the PP roof?


http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n4/v30n4-1.pdf