banner



Home  ›  African American Mutual Aid Societies

African American Mutual Aid Societies

Written By Tuesday, November 1, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Concept in military and political science

The expression war machine–industrial circuitous (MIC) describes the relationship betwixt a country's military and the defense force industry that supplies information technology, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy.[ane] [2] [3] [4] A driving cistron behind the relationship between the military machine and the defence-minded corporations is that both sides do good—one side from obtaining war weapons, and the other from existence paid to supply them.[5] The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where the relationship is most prevalent due to close links among defense contractors, the Pentagon, and politicians.[six] [7] The expression gained popularity after a warning of the relationship'southward detrimental furnishings, in the adieu address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on Jan 17, 1961.[eight] [9]

In the context of the United States, the appellation is sometimes extended to military–industrial–congressional complex (MICC), adding the U.Due south. Congress to form a three-sided relationship termed an "iron triangle".[10] Its three legs include political contributions, political approving for armed forces spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry; or more broadly, the entire network of contracts and flows of coin and resources among individuals too as corporations and institutions of the defense contractors, individual military contractors, the Pentagon, Congress, and the executive branch.[11]

Etymology [edit]

Eisenhower's farewell address, Jan 17, 1961. The term military–industrial complex is used at 8:16. Length: 15:thirty.

President of the United states of america (and v-star general during World War II) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:[12]

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

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms manufacture is new in the American experience. The full influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every urban center, every statehouse, every office of the federal regime. We recognize the imperative need for this development. However we must not neglect to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resource and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard confronting the conquering of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, past the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rising of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

We must never permit the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or autonomous processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an warning and knowledgeable citizenry tin compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and armed services machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals and then that security and liberty may prosper together. [accent added]

The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military" in later drafts of Eisenhower's speech, a merits passed on simply by oral history.[13] Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in i draft of the spoken language, the phrase was "military–industrial–congressional circuitous", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the armed forces manufacture, only the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version to appease the and then-currently elected officials.[14] James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any testify; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was originally "armed services–industrial–scientific complex".[14] [xv] Additionally, Henry Giroux claims that information technology was originally "military–industrial–academic circuitous".[16] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.[17]

The twenty largest US defense contractors ranked by their defense revenue as of 2020.[18]

Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern "military–industrial complex" existed before Eisenhower'southward accost. Ledbetter finds the precise term used in 1947 in shut to its later on meaning in an article in Foreign Affairs by Winfield West. Riefler.[14] [19] In 1956, sociologist C. Wright Mills had claimed in his book The Power Elite that a class of armed forces, business organisation, and political leaders, driven by mutual interests, were the existent leaders of the land, and were effectively beyond democratic control. Friedrich Hayek mentions in his 1944 book The Route to Serfdom the danger of a support of monopolistic organization of industry from World War Ii political remnants:

Another element which afterward this war is likely to strengthen the tendencies in this direction volition exist some of the men who during the state of war have tasted the powers of coercive command and will observe information technology difficult to reconcile themselves with the humbler roles they volition and so have to play [in peaceful times].[xx]

Vietnam War–era activists, such equally Seymour Melman, referred often to the concept, and utilize continued throughout the Common cold State of war: George F. Kennan wrote in his preface to Norman Cousins's 1987 book The Pathology of Power, "Were the Soviet Matrimony to sink tomorrow under the waters of the bounding main, the American military–industrial complex would accept to remain, essentially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would exist an unacceptable stupor to the American economy."[21]

In the late 1990s James Kurth asserted, "By the mid-1980s... the term had largely fallen out of public discussion." He went on to argue that "[west]hatever the ability of arguments nearly the influence of the military machine–industrial circuitous on weapons procurement during the Cold State of war, they are much less relevant to the current era".[22]

Contemporary students and critics of U.South. militarism keep to refer to and apply the term, all the same. For case, historian Chalmers Johnson uses words from the 2nd, third, and quaternary paragraphs quoted above from Eisenhower's address every bit an epigraph to Chapter Two ("The Roots of American Militarism") of a 2004 volume[23] on this subject. P. W. Singer'southward book apropos private military companies illustrates gimmicky ways in which industry, particularly an information-based one, still interacts with the U.S. federal and the Pentagon.[24]

The expressions permanent war economy and war corporatism are related concepts that have besides been used in association with this term.[ citation needed ] The term is also used to describe comparable collusion in other political entities such as the German Empire (prior to and through the beginning world state of war), Britain, France, and (post-Soviet) Russia.[ citation needed ]

