4 ms·

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. T

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial 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 over shadowed 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 scientific-technological 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.

voisin 2y ago
Pretty amazing that the military industrial complex was of sufficient importance to him that he used his farewell address to warn against it. And now it is just treated as an absolute necessity never to be scrutinized. I often wonder if spending the money is the point - simply to say “The USA spends more than the next 10 countries combined” with no consideration for whether it is getting more value for the money. Like a startup, could other countries simply be getting significantly more value for their money and so the effective gap isn’t as large as the pure numbers suggest? It comes to mind how the Pentagon running out of ammunition in recent years so to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and US donations.
- kiba 2y ago
  It's absolutely necessary. And we do need to scrutinize it. It's unhealthy to have such deep consolidation and little competition. Plus our shipbuilding hadn't been the best, and our shipbuilders basically depend on defense contracts to survive instead of building warships as side gigs. Definitely areas where we need to do improvement. We also need production of shells to support Ukraine and our Europeans allies had been underspending for decades at this point.
- tw04 2y ago
  > It comes to mind how the Pentagon running out of ammunition in recent years so to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and US donations. That’s because the munitions we spend most of our money in isn’t going to Ukraine. The stuff we would use against Russia would be wiping cities off the map from thousands of miles away. The things we gave Ukraine are intentionally limited in range and power to prevent it from escalating beyond a regional conflict (aka stuff that can’t strike important targets inside Russia).
  - kiba 2y ago
    Nuclear blackmail wasn't entirely effective but it is enough to self deter the Europeans and the US from giving permission to Ukraine unrestricted permission to strike legitimate military targets. Let's make it clear. Ukraine is forced to use their own long range drones to strike targets deep inside Russia, as opposed to also using more effective and more powerful weapons to do so.
  - oneshtein 2y ago
    > The things we gave Ukraine are intentionally limited in range and power to prevent it from escalating beyond a regional conflict (aka stuff that can’t strike important targets inside Russia). Can we take your words to UN crime court?
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  > It comes to mind how the Pentagon running out of ammunition in recent years so to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and US donations. This is due to differences in doctrine and force structure. The Ukrainian military burns artillery ammunition at a far higher rate than the US military ever would because the US military does not use a lot of artillery. You don’t need a lot of ammunition of a type you’ll never use much.
aspenmayer 2y ago
In case it’s new to you, dear reader: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwigh... https://www.c-span.org/video/?15026-1/eisenhower-farewell-address https://www.c-span.org/video/?15026-1/eisenhower-farewell-ad... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower%27s_farew... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y
kiba 2y ago
Yeah, but the government is in charge. After the cold war, there was an event known as the "last supper" which involves the government telling military contractors that the government thanks them for their service but they are no longer needed. I would be more worried about Disney and Apple and their unwarranted influence.
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  Is there something Disney or Apple have already influenced in a specific way that concerns you?
relwin 2y ago
Ryan McBeth says existence of a "military industrial complex" is false and has not been true since 1993. I like how he notes Procter & Gamble makes more revenue than the top 5 defense contractors combined. https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?si=p3Ks7oueygVe3Tvb https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?si=p3Ks7oueygVe3Tvb
- stracer 2y ago
  If Ryan McBeth defines MIC as just the defense companies, or its existence being conditioned on these companies having greater official revenues than Procter & Gamble, then he either misunderstands the concept, or he is (why?) trying to spread some weak argument for an idea that U.S. does not have an MIC, which is quite comical. MIC is not just the defense companies, read the name again - it' the complex made of industry and the military. And Eisenhower's point in warning against it is not about revenue of the industry part, but about influence of the whole complex on major decisions. In 1990's there was a short dip in funding, but since 2000's, its growth caught back on, and it's getting close to a trillion dollars a year. That much money chases a lot of constituency and a lot of power. Millions of people are dependent on it.
  - Schiendelman 2y ago
    To you is it just the industrial complex?
    - stracer 2y ago
      Why would you ask that? MIC = Military Industrial Complex. The complex is made of both the industry and the military.
      - Schiendelman 2y ago
        I ask that because you bring up Procter & Gamble, and imply the same concept exists everywhere, not just military companies.
topkai22 2y ago
Eisenhower had some of the greatest speeches of any American president. On the theme, also read his first major speech as President- “a chance for peace”- https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwighteisenhowercrossofiron.htm https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwighteisenhowercr... Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. —- A old soldier who was horrified at the cost of war, but keenly and sadly aware of the necessity of preparation and defense.

