Francis Dietz, a Government Relations worker for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) in Washington, D.C., is calling upon engineers to help our policy makers in making decisions concerning defense research and design. In testimony to Congress given by the Department of Defense Task Force of ASME’s Inter-Council Committee on Federal R & D, “…an increasing number of peacekeeping deployments to various parts of the globe, combined with relatively stagnant budgets, have combined to put a severe strain on the ability of the Department of Defense to appropriately plan for its future technology needs…” (Dietz 34). To further explain this claim of consequence, The group goes on to say, “…the basic research of today largely determines the technological advancements of a decade or more from now.” (Dietz 34).
This article states the importance of funding for national defense. It hopes to inform the reader about how the budget cuts in basic research have left the country vulnerable. In order to defend against the three major national security threats of nuclear proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, and breeches of information technology infrastructure, Congress will need to supply appropriate funds in science and technology (Dietz 34). In writing this article, the author hopes to gather enough support to lobby for more funds.
The argument contains all three parts of the logic triangle. Logos is used when he states that a decrease in funding for R & D has made it harder to attract and retain talented engineers. Dietz also uses logos when he quotes Harry Armen saying, “If you don’t design and build new systems, then someday when you need something new, there’ll be nobody there who knows how to do it.” (34). Ethos is found in the people and committees he gathers much of the information in the article. He uses groups like by the Department of Defense Task Force of ASME’s Inter-Council Committee on Federal R & D and people like Rep. Julian Dixon as authorities to substantiate his claim. Pathos is used in the form of fear when the consequences of poor funding are realized. The article implies the US is leaving itself open to conventional, nuclear, and cyber attacks.
The article was exactly right in my opinion. There may no longer be a big Soviet threat like during the cold war, but there nations like China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India that have nuclear weapons and a means to lunch them against the United States. The US is ahead technologically now, but if spending here is cut while other countries increase spending the situation could easily flip. Dietz does an excellent job of conveying this without seeming to be overreacting.
Dietz, Francis. “Defense Research Once Again Interest Congress.” Mechanical
Engineering. Vol. 122. June 2000: 34.