Linguist and anarchist theorist Noam Chomsky has suggested that "war machine–industrial complex" is a misnomer considering (every bit he considers it) the phenomenon in question "is not specifically military".[25] He asserts, "At that place is no military–industrial complex: it's merely the industrial system operating under one or another pretext (defense was a pretext for a long time)."[26]

Post–Cold State of war [edit]

United States Defense force Spending 2001–2017

At the end of the Cold War, American defense contractors bewailed what they called failing government weapons spending.[27] [28] They saw escalation of tensions, such as with Russian federation over Ukraine, as new opportunities for increased weapons sales, and accept pushed the political system, both directly and through industry groups such as the National Defence force Industrial Association, to spend more on military hardware. Pentagon contractor-funded American think tanks such as the Lexington Institute and the Atlantic Quango have as well demanded increased spending in view of the perceived Russian threat.[28] [29] Independent Western observers such as William Huntzberger, director of the Artillery & Security Project at the Center for International Policy, noted that "Russian saber-rattling has boosted benefits for weapons makers because it has become a standard part of the argument for higher Pentagon spending—even though the Pentagon already has more than plenty money to address any actual threat to the Usa."[28] [30]

Eras [edit]

Some sources divide the history of the armed forces–industrial complex into three distinct eras.[31]

Get-go era [edit]

From 1797 to 1941, the government only relied on civilian industries while the land was really at war. The regime owned their own shipyards and weapons manufacturing facilities which they relied on through World War I. With World War Two came a massive shift in the way that the American regime armed the military.

With the onset of World War 2 President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the War Production Board to coordinate civilian industries and shift them into wartime product. Throughout Earth State of war Two arms production in the Usa went from around one percent of the annual Gross domestic product to 40 percent of the GDP.[31] Various American companies, such equally Boeing and General Motors, maintained and expanded their defense divisions.[31] These companies take gone on to develop diverse technologies that have improved noncombatant life likewise, such as night-vision goggles and GPS.[31]

Second era [edit]

The second era is identified as beginning with the coining of the term by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. This era connected through the Cold State of war menses, upward to the end of the Warsaw Pact and the plummet of the Soviet Union. A 1965 article written past Marc Pilisuk and Thomas Hayden says benefits of the Military Industrial Circuitous of the United States include the advocacy of the civilian engineering science market equally civilian companies do good from innovations from the MIC and vice versa.[32] In 1993 the Pentagon urged defense contractors to consolidate due to the plummet of communism and shrinking defense upkeep.[31]

Third (current) era [edit]

In the third era, defence contractors either consolidated or shifted their focus to noncombatant innovation. From 1992 to 1997 there was a total of U.s.a.$55 billion worth of mergers in the defense industry, with major defense companies purchasing smaller competitors.[31]

A pie chart showing global armed services expenditures by country for 2019, in US$ billions, according to SIPRI

In the current era, the war machine–industrial complex is seen equally a core function of American policy-making. The American domestic economy is at present tied directly to the success of the MIC which has led to concerns of repression as Cold War-era attitudes are still prevalent amongst the American public.[33]

Shifts in values and the plummet of communism have ushered in a new era for the military–industrial circuitous. The Department of Defense works in coordination with traditional armed services–industrial circuitous aligned companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Many old defense contractors have shifted operations to the civilian market and sold off their defence force departments.[31]

Military subsidy theory [edit]

According to the military subsidy theory, the Cold War-era mass production of shipping benefited the civilian aircraft manufacture. The theory asserts that the technologies adult during the Cold War along with the financial bankroll of the military led to the potency of American aviation companies. There is also stiff evidence that the United States federal government intentionally paid a higher price for these innovations to serve as a subsidy for civilian aircraft advocacy.[34]

Current applications [edit]

Share of arms sales past state. Source is provided by SIPRI.[35]

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, full globe spending on armed services expenses in 2018 was $1822 billion. 36% of this full, roughly $649 billion, was spent by the United States.[36] The privatization of the production and invention of military engineering science also leads to a complicated relationship with significant research and evolution of many technologies. In 2011, the United States spent more (in absolute numbers) on its military machine than the next thirteen countries combined.[37]

The armed services budget of the U.s. for the 2009 financial year was $515.iv billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion.[38] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget. Overall the U.S. federal government is spending almost $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes.[39]

