What is the military industrial complex?

Question

Regardless of your opinion, can someone please explain this theory to me?

Answer 1

the following is from Eisenhowers farewell speech. he coined the phrase industrial military complex in this speech in 1961

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Answer 2

The government of the United States starting during world War II invested a lot of money in national defense to fight off the fascist threat. Then we invested a lot of money to ward off the soviet communist threat in a cold war...lots of tanks, lots of fighters, lots of bombers, lots of nukes, lots of military equipment to be ready for a confrontation that mostly never came. When the soviet union fell, and since all these companies were used to earning all those billions on weaponry sold to the government, it can be argued that there is enormous pressure on government by lobbysts representing the weapons dealers to justify more and more military equipment sales, whether to our own country or to other countries. These dealers who literally have become reliant on government money to make profits literally have a vested interest in war, and the threat of war. If the world suddenly became a peaceful place or the United States policies actually helped bring about peace, it can be argued that this would not be good for business for the people who make weapons. President Eishenhower in his farewell address warned the people of the United States of this tail wagging the dog, phenomenon where those who make weapons actually drive our policies, and actually make our world more dangerous. Look it up, google "eisenhower farewell adress industrial complex".

In regards to its relevance today, there are companies right now who are profiting immensely,for example, from the fact that we are involved in Iraq. This sort of profiteering is at a level like never seen before. It used be like in Vietnam if we were at war, we send nearly 100% soldiers to do everything "over there". Today in iraq, at least 50% of our total force in the war zone is paid mercenaries who make tons more money than our soldiers do. The world community looks at mercenering as something so unsavory, that they have declared it illegal. Of course we dont call Halliburton and Blackwater mercenaries, just like we say that waterboarding is not torture, but they both are what we think they are and they both are what the world thinks they are, and we can crown them what they really are....mercenaries and torture. Heck, I hear that some of the mercenaries were even involved in the Abu Graib torture scandal.

If the military industrial complex was a threat in the days of Eisenhower, the Bush administration has exponentially increased that threat, and I hear now that Secretary Gates is advocating that we further outsource our military in the future to give the "complex" a bigger peace of the tax dollar pie.

Answer 3

It refers to the relationship between the U.S. Armed Forces and the government contractors that are the big suppliers for the Department of Defense, like Lockheed, General Dynamics, Haliburton, etc. President Eisenhower referred to the dangers when you have huge companies with lots of money and lots of lobbying power on Capitol Hill and high-ranking military officials pushing for war or military action. The idea is that the military and these big companies are "in bed together" pushing their mutual interests.

Answer 4

Haliburton. They don't want babies aborted so they can send them overseas to die in wars that make them insanely rich. The government racks up so much debt that they will be taking tax money from the people for 3 generations to pay the people who own the companies that make the bombs, bullets, boots, back packs, etc. The 5 countries who make almost all of the world's bombs, bullets and guns are also the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. USA, China, Russia, UK, and France. Do you think it's a conflict of interest to have the world police making almost all the money from the world's wars?

Answer 5

Basically the building of anything that has to do with the military. Planes , Tanks , military research....

Answer 6

It refers to all of the companies and corporations that make money off of us going to war. This includes Halliburton, Boeing, and any number of contractors that produce planes, ships, tanks, weapons, food, or offer services.

Answer 7

think it has something to do with the military