Part of the problem is that genuinely innovative ideas from small businesses find it impossible to navigate the mess that is EU related funding. Meaning only the big players can access them. Also, the amount of unnecessary duplication and crap sold in the security industry is unbelievable.<p>If you go to the Counter Terrorism Expo in London, you can see this. Dozens of organisations selling effectively the same stuff.<p>Much of which is actually pure crap from a security/defence standpoint. How do they actually manage to sell it? Connections...hiring people who previously where in side the military/intelligence/Defence Departments etc. The same process as in the US no doubt. The worse thing is that some of the stuff is both expensive, useless and occasionally dangerous for the people who require it.<p>BAE Systems is the perfect example of this. They are effectively a hidden British government job scheme. They make crap equipment, overly costly and rarely on time. There are many cases where UK tax payer would actually save money by firing the people in the jobs, giving them golden payoffs and buying more effective equipment elsewhere. Meanwhile their troops would be safer. For example the SA80, Westland Apache helicopters costing 50% more than their US-made Longbow equivalents - the list is endless.<p>I highly recommend the book "Lions, Donkeys And Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military" for a quick overview of that.
> But has all of this made us safer?<p>This is the key takeaway from the article. Most of the expense isn't making anyone safer, and the advantage is held by the aggressor who only has to be successful once to inflict unpalatable physical, economic and political damage to defending developed nations.<p>> The question is whether that funding truly advances the cause of the European citizen, or only that of the industry.<p>The parallels to the drug industry are striking, where often the most expensive drug is the least effective and billions are spent on duplicative competitive approaches.<p>> Let brilliant scientists get down to work, and leave them alone for five years<p>It is interesting the advances smaller, less well funded countries, have made in defense spending. Swedish Gotland subs, Israeli Iron Dome missile defense, Norwegian anti-air missles, reputed North Korean advances in EMP weapons, and reputed Iranian advances in fast torpedos, etc.<p>Sometimes less means more.
The key phrase here I would suggest picking out is the one where the contractors get to help influence/write the contracts that they bid on. It's not confined to this sector of the world industry. Would /love/ to see that made flamingly illegal.
People like to knock on government funded research on security/defense here, but it is actually one of the reasons the US leads in tech. DARPA produced the arpanet, the predecessor to the internet. Also, while everyone is aware of Stanford and silicon manufacturers contributions to making Silicon Valley, the defense industry also played a big part in SV's early days. And let's not forget Alan Turing was working for the British government to defeat the nazis. Funding research is a great idea.