In a 2012 story, Salon reported, "Despite a decline in global arms sales in 2010 due to recessionary pressures, the U.s. increased its market share, accounting for a whopping 53 percent of the merchandise that twelvemonth. Last year saw the United States on step to deliver more $46 billion in foreign artillery sales."[twoscore] The defense force industry too tends to contribute heavily to incumbent members of Congress.[41]

Similar concepts [edit]

A thesis similar to the military–industrial circuitous was originally expressed past Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business concern, about the fascist authorities ties to heavy industry. It can be divers equally, "an breezy and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and cloth interests in the continuous evolution and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs."[42] An exhibit of the trend was made in Franz Leopold Neumann'due south volume Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942, a study of how Nazism came into a position of power in a democratic state.

Within decades of its inception, the idea of the military–industrial complex gave rise to other similar industrial complexes, including the fauna–industrial circuitous, prison–industrial complex, pharmaceutical–industrial circuitous, entertainment-industrial complex, and medical–industrial complex.[43] : ix–xxv Almost all institutions in sectors ranging from agriculture, medicine, entertainment, and media, to instruction, criminal justice, security, and transportation, began reconceiving and reconstructing in accord with capitalist, industrial, and bureaucratic models with the aim of realizing profit, growth, and other imperatives. According to Steven Best, all these systems interrelate and reinforce one some other.[43]

The concept of the armed forces–industrial complex has been expanded to include the entertainment and creative industries too. For an example in do, Matthew Brummer describes Nihon'due south Manga Armed services and how the Ministry of Defense uses pop culture and the moe that it engenders to shape domestic and international perceptions.[44]

An culling term to describe the interdependence between the military-industrial complex and the entertainment manufacture is coined by James Der Derian equally "Military-Industrial-Media-Amusement-Network". [45]

Meet as well [edit]

From the National Archives

  • List of defence contractors
  • Listing of countries by military expenditures
  • Top 100 Contractors of the U.Due south. federal government
  • Animal–industrial complex
  • Corporate statism
  • Erik Prince and Academi (formerly Blackwater)
  • Regime contractor
  • Militarism
  • Military budget
  • Military-entertainment complex
  • Military–industrial–media complex
  • Military machine-digital complex
  • Military Keynesianism
  • National security land
  • Pol-media circuitous
  • Prison–industrial circuitous
  • Private military visitor
  • Project for the New American Century
  • Ukraine'southward industrial circuitous
  • Rosoboronexport
  • Upward Screw
  • War profiteering
Literature and media
  • War Is a Noise (1935 book by Smedley Butler)
  • The Power Elite (1956 volume by C. Wright Mills)
  • Why We Fight (2005 documentary pic by Eugene Jarecki)
  • War Fabricated Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Decease (2007 documentary film)
  • The Complex: How the Military machine Invades Our Everyday Lives (2008 book by Nick Turse)

References [edit]

Citations [edit]

