Enabling Government Bipartisanship through Dual-Use Budget Items

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 18 Aug 2025

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Expanding Interpretations of Civilian Benefit in Relation to National and Global Security

Introduction

17 Aug 2025 – The following exploration was provoked by the widely publicized demand of the USA in July 2025 that NATO allies increase their defence spending to 5% of GDP. This is discussed separately together with the possibility of a creative reframing of national budget line items (Boosting “Defence” Expenditure above 10% of GDP, 2025). One precedent for such creativity has been controversially set by Italy (Tom Kington, In Italy, a bridge to Sicily may offer piece to NATO spending puzzle, Defense News, 14 July 2025).

Australia had previously been warned by the Pentagon to urgently increase its defence budget to meet AUKUS commitments and defend itself adequately (US asks Australia to increase defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, Reuters, 3 June 2025; Bernard Keane, The staggering numbers in defence spending… and who benefits, Crikey, 4 June 2025). One study reframes the nature of the challenge (Pi-Shen Seet, et al, Defence spending: our research shows how Australia can stop buying weapons for the wars of the past, The Conversation, 27 March 2025).

In this same period, Australia has been under considerable pressure to increase support for the First Nations people, especially in its northern territories. This suggested the possibility that “two birds could be killed with one stone” by allocating billions to the development of defensive boomerang technology by the traditional owners of much of Australia — thereby allocating vital resources to a much neglected sector of Australian society (as long requested by those peoples). Although seemingly problematic, the Pentagon is itself renowned for allocating resources to projects which many have seen as unrelated to defence.

On further investigation, it appears that thought has already been given to an adaptation of the boomerang concept to drone warfare. “Boomerang” is allegedly the new kamikaze drone in Russian armoury (What’s Boomerang, the new kamikaze drone in Russian armoury? TRT Global, 3 March 2023). Australia is therefore completely justified from a military perspective in funding development of an Australian front line defence force of traditional owners with boomerang skills. Consistent with Pentagon demands, extensive defence research is now required on how those skills can be adapted to high tech boomerang use in response to the drone warfare of the future. Curiously “boomerang” — whether appropriately or not — now features in the relation of China to the US (Yaqiu Wang, The Boomerang Effect of Beijing’s Economic Censorship, The Diplomat, 1 October 2024; China releases 2-minute-long footage of DF-100, a containment boomerang to US, Wion, 13 August 2025)

As indicated by the Italian bridge initiative, the ability of government to increase defence spending considerably as a percentage of GDP (as required by the USA) could be reframed more generally through the concept of “dual-use technology“. In politics, diplomacy and export control, dual-use items refer to goods, software and technology that can be used for both civilian and military application. That concept could however itself be reframed as “dual purpose ” budget lines. Boomerang development indeed responds to front-line defence potential, whilst justifying investment in employment in First Nations communities. Another example is suggested by the vital military role of indigenous peoples in World War II as “code talkers“. Given the obscurity and multiplicity of their languages, this would justify a heavy Australian investment in education in First Nations communities in preparation for that defence commitment. That military role is well recognized by the Pentagon in the light of the historical contribution of the Navajo and Cherokee peoples.

There is now an extensive focus on dual-use technology, not least because of the manner in which it can be developed for exploitative purposes under the guise of its acclaimed benefit for the population. This is most evident with respect to communication technology and the manner in which “security” features can be surreptitiously embedded in it for undeclared purposes. Progressive market-driven transformation of personal appliances may thereby become spyware, as separately discussed (Naive Acquisition of Dual-use Surveillance Technology, 2015).

Of particular relevance to fragmented societies and adversarial governance, however, is the manner in which the dual aspects of dual-use technology can appeal to opposing schools of thought in government — the government and its opposition. Dual-use technology, adequately promoted, could therefore prove fundamental to enabling elusive bipartisanship — ensuring more fruitful governance and more appropriate allocation of scarce resources. As a result of such an obligation to reframe budgetary commitments creatively — imposed by pressure from Donald Trump — increased expenditure on what can be claimed to be “defence” could then prove to be a major factor in his quest for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Whilst this exploration primarily took the form of gleaning insight from the world’s resources via the Perplexity AI, the concluding phases of the exchange took a totally unexpected form. This resulted from recognition that there was a degree of correspondence between the Western dual-use framing and that of the Eastern yin-yang framing. This justified evoking commentary from the DeepSeek AI, given its Chinese associations. These insights fruitfully reframed and generalized understanding of “dual-use”. However, as noted in the conclusion, successive responses were suppressed by the AI platform — raising further questions regarding dual-use consideration of AI itself as a “dual-use technology”. The questions could well be asked of other AIs.

Although this experimental exploration has been variously enabled by AI, most of the responses of AI have been framed as grayed areas. Given the length of the document to which the exchanges gave rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment — in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Only the “questions” to AI are rendered immediately visible — with the response by AI hidden unless specifically requested by the reader (a facility not operational in PDF variants of the page, in contrast with the original). Readers are of course free to amend the questions asked, or to frame other related questions — whether with the same AI, with others, or with those that become available in the future. In endeavouring to elicit insight from the world’s resources via AI, the dependence on “leading questions” calls for critical comment in contrast with more traditional methods for doing so. The original responses by AI typically included citations of multiple sources which have not been included in the responses presented.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.