Military Industrial Complex

On 26 July 1950, President Harry Truman approved a multi-million dollar military assistance package designed to help the French defeat a strong communist movement in French Indochina. The package included $15 million worth of military equipment and a small number of American military advisors assigned to supervise the flow of tanks, plans, artillery, and other equipment.1 By 1954, the United States government had provided 80% of the war supplies used by the French in Indochina which equated to about $3 billion.2 This marked the beginning of the United States involvement in Southeast Asia and the expansion of the military-industrial complex in America. This paper will explore the role the American military-industrial complex played as part

P.W. Singer and August Cole’s 2015 novel, Ghost Fleet, demonstrates how the American military’s trending dependence on high-tech, networked warfighting may be vulnerable to foreign near-peer and hybrid threats. Merging expertise from Washington-based foreign policy think tanks and defense technology sectors, the authors weave a fictional, yet plausible depiction of a near-future war featuring the United States, China, and Russia.

A) The title of the book is The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War and the author is Andrew Bacevich. The book was published in New York, New York by the publisher Oxford University Press in the year 2005. It is the first edition and contains 270 pages.

On January 17, 1961 President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the nation, his final public speech as President of the United States. As such it was his last opportunity to address the nation, on any subject of his choice, with the authority, prestige and preeminence that comes with the office of President of the United States. His choice, what he termed the Military Industrial Complex, was perhaps something that at the time did not register in the mind of the average American as a priority when placed along the topics of the Communism, the Cold War and nuclear war. Yet, as it turns out the issue regarding the Military Industrial Complex and Eisenhower's warnings about it have outlasted the fears of the mid 20th century.

In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warns the people to keep check on what he calls the military-industrial complex that was developed in post World War ll. The military industry complex is described as expemses for the army of the U.S. The cost became detremental in the long run, so it could no longer peformance and quickly as it did in past wars.

Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term Military Industrial Complex (MIC). With the expansion of the war efforts throughout the country and seeing it firsthand as a general in World War II, he realized how powerful the military was becoming in the United States. In his farewell speech to the public, Eisenhower warned that this great complex that has been created carries great implications, and that though it may be necessary, the nation must be careful not to let it get out of control and have power misplaced. The Military Industrial Complex is the interweaving of the military with industries and corporations, and after the 9/11 attacks it greatly influenced the

Fallows describes the impact of the military-industrial complex has to be detrimental in its economic and political influence just as Eisenhower warned in his speech.” The economic problem is that the federal government no longer has enough money to throw around without a plan. The political problem is the distortion of the process of public choice.” (Fallows, 2009, para 8). The military industrial complex encourages the option of war.

This paper will supply a robust summary along with detailed analysis of the article Manufacturing Insecurity: How Militarism Endangers America by William Pfaff. This topic is important and poignant because, if it is true that America’s tendency to sustain military presence internationally is leading to an uptick in the rate of radical insurgents who emerge from the ruins of war than it may mean that US policy makers may have to completely reevaluate how they analyses overseas threats and how to best prepare for these threats to national interests. This paper will address this issue first by providing a summary of the Pfaff article to allow the reader a clearer understanding of the issue at hand. After this summary, this paper will analyze the

As Heinrich von Treitschke wrote in “The Greatness of War,” “war is for an afflicted people the only remedy.” (43) International conflict stimulated the economy with the

“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put end to mankind.” Although the nature of war is not changing and clashes will never completely vanish, the character of war will continually change and develop. Due to advances in science and technology, States are competing to progress and develop their weapon capabilities which will generate negative effects on global security, stability and prosperity in the next decade. Interstate conflicts causes and consequences are multi-faceted. However this essay will explore some of them.

A myriad of battles make up war. Physical force is used to make an opponent inept to further confrontation. War is thus an art of force to compel our enemy to do our will. In human history, the 20th century was the bloodiest, priciest century of warfare. Since 1914, there have been two world wars, and several major revolutions such as the Russia Civil War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War among others. According to Clausewitz, war is an inherent subset of politics where every military act has political consequences. Politics is about power, and war is a violent expression of disagreements and tensions arising among political groups. He argues that the intrinsic feature of war demonstrates a clear relationship between war and politics. Time and again, the overpowered state regards the result purely as a temporary evil for which a resolve may still be found in political situations. Whereas, it is expected that militarily powerful states would win war against their weak adversaries, they have sometimes failed in achieving their desired political outcomes. This essay endeavors to look into some contributing factors to these failures and point out what strategies should do to increase their likelihood of success.

The mass global distribution of weapons is the main catalyst for the expansion of international arms trade in the world. The clip “Arms Trade: An expose of the most deadly industry” provides an in-depth look at how the arms industry is one of the most lucrative and profitable industries around the world. The arms trade remains being a prosperous global business and so it seems that ongoing wars go hand in hand with this lethal enterprise. With the affluent profit that arms trade generates worldwide it seems that wars will never seize to end. Overtime there have been various companies that have benefited from the war but for how long will humanity have to be at stake for this marketing strategy.

War is inherent in the development of capitalism- as well as a decisive phenomenon in the transformation of the history of humanity in its different stages: from the accumulation originating, going through the industrial revolution and the imperialist period, until now, in the era of globalization, and their interactions are multiple and varied.

“Economy (cost) of war and how success requires making the winning play, which in turn, requires limiting the cost of competition and conflict.”

From 1945 to present day, the world has experienced a downward trend in armed conflicts and interstate wars (Gates). Today’s world economies, nuclear weapons, and global institutions have allowed for the merging of cultures and common, making war seem less rational. These developments have also created a shift in International Relations (IR) by fostering cooperation rather than anarchy. Through a rationalist and liberal lens, this work looks to analyze how an emphasis on group formations and identifications has caused a decline in war.