  1. ^ "military industrial circuitous". American Heritage Lexicon. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2015. Archived from the original on March half-dozen, 2016. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  2. ^ "definition of military-industrial complex (American English language)". OxfordDictionaries.com. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  3. ^ "Definition of Military–industrial complex". Merriam-Webster . Retrieved March iii, 2016.
  4. ^ Roland, Alex (2009). "The Armed forces-Industrial Complex: foyer and trope". In Bacevich, Andrew J. (ed.). The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World State of war II. Columbia University Press. pp. 335–370. ISBN978-0231131599.
  5. ^ "What is the Military machine-Industrial Complex?". Retrieved February 5, 2017.
  6. ^ "Ike'due south Warning Of Armed services Expansion, 50 Years Subsequently". NPR. January 17, 2011. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  7. ^ "SIPRI Year Book 2008; Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security" Oxford University Press 2008 ISBN 978-0199548958
  8. ^ "The Military–Industrial Complex; The Goodbye Address of Presidente Eisenhower" Basements publications 2006 ISBN 0976642395
  9. ^ Held, David; McGrew, Anthony G.; Goldblatt, David (1999). "The expanding reach of organized violence". In Perraton, Jonathan (ed.). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford University Press. p. 108. ISBN978-0804736275.
  10. ^ Higgs, Robert (2006). Depression, War, and Cold War : Studies in Political Economy: Studies in Political Economy . Oxford University Press. pp. ix, 138. ISBN978-0195346084 . Retrieved March iii, 2016.
  11. ^ "Long-term Historical Reflection on the Rise of Armed services-Industrial, Managerial Statism or "Military-Industrial Complexes"". Kimball Files. University of Oregon. Retrieved June 21, 2014.
  12. ^ "President Dwight Eisenhower Farewell Address". C-Bridge. January 17, 1961.
  13. ^ John Milburn (December 10, 2010). "Papers shed calorie-free on Eisenhower's good day address". Associated Press. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  14. ^ a b c Ledbetter, James (Jan 25, 2011). "Guest Postal service: 50 Years of the "Military–Industrial Circuitous"". Schott'south Vocab. New York Times. Retrieved January 25, 2011.
  15. ^ Brinkley, Douglas (September 2001). "Eisenhower; His farewell spoken communication as President inaugurated the spirit of the 1960s". American Heritage. 52 (6). Archived from the original on March 23, 2006. Retrieved January 25, 2011.
  16. ^ Giroux, Henry (June 2007). "The University in Chains: Confronting the Military–Industrial–Bookish Complex". Paradigm Publishers. Archived from the original on August 20, 2007. Retrieved May 16, 2011.
  17. ^ Griffin, Charles "New Light on Eisenhower's Farewell Address," in Presidential Studies Quarterly 22 (Summer 1992): 469–479
  18. ^ "Pinnacle 100 | Defense News, News about defence programs, business, and technology".
  19. ^ Riefler, Winfield W. (October 1947). "Our Economic Contribution to Victory". Strange Diplomacy. 26 (one): 90–103. doi:10.2307/20030091. JSTOR 20030091.
  20. ^ Hayek, F. A., (1976) "The Road to Serfdom", London: Routledge, p. 146, note 1
  21. ^ Kennan, George Frost (1997). At a Century's Ending: Reflections 1982–1995. W.W. Norton and Company. p. 118. ISBN978-0393316094.
  22. ^ Kurth 1999. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKurth1999 (help)
  23. ^ Johnson, Chalmers (2004). The sorrows of empire: Militarism, secrecy, and the cease of the republic. New York: Metropolitan Books. p. 39.
  24. ^ Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Armed forces Industry. Ithaca: Cornell Academy Press, 2003.
  25. ^ "War Crimes and Imperial Fantasies, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian". chomsky.info. Archived from the original on September 2, 2004. Retrieved Oct 17, 2007.
  26. ^ In On Ability, Dissent, and Racism: a Series of Discussions with Noam Chomsky, Baraka Productions, 2003.
  27. ^ Thompson Reuters Streetevents, 8 Dec 2015, "L-iii Communications Holding Inc. Investors Conference," p. 3, http://www.l-3com.com/sites/default/files/pdf/investor-pdf/2015_investor_conference_transcript.pdf Archived April nineteen, 2016, at the Wayback Car
  28. ^ a b c The Intercept, 19 August 2016, "U.South. Defense Contractors Tell Investors Russian thread is Dandy for Business," https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/nato-weapons-industry/
  29. ^ U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Military machine, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, eleven May 2016, Testimony of M. Thomas Davis, Senior Fellow, National Defense Industrial Association, "U.S. Industry Perspective on the Department of Defense'due south Policies, Roles and Responsibilities for Foreign Military Sales," http://docs.house.gov/meetings/Every bit/AS06/20160511/104900/HHRG-114-AS06-Bio-DavisT-20160511.pdf
  30. ^ Shindler, Michael (June 22, 2018). "The Military Industrial Complex's Assault on Liberty". The American Conservative. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
  31. ^ a b c d eastward f g Lynn 3, William (2017). "The End of the Military-Industrial Complex". Strange Affairs. 93: 104–110 – via EBSCOhost.
  32. ^ Pilisuk, Marc; Hayden, Thomas (July 1965). "Is There a Military Industrial Complex Which Prevents Peace?: Consensus and Countervailing Power in Pluralistic Systems". Journal of Social Issues. 21 (3): 67–117. doi:x.1111/j.1540-4560.1965.tb00506.x. ISSN 0022-4537.
  33. ^ Moskos, Charles C. Jr. (April 1974). "The Concept of the Military-Industrial Complex: Radical Critique or Liberal Bogey?". Social Problems. 21 (iv): 498–512. doi:10.1525/sp.1974.21.iv.03a00040. ISSN 0037-7791.
  34. ^ Gholz, E. (Jan 6, 2011). "Eisenhower versus the Spin-off Story: Did the Rise of the Military machine-Industrial Complex Hurt or Help America'southward Commercial Aircraft Industry?". Enterprise and Gild. 12 (1): 46–95. doi:10.1093/es/khq134. ISSN 1467-2227.
  35. ^ "Arms production | SIPRI".
  36. ^ Trends in World Military Expenditure Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
  37. ^ Plumer, Brad (January seven, 2013), "America's staggering defence force upkeep, in charts", The Washington Post
  38. ^ Gpoaccess.gov Archived 2012-01-07 at the Wayback Machine
  39. ^ Robert Higgs. "The Trillion-Dollar Defence force Budget Is Already Hither". Retrieved March 15, 2007.
  40. ^ "America, artillery-dealer to the earth," Salon, January 24, 2012.
  41. ^ Jen DiMascio. "Defense goes all-in for incumbents - Jen DiMascio". Politician.
  42. ^ Pursell, C. (1972). The military–industrial complex. Harper & Row Publishers, New York, New York.
  43. ^ a b Steven Best; Richard Kahn; Anthony J. Nocella 2; Peter McLaren, eds. (2011). "Introduction: Pathologies of Power and the Ascent of the Global Industrial Complex". The Global Industrial Circuitous: Systems of Domination. Rowman & Littlefield. p. sixteen. ISBN978-0739136980.
  44. ^ Diplomat, Matthew Brummer, The. "Nihon: The Manga Military". The Diplomat . Retrieved Jan 22, 2016.
  45. ^ "Virtuous War: Mapping the Armed forces-Industrial-Media-Entertainment-Network". Routledge & CRC Press . Retrieved July 12, 2021.

