9A- Testing the Hypothesis Part 2

Interviews:

1)         In my first interview, this gentleman found my idea to be solid but thought that nobody would see value in it because they are already secure with American military assets. Also, people would only be seeing percents of pennies in savings if this happened.  He considers all of the people in places like South Korea and Japan to be benefitting more from free American protection than they would with a robust missile defense system that they have to pay for. So at the conclusion of this interview it seemed as if everyone fell outside the boundary besides maybe a politician or two.

2)        In this interview I sought to find out more about how such a seemingly broad need could really be so narrow. I asked this student if he would see any benefit to himself if a private company were to take over our military duties in missile defense in the Pacific; he responded that it would not at all change his life as long as it was effective (kept him safe). He also mentioned that he would be in favor of it happening but doesn’t see a whole lot of benefit. So that stumped me a little because he saw the potential but not the value in it.

3)         How could I make this idea extend to benefit more people? I posed this question to one of my roommates and he said it sounds like people don’t care about how things get done just that they get done. Many Americans have this attitude toward government policy and such. Though, my roommate thinks that Asian nations would enjoy being able to work with a company as opposed to a military or lease the equipment and run it themselves. So many the beneficiaries would be from Asian nations, as well as politicians looking to save money.

4)         So this boundary is starting to seem really tight as I go. I decide to ask about the potential for this idea to even come to fruition if the target market turns out to be large enough. This student felt like it would be such a high-risk decision to allow a company to have that responsibility, and  if the company were to fail in protecting the region from a North Korean attack whoever supported that move would be persecuted. I agreed to this and feel like it’s almost like decision over how many dollars should we sacrifice to guarantee safety. She thinks America would definitely benefit from this, especially if competition makes the price really low for the radar systems, but it isn’t something people would notice as benefitting them.

5)         “What is the real need here? To save money or to have protection or what?” my last interviewee asked me. I believe the need is to save America money while providing the same level of protection form Pacific nations and America’s west coast. The interviewee felt that this is a case of it’s broke don’t fix it, which is fair. He did say he hates seeing tax payer dollars go to waste so he would support my idea. I am left feeling like many people support this but are still outside the boundary because of the unique way in which this benefits people indirectly.

Inside the Boundary

Who:

-       Asian countries seeking more self sufficient means of protecting themselves.

-       Politicians looking to save money on the defense budget

What:

-       The need is to save money on America’s defense budget while still having strong protection against the North Korean nuclear threat

Why:

-       This need exists because of America’s long time role as the world police and our technological superiority over other nations. This led us to have to pay far more in defense spending against North Korea than any other nation.

Outside the Boundary

Who:

-       Sadly the American tax payer, even though many may support this idea, they seem to see no immediate benefit to themselves

-       Countries far from the North Korean threat

-       UN member nations seeking to stay out of the conflict

What:

-       The need is not for a private military force

-       The need is not to provide better protection

Why:

-       The need is not to provide better protection because sufficient protection currently exists and the need for a private force does not exist because this idea is for missile defense only, the U.S. Armed Forces can handle any form of offensive tactics.