The Defense Industrial Base: Prescription for a Psychosomatic Ailment
Abstract
Planning is very important; it sketches out the plot and actually sets the stage for whatever events shall follow. The defense of a nation must not be left to happenstance. Rather, in-depth, though flexible, planning must be the foundation for all phases of programs targeting our national security objectives. Recently, Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger has revised the planning, programming, and budgeting system (PPBS) to increase the emphasis on planning. This shift in emphasis is in contrast to the policies of several former leaders within DOD who allowed the congressionally mandated budgets to determine which programs would be pursued and, eventually, to modify the plans to force employment and deployment. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has criticized DOD agencies for developing plans to meet invalid, imprecise requirements. Admittedly, however, determining the precise requirements for the next conflict is difficult if not totally impossible. Therefore, the national planning of our defense policy should emphasize flexibility to assure the ability to meet various contingencies. In this research effort, the peacetime preparedness and defense industrial base of the United States of America are analyzed. The historical perspective of peacetime preparedness actions (inactions) is reviewed. The requirements determination process and the objectives of defense industrial preparedness planning are addressed. A decision-making model that could improve the capacity and capability of the military-industrial complex, thereby increasing the probability of success in future, military conflicts is presented. (aw)
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Aug 01, 1983
- Accession Number
- ADA215912
Entities
People
- Clyde E. Gulick
Organizations
- Air University