Another challenge issued by ilsm

History: How the US Grew the Military Industrial Complex.

The size of the US national security (war) machine is not related to threats to the nation nor any reasonable or efficient response to those wildly inflated threats. Threats are overstated and the solution to the fake insecurity is always the most expensive and profitable, neither effective nor efficient. Those are engineering specification terms never used to describe warfare state value.

Good to whittle beaks for profits and keeping the trough filled.

The US DoD outsourced weapons making after WW II. During WW II for profit industries: Chryser, General Motors, Kaiser Aluminum, et al, mobilized for the war effort made military weapons work and mass produced very good quality. Some may conclude that the mobilized private sector took defense firms’ and arsenals’ products to greater heights of quality and efficiency.

After the war the congress, National Security Act of 1947, decided to use private companies for arming a vaguely defined continuous mobilization. A largely unneeded and overly profitable arms establishment grew from the politics and greed.

Instead of being like the commercial companies which produced the weapons that won World War II, these nationall security industries quickly became for profit arsenals not as good as pre war public arsenals but more expensive with profits and enough money to buy congress. In 1961 Eisenhower called it the military industrial complex.

The motive for perpetual mobilization and long war is profit. In the 1940’s the Air Force became the first and subsequently main customer of RandD Inc. We know it as RAND. This think tank is responsible for such concepts as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and other plans to wage nuclear armageddon. Some think their analyses created the bloated military industrial complex. They advocated arming ourselves to the teeth while the Soviets were collapsing economically.

Other think tanks arose in RAND’s image all funded by military industrial complex war profits and all selling the freightfully insecure alternatives of not buying all the unneeded super weapons.

Why does the US have for profit arsenals which are not effective? Short answer is the stuff is as related to security as wooden beaks strapped to the general’s faces.

The think tanks sold the most expensive, unneeded solution and no one asked if any of it is “worth the taxpayers’ dough” because there was a lot of money to be made. The useless war machine took funding from better uses that the poor and meek needed.

Then the “supporters” equate patriotism with militarism, masked by propaganda and war profits funded media blitzes.

Think tanks falsely defining the “strategy and structure” of the warfare state estabishment is one way to keep the trough filled with gold. Building on the services’ “strategic investment objectives” is another.

None of it is worth the taxpayers’ scarce money. But it is good for the military industrial complex, the trough.

Next week I will discuss how the think tanks sell “continuous mobilization” to keep them all whittlin beaks.
Another piece by ilsm