US Defense Secretary Mulls Rapid Grants For Tech Companies

itwbennett writes: The push for greater cooperation with tech companies has been a big theme for the DOD in the last year, but many big tech companies so far have been wary of the government's overtures following NSA spying revelations. Now, the government is taking a more 'if you can't join them, build your own' approach. The U.S. Department of Defense is considering offering rapid seed funding to private companies as a way to encourage more work on technology projects with the commercial sector, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said Wednesday. 'The DOD has to tap into all the streams of innovation and emerging technology and it has to do so much more quickly,' Carter told DARPA's Wait, What? conference in St. Louis, Missouri.

Comments

Wait, what?

[jeffb (2.718)]

I forget which conference is being co-hosted this year -- is it O RLY or Srsly? Do I get a discount if I also register for "Yeah I Went There"?

Re:Wait, what?

[Snufu]

Keynote speech at this year's LMFDARPAO conference: "My missile defense array feels. I can't even."

In case this has you scratching your head

[Anonymous Coward]

The DoD has been reaching out to the tech sector for decades and has found that even outright dropping money into the laps of tech companies is not enough to get them to do business with the military, er, government. So they're trying again, hoping the new generation is dumber than the last. Hint, kids: no one helps them unless they have a gun to their heads for very good reasons.

wait

[turkeydance]

on the what.

Re:More disgusting Republican corporate welfare...

[RightwingNutjob]

Fast. Government procurement. Hahahahahahaha. Speaking as a deeply embedded cog in the military industrial complex.

this is...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Crony capitalism... on speed! What a great idea!

Re: this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Crony capitalism worked pretty well for obamacare, oh wait nevermind

Re:WARNING to US Technies:

[RightwingNutjob]

Uh huh. And I'm sure it was all smiles and sunshine pre 2003. Not saying we didn't blow the execution to an extent that some people shouldn't be able to look themselves in the mirror, but some places just invite chaos by their very nature. Case in point: Egypt, Syria, Libya: not a single American boot on the ground before the "unpleasantness". One could make the case the same thing would have happened in Iraq regardless.

Re:I've heard this song before...

[turbidostato]

"...what do they call it when you begin to blend government and business..."

Well, it really depends on the way they blend.

In this case it is the government seeding ownership for the means of production, therefore, "communism" is the word.

Wait... wasn't "communism" a rude word in USA? Weren't communists USA arch-enemies? Too high a danger. Maybe USA should nuke the entire DoD from orbit, it's the only way to be sure, after all.

Re:I've heard this song before...

[turbidostato]

"The USA doesn't do it that way, they do it the corporate fascist way. You know, like the Nazis"

Maybe as a general matter you are right, but I was talking strictly about this case, it looked communist to me.

Nevertheless... humm... Weren't those "Nazis" guys of you Captain America's arch-enemies? I know from Marvel that Captain America is All The Good America Represents, therefore Captain America's arch-enemies must be really nasty guys so... Let USA nuke the entire USA from orbit, it's the only way to be sure, after all!

There's an ancient term for this

[MyAlternateID]

The push for greater cooperation with tech companies has been a big theme for the DOD in the last year, but many big tech companies so far have been wary of the government's overtures following NSA spying revelations.

This is called reaping what you sow.

Re:WARNING to US Technies:

[MyAlternateID]

Uh huh. And I'm sure it was all smiles and sunshine pre 2003. Not saying we didn't blow the execution to an extent that some people shouldn't be able to look themselves in the mirror, but some places just invite chaos by their very nature. Case in point: Egypt, Syria, Libya: not a single American boot on the ground before the "unpleasantness". One could make the case the same thing would have happened in Iraq regardless.

It's as though the parent poster talked about Subject A, and you replied as though you were making a response to him/her, but proceeded to talk about Unrelated Subject B.

Re:WARNING to US Technies:

[PPH]

The US GOVERNMENT leaves nothing but DEATH in its wake

I'm OK with death. What I don't want to have happen is to get my technology slapped with an dual use, ITAR, Wassenaar classification. So they can strangle the market for my product and turn me into a slave for the Pentagon.

Re:You lie down with dogs...

[TheGratefulNet]

"two things happen when you tangle with a pig; you get dirty, and the pig has fun."

(ok, who's next?)

Re:WARNING to US Technies:

[thinkwaitfast]

The US GOVERNMENT leaves nothing but DEATH in its wake

See: internet

Re:More disgusting Republican corporate welfare...

[SpankiMonki]

Republican? I was under the impression the current Secretary of Defense was part of a Democratic administration. Granted, when it comes to defense spending it's hard to tell the difference.

In any event, when we get our well deserved Trumpublican administration, things will change. More winning. More artful deals. More classy and sophisticated. Five big neon letters on the White House facade. Finally, I'll be able to stop worrying abut my children's future.