Sources [edit]

  • DeGroot, Gerard J. Blighty: British Society in the Era of the Great State of war, 144, London & New York: Longman, 1996, ISBN 0582061385
  • Eisenhower, Dwight D. Public Papers of the Presidents, 1035–1040. 1960.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Eisenhower, Dwight D. "Farewell Address." In The Register of America. Vol. 18. 1961–1968: The Burdens of Earth Power, one–five. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 1968.
  • Eisenhower, Dwight D. President Eisenhower'south Farewell Address, Wikisource.
  • Hartung, William D. "Eisenhower'south Warning: The Military–Industrial Complex Forty Years Later." World Policy Journal eighteen, no. i (Spring 2001).
  • Johnson, Chalmers The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Commonwealth, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004[ ISBN missing ]
  • Kurth, James. "Military–Industrial Complex." In The Oxford Companion to American Military History, ed. John Whiteclay Chambers II, 440–442. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Nelson, Lars-Erik. "Military machine–Industrial Man." In New York Review of Books 47, no. xx (December. 21, 2000): 6.
  • Nieburg, H. L. In the Proper name of Scientific discipline, Quadrangle Books, 1970[ ISBN missing ]
  • Mills, C. Wright."Power Elite", New York, 1956[ ISBN missing ]

Farther reading [edit]