voisin 2y ago

Pretty amazing that the military industrial complex was of sufficient importance to him that he used his farewell address to warn against it. And now it is just treated as an absolute necessity never to be scrutinized. I often wonder if spending the money is the point - simply to say “The USA spends more than the next 10 countries combined” with no consideration for whether it is getting more value for the money. Like a startup, could other countries simply be getting significantly more value for their money and so the effective gap isn’t as large as the pure numbers suggest? It comes to mind how the Pentagon running out of ammunition in recent years so to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and US donations.

kiba 2y ago
It's absolutely necessary. And we do need to scrutinize it. It's unhealthy to have such deep consolidation and little competition. Plus our shipbuilding hadn't been the best, and our shipbuilders basically depend on defense contracts to survive instead of building warships as side gigs. Definitely areas where we need to do improvement. We also need production of shells to support Ukraine and our Europeans allies had been underspending for decades at this point.
tw04 2y ago
> It comes to mind how the Pentagon running out of ammunition in recent years so to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and US donations. That’s because the munitions we spend most of our money in isn’t going to Ukraine. The stuff we would use against Russia would be wiping cities off the map from thousands of miles away. The things we gave Ukraine are intentionally limited in range and power to prevent it from escalating beyond a regional conflict (aka stuff that can’t strike important targets inside Russia).
- kiba 2y ago
  Nuclear blackmail wasn't entirely effective but it is enough to self deter the Europeans and the US from giving permission to Ukraine unrestricted permission to strike legitimate military targets. Let's make it clear. Ukraine is forced to use their own long range drones to strike targets deep inside Russia, as opposed to also using more effective and more powerful weapons to do so.
- oneshtein 2y ago
  > The things we gave Ukraine are intentionally limited in range and power to prevent it from escalating beyond a regional conflict (aka stuff that can’t strike important targets inside Russia). Can we take your words to UN crime court?
jandrewrogers 2y ago
> It comes to mind how the Pentagon running out of ammunition in recent years so to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and US donations. This is due to differences in doctrine and force structure. The Ukrainian military burns artillery ammunition at a far higher rate than the US military ever would because the US military does not use a lot of artillery. You don’t need a lot of ammunition of a type you’ll never use much.

aspenmayer 2y ago

In case it’s new to you, dear reader: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwigh... https://www.c-span.org/video/?15026-1/eisenhower-farewell-address https://www.c-span.org/video/?15026-1/eisenhower-farewell-ad... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower%27s_farew... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y

kiba 2y ago

Yeah, but the government is in charge. After the cold war, there was an event known as the "last supper" which involves the government telling military contractors that the government thanks them for their service but they are no longer needed. I would be more worried about Disney and Apple and their unwarranted influence.

Schiendelman 2y ago
Is there something Disney or Apple have already influenced in a specific way that concerns you?

relwin 2y ago

Ryan McBeth says existence of a "military industrial complex" is false and has not been true since 1993. I like how he notes Procter & Gamble makes more revenue than the top 5 defense contractors combined. https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?si=p3Ks7oueygVe3Tvb https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs?si=p3Ks7oueygVe3Tvb

stracer 2y ago
If Ryan McBeth defines MIC as just the defense companies, or its existence being conditioned on these companies having greater official revenues than Procter & Gamble, then he either misunderstands the concept, or he is (why?) trying to spread some weak argument for an idea that U.S. does not have an MIC, which is quite comical. MIC is not just the defense companies, read the name again - it' the complex made of industry and the military. And Eisenhower's point in warning against it is not about revenue of the industry part, but about influence of the whole complex on major decisions. In 1990's there was a short dip in funding, but since 2000's, its growth caught back on, and it's getting close to a trillion dollars a year. That much money chases a lot of constituency and a lot of power. Millions of people are dependent on it.
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  To you is it just the industrial complex?
  - stracer 2y ago
    Why would you ask that? MIC = Military Industrial Complex. The complex is made of both the industry and the military.
    - Schiendelman 2y ago
      I ask that because you bring up Procter & Gamble, and imply the same concept exists everywhere, not just military companies.

topkai22 2y ago

Eisenhower had some of the greatest speeches of any American president. On the theme, also read his first major speech as President- “a chance for peace”- https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwighteisenhowercrossofiron.htm https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwighteisenhowercr... Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. —- A old soldier who was horrified at the cost of war, but keenly and sadly aware of the necessity of preparation and defense.