Re:In the good old days he was the

[fragMasterFlash]

Secretary of WAR! Damn pussies today!

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

Can't we relax for a couple of years?

[Okian Warrior]

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said Wednesday. 'The DOD has to tap into all the streams of innovation and emerging technology and it has to do so much more quickly,'

Question 1: Do we spend more on military than the rest of the world combined?(*)

Question 2: Is our military already 1,000 times stronger than the next strongest power?

Question 3: Is there an immediate threat to the US from... anyone?

We're killing our country with all this needless spending.

Can't we just sit back and relax for a couple of years?

(*) This doesn't count militarization of the police, or internal police forces such as Homeland security, DEA, TSA, National Guard, and others.

Re:Can't we relax for a couple of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we just sit back and relax for a couple of years?

Depends on how many shares of the military industrial complex you own.

Re:Can't we relax for a couple of years?

[spauldo]

1) Not as a percentage of GDP, no. And we do more with our military than the rest of the world combined.

2) I question that statistic. So do people in the comments on that page you linked to.

3) Depends how you define "threat." And we don't just protect ourselves; we also protect S. Korea, Japan, Germany, and various other places by treaty. S. Korea, and to a lesser extent, Japan are definitely under constant threat. And our politicians are under threat; if a terrorist attack happens on our soil, no matter what size, it becomes a huge deal for whoever's in charge (see Benghazi, for instance). Politicians control the military.

Personally, I think if we can get another Democrat up there, we'll be able to catch a break. The Democratic party is on the anti-war side right now, and Democrats tend to be more supportive of diplomacy. We've got a bit over 10,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now (Wikipedia). If we get a Republican, well, I dunno. Depends on how strong the Libertarian presence is in the next administration - they tend to be anti-war as well.

Re: Can't we relax for a couple of years?

[spauldo]

We used to be, sure. It's debatable now. It's not like we run the place any more, we just don't let them have their own military (except the SDF). I've lived there, and funny thing - I had to obey Japanese laws when I was there. You know, the ones created by the elected Japanese government.

I've seen enough of Japanese culture to know that, unlike the Germans, the Japanese still have all the nationalism and sense of racial cohesion required for the atrocities committed during their occupation of China, Korea, and the Pacific islands. Oh, and the money. All it takes is the right leaders. I'm happy they don't have their own military.

Either way, what's your point? We still have to defend it.

Re:Can't we relax for a couple of years?

[spauldo]

Which falls squarely into the "so what" category. The Pentagon frequently pleads Congress to stop buying weapons systems it doesn't need or want, and lawmakers continue to buy them - often without providing maintenance funds for said systems. Meanwhile, infrastructure in the US is crumbling. But I guess your attitude is that "All is well. Nothing to see here. Move along".

Wow, it's hard to breathe with all those words you're stuffing into my mouth.

First off, to the "so what" comment: It's important because we are the largest economy in the world. We could spend less than 1% of our GDP on defense and still have a larger military than most countries out there.

Second, what infrastructure? Be specific. I was a truck driver for years, and if you're going to mention highways and bridges - don't bother. You're wrong.

As far as my attitude goes, you apparently think you can read my mind. You can't. I don't like the constant wars, and I don't like the mess we've put ourselves in. I'd like as much of a break as GGP.

I'd like to see you expand upon that statement a bit. Perhaps you could provide a few bullet points on our military accomplishments over the past decade.

We are responsible for quite a few things, military-wise. We support NATO, the UN, are partially responsible for the defence of Germany, and are directly responsible for the defence of South Korea, Japan, and various other places such as the Marshall Islands.

We're in Saudi Arabia on invitation to help defend it from its enemies.

And, I don't know if you've noticed, but we are still having a couple of wars. It's possible you might have missed that, I suppose, if you live under a rock or something. A big rock. On the moon.

Do I like what we're doing with our military? Well, some yes, some no. But you just assumed. I'm sure you have been informed on what that does.

Nobody cares what you question. If you can't provide a better statistic, then you've added nothing to the discussion.

Did you even read that link?

I wasn't suggesting we weren't "1000 times stronger." I was suggesting that there is no way to measure that sort of thing.

Saying we're "1000 times stronger" than the next largest military is like saying Jimi Hendrix is "1000 times better" than Eric Clapton. There's no real metric there.

I think GP defined "threat" clearly enough.

Did you read his post? He didn't define threat at all.

But people like you want to define "threat" as broadly as possible.

I defined "threat" by the only measure it should be defined: based on the actual reality of the situation.

South Korea is under direct threat from North Korea. I've sat in intelligence briefings about it. It's well documented all over the place. And they shot a missle over Japan several years back, just to prove they can.

The threat of terrorist activity to a politician's career is also very real. And since politicians control the military, and politicians are very often self-serving, they are more than willing to spend a lot of taxpayer money on security theater. This is also well documented by every news post in the last decade and a half.