  • Adams, Gordon, The Iron Triangle: The Politics of Defense Contracting, 1981.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Andreas, Joel, Addicted to War: Why the U.Due south. Tin't Kick Militarism, ISBN 1904859011.
  • Cochran, Thomas B., William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, Milton 1000. Hoenig, U.Southward. Nuclear Warhead Product Harper and Row, 1987, ISBN 0887301258
  • Cockburn, Andrew, "The Armed services-Industrial Virus: How swollen budgets gut our defenses", Harper'due south Magazine, vol. 338, no. 2029 (June 2019), pp. 61–67. "The armed services-industrial complex could exist said to be concerned, exclusively, with cocky-preservation and expansion.... The defence upkeep is not propelled by foreign wars. The wars are a consequence of the quest for bigger budgets."
  • Cockburn, Andrew, "Why America Goes to War: Money drives the US military machine motorcar", The Nation, vol. 313, no. half dozen (20–27 September 2021), pp. 24–27.
  • Colby, Gerard, DuPont Dynasty, New York, Lyle Stuart, 1984.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Friedman, George and Meredith, The Future of War: Ability, Technology and American World Dominance in the 21st Century, Crown, 1996, ISBN 051770403X
  • Hossein-Zadeh, Ismael, The Political Economy of US Militarism. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Keller, William Due west., Arm in Arm: The Political Economy of the Global Arms Trade. New York: Basic Books, 1995.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Kelly, Brian, Adventures in Porkland: How Washington Wastes Your Money and Why They Won't Cease, Villard, 1992, ISBN 0679406565
  • Lassman, Thomas C. "Putting the Armed forces Back into the History of the Armed forces-Industrial Complex: The Management of Technological Innovation in the U.S. Ground forces, 1945–1960," Isis (2015) 106#1 pp. 94–120 in JSTOR
  • Mathews, Jessica T., "America'due south Indefensible Defense Upkeep", The New York Review of Books, vol. LXVI, no. 12 (eighteen July 2019), pp. 23–24. "For many years, the United states of america has increasingly relied on war machine forcefulness to accomplish its foreign policy aims.... We are [...] allocating too large a portion of the federal budget to defence force as compared to domestic needs [...] accumulating also much federal debt, and nevertheless not acquiring a forward-looking, twenty-first-century war machine built effectually new cyber and space technologies." (p. 24.)
  • McCartney, James and Molly Sinclair McCartney, America's Military machine: Vested Interests, Endless Conflictsouth. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2015.[ ISBN missing ]
  • McDougall, Walter A., ...The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Infinite Age, Bones Books, 1985, (Pulitzer Prize for History) ISBN 0801857481
  • Melman, Seymour, Pentagon Commercialism: The Political Economy of War, McGraw Loma, 1970[ ISBN missing ]
  • Melman, Seymour, (ed.) The War Economy of the United States: Readings in Military Manufacture and Economy, New York: St. Martin's Printing, 1971.
  • Mills, C Wright, The Power Elite. New York, 1956.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Mollenhoff, Clark R., The Pentagon: Politics, Profits and Plunder. New York: Chiliad.P. Putnam's Sons, 1967[ ISBN missing ]
  • Patterson, Walter C., The Plutonium Business and the Spread of the Bomb, Sierra Club, 1984, ISBN 0871568373
  • Pasztor, Andy, When the Pentagon Was for Auction: Inside America'due south Biggest Defense Scandal, Scribner, 1995, ISBN 068419516X
  • Pierre, Andrew J., The Global Politics of Arms Sales. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Printing, 1982.
  • Preble, Christoper (2008). "Military-Industrial Complex". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Cato Institute. pp. 328–329. ISBN978-1412965804.
  • Sampson, Anthony, The Arms Bazaar: From Lebanon to Lockheed. New York: Bantam Books, 1977.[ ISBN missing ]
  • St. Clair, Jeffery, Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Corruption and Profiteering in the War on Terror. Common Courage Press, 2005.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Sweetman, Bill, "In search of the Pentagon's billion dollar hidden budgets – how the Us keeps its R&D spending under wraps", from Jane's International Defense Review, online
  • Thorpe, Rebecca U. The American Warfare State: The Domestic Politics of Military Spending. Chicago: University of Chicago Printing, 2014.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Watry, David Chiliad., Diplomacy at the Brink, Eisenhower, Churchill, and Eden in the Cold War, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Land University Press, 2014.[ ISBN missing ]
  • Weinberger, Sharon, Imaginary Weapons, New York: Nation Books, 2006.[ ISBN missing ]

External links [edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

  • Khaki capitalism, The Economist, December iii, 2011
  • Militaryindustrialcomplex.com, Features running daily, weekly and monthly defense spending totals plus Contract Archives department.
  • C. Wright Mills, Structure of Power in American Club, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 9. No. one 1958
  • Dwight David Eisenhower, Goodbye Address On the armed forces–industrial complex and the government–universities collusion – January 17, 1961
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower, Cheerio Address Equally delivered transcript and complete audio from AmericanRhetoric.com
  • William McGaffin and Erwin Knoll, The military–industrial complex, An analysis of the phenomenon written in 1969
  • The Cost of War & Today'due south Military Industrial Circuitous, National Public Radio, January eight, 2003.
  • Human Rights Start; Private Security Contractors at War: Ending the Culture of Impunity (2008)
  • Fifty Years After Eisenhower's Farewell Address, A Expect at the Military–Industrial Circuitous – video written report past Democracy Now!
  • Online documents, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library
  • 50th Anniversary of Eisenhower's Bye Accost – Eisenhower Institute
  • Part ane – Anniversary Discussion of Eisenhower's Adieu Address – Gettysburg College
  • Part 2 – Anniversary Word of Eisenhower'southward Bye Address – Gettysburg College

African American Mutual Aid Societies,

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex

Posted by: scottwhounces1938.blogspot.com

0 Response to "African American Mutual Aid Societies"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel