Talk:Military-industrial complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Military-industrial complex, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale
This page is listed on the bounty board

Quadell has pledged to make a donation of $20 to the Wikimedia Foundation when this page is improved to featured article status.
This page is listed on the bounty board

Steve Latinner has pledged to make a donation of $5 to the Wikimedia Foundation when this page is improved to featured article status.

This line: "it is difficult to estimate the degree of dependence of the U.S. economy on its military and defense spending, but it is clearly enormous," is wrong. It reflects thinking from the 1960s, when defense spending was much larger. Even then, it was a questionable assertion. It is possible to measure the 'dependence of the US economy. Spending on defense acquisitions and research is equal to 1.2% of the GDP. This is neither enormous nor dependence. You could equally ask if the US economy would be better off if it wasn't paying all this for defense.66.44.54.4 13:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Slightly odd it's a '61 speech but attributed here to a '60 document. Coulda been written in '60 of course.

The text of Eisenhower's speech doesn't match with the audio of the speech. Listen to it. First he skips straight from "in the interests of world peace and human betterment" to "Crises there will continue to be," skipping a few whole paragraphs in between. This jumping around happens several times throughout the speech. What's going on there? Mr. Billion 07:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After listening to and reading it again, I guess it was probably just to cut down on the size and length of the audio file. Although that's sort of crappy, since they cut him off in mid-sentence at one point. There's a full-length version out there, but it's too choppy, unfortunately. Mr. Billion 06:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's no need to add other paragraphs of the speech to explain the context for the term. The intro contextualises it quite well. Eisenhower was quite clear that the need for arms sprang up quickly but that the rapid growth should be kept in check but the intro actually does say this.Dr Zen 07:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Usually, yes, although I think that it is vital to explain Ike's view given that it was Ike's term or more likely his speech-writer Malcolm Moos, also a conservative. It helps us understand how while he coined the term he was probably a little surprised at being so frequently quoted by the peace movement. In fact the speechwriter went on to run a college at the time of the Vietnam protests. Strange planet we inhabit... Salazar 12:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"but it is said that Eisenhower chose to strike the word congressional"
Said by whom? Juicy 02:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Juicycat: footnote attributes this to Lars Erik-Nelson, "Military-Industrial Man.", according to

http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/hartung01.html "Eisenhower's Warning: The Military-Industrial Complex Forty Years Later", William D. Hartung, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, ARTICLE: Volume XVIII, No 1, SPRING 2001. I don't have access to either, but perhaps someone else can get this --ArtDent 03:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

THere was a typo in your url. I just fixed it. GangofOne 03:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] what's with the blanks at the beginning of a few of the source listings?

I have tried to add a section with further documentation of the military-industrial complex and said in editing the article that the section would be updated once I received approval from Joel Andreas the auther of Addicted to War: Why the U.S. Can't Kick Militarism. I have received permission from Joel Andreas to quote his work and reference his work, however, my contribution to the article has been deleted. I realize that the information that I am trying to convey may challenge people, but, I believe it is in everyone's best interest that the full truth be out there. If someone has a problem with the truth about this topic, I recommend that you go to another site. I consider the act of deleting my entry equivalent to spreading dissinformation.--DC Peaches 05:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (June 27, 2006)

(know enough about citing sources but I don't know why the blanks are there, so I'm not the one to fix it. anyone concerned please let me know if I can help. thanks, dzznologic2 17:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article now exists in Czech

Can anyone add the link to the czech version please?

[edit] Audio/Video?

Forgive me if there's a link in the article, but can anyone point me to a link for audio or video of Eisenhower's speech?—thegreentrilby 17:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a link at MSU web page: http://vvl.lib.msu.edu/record.cfm?recordid=2855

I have it on YouTube. Two parts - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pWAGgLSCSQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oACur8v1188

[edit] Perspective

This page needs a change in scope. Right now it's focused entirely on recent years and entirely on the United States, and that's too narrow on both counts. The military-industrial complex did not originate in the United States, nor is it the only country that has one. And just as importantly, the symbiosis of industry and military began long before Eisenhower coined a term for it. It was "new in the American experience", as Eisenhower put it, but it wasn't new in human experience.

I'll make a first attempt to add some context. Isomorphic 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. The European context certaintly has to be expanded since the economies of continental Europe have long been established along corporatist foundations (the co-ordinated market economy); meaning close relationships between governments, business and society. Furthermore, Europe does have an artisan manufacturing culture - MIC at a micro-level. Htra0497 04:15, 24 October 2006 (AET)

[edit] “Origin of the Term” contradicts itself

“The first public use of the term was by the Union of Democratic Control, formed by Sir Charles Trevelyan in the United Kingdom on 5 August 1914. --- “Although the term was originally coined to describe U.S. circumstances,…” A slight clarification on the latter point is needed. Changing “coined to describe” to “made popular as a description of” or similar, perhaps? -Ahruman 14:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I've shortened the paragraph to a sentence, essentially it was saying the term can be, and has been used outside the 'mainstream' us application. It seemed a clumsy way of trying to saying that.Zaq12wsx 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting comment on revision of the opening paragraph.

-- EXISTING TEXT:

The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to a close and symbiotic relationship among a nation's armed forces, its private industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply material and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for a steady revenue stream.

The term is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As pejorative terms, the "MIC" or the "iron triangle" refer to an institutionalised collusion among defense contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States government (Congress, Executive branch), as a cartel that works against the public interest, and whose motivation is profiteering. The extent and the character of this corruption is a subject of debate.

-- COMMENT: seems biased and ungrounded to me. MIC is an acronym- It is not a pejorative. It is not a collusion. It is not a relationship. The characterization as cartel would require explanation. The "military complex" is a sector of the economy. MAY I SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING REVISED TEXT:

A military-industrial complex (MIC) is composed of a nation's armed forces, its suppliers of weapons systems, supplies and services, and its civil government.

The term "MIC" is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It is sometime used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, and the (Congress and Executive branch). This sector is intrinsically prone to Principal-agent problem, moral hazard, and rent seeking. Cases of political corruption have also surfaced with regularity.

Toddboyle 04:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Toddboyle tboyle@rosehill.net

[edit] Shibboleth

The article says "Reagan cloaked the nation and its national security state in the mantle of the Protestant covenant theology in a way that has become since the 1980s a shibboleth of the Republican Party—and of large parts of the Democratic Party as well."

I apologize for not having an official policy to point to, but I'm under the impression that Wikipedia's goal is to be accessible and informative. I have no idea what a "shibboleth" is, and while I'm sure that it's a popular word among English professors, I suspect that most people are left in the dark. I believe that large sections of this article would benefit from being rewritten in a more direct, less literary style. ("Cloaked in a mantle of Protestant theology" is too difficult to decipher if you're trying to quickly absorb an encyclopedic fact.)

Comrade4·2 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. My first school language (and thus the first language I learned to read and write) was English, and I learned it in the US. I recited "Four score and seven years ago" by the age of five, and even though I have lived in Europe for most of my life, I keep in touch with my sister, aunt and cousins in the US. I read news about US politics in English every week, and at least 2-3 books about the US society every year (usually more), those also in English. Despite of all this I can not understand the paragraph which contains the word "shibboleth" - in my honest opinion that paragraph is not encyclopedic English. Can someone please fix the language - and while you are at it, a few cited sources would not hurt, either. Yours, rather exasperated (because this is an article about an important concept, and should therefore be easy to understand) --Ronja 12:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed that sentence; it was POV or at least original research. I also commented out the rest of the paragraph, since it is also vaguely OR. Benandorsqueaks (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)