Did I say that was right? No. Did I say I liked it? No. Is that the reality? Yes.

The time has long passed for your attitude to be trashed. People with your attitude are a bigger threat to the US than any other threat I can think of.

We face a much larger threat from people who can't use their brain properly. Hopefully you really are under a rock on the moon, so you won't add to that threat.

(I assume you got to the moon by jumping. You've given a lot of evidence that you're really good at jumping to conclusions. Try critical thinking sometime. Or any thinking.)

Re:WARNING to US Technies:

[spauldo]

The US government leaves death in its wake over there.

It leaves money in its wake over here.

Guess where it's trying to woo businesses?

Re:WARNING to US Technies:

[spauldo]

It's as though you didn't actually think out what they guy you're replying to was actually talking about.

He's saying Iraq was a shithole with mass killings and on the verge of civil war before we went in. And he's right. The other countries he named are pretty much the same (well, not so much Egypt). While we're directly or indirectly responsible for most of the death in Iraq, all we really did was pop the lid on the pressure cooker. The pressure was already there.

I don't think we should have gone to Iraq, but all we did was speed up the inevitable. Bush's mistake (one of many) was thinking we could control the outcome. You know, like we did in 'Nam. Oh, wait...

(I can't believe I'm agreeing with someone calling themselves "RightwingNutjob")

Idea for a Grant

[LifesABeach]

Begin the "foundation" work to create the "3 Laws of Robotics." How would this be presented to the DOD?

Re:I've heard this song before...

[requerdanos]

> ...what do they call it when you begin to blend government and business...
> I forget the name, but I do recall there were a lot of dead bodies. So, probably a mistake.

I think the answer is here somewhere...

Re:I've heard this song before...

[PPH]

Weren't those "Nazis" guys of you Captain America's arch-enemies?

"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Walt Kelly

Re:I've heard this song before...

[blue9steel]

More of a plutocracy than an oligarchy, but otherwise correct.

Re:WARNING to US Technies:

[blue9steel]

He's saying Iraq was a shithole with mass killings and on the verge of civil war before we went in.

True, but we invented whole new levels in stupidity with our Iraq policy.

Re:WARNING to US Technies:

[spauldo]

I'm certainly not disputing that.

I wish I could say we'll learn from it, but considering we apparently didn't learn from Vietnam, we'll probably do it again.

Re:WARNING to US Technies:

[spauldo]

Really?

So... the oil for food program would have kept things going smoothly after Saddam Hussein's death or a coup?

It was a bandage at best. Iraq's problems were only kept in check by its government, and its government revolved around the Hussein family. It was an inherently unstable situation.

You can blame us for setting it off early, but it would have happened eventually whether or not we were there. Some would say it would have been worse, but that's a debate for the experts.

Re:WARNING to US Technies:

[spauldo]

Inherently unstable? Really? Saddam ruled Iraq for around 24 years. Sounds pretty stable to me.

The USSR was stable under Stalin. North Korea is stable under the Kim family.

The difference? The Soviet Union had formal way of determining leadership, and most of it had a long history of being "Russia." It had a multilayered government under Stalin that could keep things going. Regime change was pretty much "here comes the new boss, same as the old boss."

North Korea is a unified people with a government organized around a bureaucratic military. It doesn't matter who is at the top; the structure underneath makes sure transitions happen with minimal problems. The people are isolated from the world and fed nationalistic bullshit until they think the sun rises and sets on a Kim's command.

Iraq? It had none of that. It had Saddam and his cronies, part of a minority, oppressing a majority, in a multicultural country where religious, tribal, and family ties are much more important than national identity. It's a cobbled-together country whose borders were set arbitrarily without regard to sectarian lines. Violence was held at bay only because of its liberal application by the government; once that government cracked, it would have exploded.

In other words, Iraq is a lot more like Syria, but worse. Look what's going on there.

Some would say it would have been worse, but that's a debate for the experts.

REALLY? Who are these people you speak of? Name one person besides Dick Cheney. Name one bona fide expert on the situation in Iraq who would claim the situation would be worse if the USA had not invaded. Can't? Then STFU.

Let's see here.

Tony Blair, of course.
Bashdar Pusho Ismaeel (a Kurdish political analyst)
Various political think tanks, such as FPI.
Ambassador John Bolton

Any many others. Do you own homework.

Do I think we should have gone? No. Do I think the Bush administration was looking for any excuse to go to war with Iraq? Yes.

Do I think Iraq could have peacefully transitioned from Saddam to another dictator? Not at all. That's relevant, considering he'd be almost 80 years old now, and the Arab Spring would be giving people ideas.

Oh, and that STFU? Big words from an AC. If you want me to read any reply, log the fuck in.