Military–industrial complex

The expression military–industrial complex (MIC) describes the relationship between a country's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy.^[1][2][3][4] A driving factor behind the relationship between the military and the defense-minded corporations is that both sides benefit—one side from obtaining weapons, and the other from being paid to supply them.^[5] The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the armed forces of the United States, where the relationship is most prevalent due to close links among defense contractors, the Pentagon, and politicians.^[6][7] The expression gained popularity after a warning of the relationship's detrimental effects, in the farewell address of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961.^[8][9]

Conceptually, it is closely related to the ideas of the iron triangle in the U.S. (the three-sided relationship between Congress, the executive branch bureaucracy, and interest groups) and the defense industrial base (the network of organizations, facilities, and resources that supplies governments with defense-related goods and services).^[10][11]

Etymology

In his farewell address, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned U.S. citizens about the "military–industrial complex".

Eisenhower's farewell address, January 17, 1961. The term military–industrial complex is used at 8:16. Length: 15:30

U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower originally coined the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:^[12]

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. 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. [emphasis added]

The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military" in later drafts of Eisenhower's speech, a claim passed on only by oral history.^[13] Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version to appease elected officials.^[14] James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was originally "military–industrial–scientific complex".^[14][15] Henry Giroux claims that it was originally "military–industrial–academic complex".^[16] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.^[17]

The MIC and the Cold War

Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern "military–industrial complex" did exist before 1961, as the underlying phenomenon described by the term is generally agreed to have emerged during or shortly after World War II.^[18] For example, a similar phrase was used in a 1947 Foreign Affairs article in a sense close to that it would later acquire, and sociologist C. Wright Mills contended in his 1956 book The Power Elite that a democratically unaccountable class of military, business, and political leaders with convergent interests exercised the preponderance of power in the contemporary West.^[14][19][18]

Following its coinage in Eisenhower's address, the MIC became a staple of American political and sociological discourse. Many Vietnam War–era activists and polemicists, such as Seymour Melman and Noam Chomsky employed the concept in their criticism of U.S. foreign policy, while other academics and policymakers found it to be a useful analytical framework. Although the MIC was bound up in its origins with the bipolar international environment of the Cold War, some contended that the MIC might endure under different geopolitical conditions (for example, George F. Kennan wrote in 1987 that "were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military–industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented.").^[20] The collapse of the USSR and the resultant decrease in global military spending (the so-called 'peace dividend') did in fact lead to decreases in defense industrial output and consolidation among major arms producers, although global expenditures rose again following the September 11 attacks and the ensuing "War on terror", as well as the more recent increase in geopolitical tensions associated with strategic competition between the United States, Russia, and China.^[21]

Eras

First era

Some sources divide the history of the United States military–industrial complex into three eras.^[22] From 1797 to 1941, the U.S. government only relied on civilian industries while the country was actually at war. The government owned their own shipyards and weapons manufacturing facilities which they relied on through World War I. With World War II came a massive shift in the way that the U.S. government armed the military.

In World War II, the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the War Production Board to coordinate civilian industries and shift them into wartime production. Arms production in the U.S. went from around one percent of annual Gross domestic product (GDP) to 40 percent of GDP.^[22] U.S. companies, such as Boeing and General Motors, maintained and expanded their defense divisions.^[22] These companies have gone on to develop various technologies that have improved civilian life as well, such as night-vision goggles and GPS.^[22]

Second era

The second era is identified as beginning with the coining of the term by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. This era continued through the Cold War period, up to the end of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. A 1965 article written by Marc Pilisuk and Thomas Hayden says benefits of the military–industrial complex of the U.S. include the advancement of the civilian technology market as civilian companies benefit from innovations from the MIC and vice versa.^[23] In 1993, the Pentagon urged defense contractors to consolidate due to the fall of communism and a shrinking defense budget.^[22]

Third era

In the third era, U.S. defense contractors either consolidated or shifted their focus to civilian innovation. From 1992 to 1997 there was a total of US$55 billion worth of mergers in the defense industry, with major defense companies purchasing smaller competitors.^[22] The U.S. domestic economy is now tied to the success of the MIC which has led to concerns of repression as Cold War-era attitudes are still prevalent among the American public.^[24] Shifts in values and the collapse of communism have ushered in a new era for the U.S. military–industrial complex. The Department of Defense works in coordination with traditional military–industrial complex aligned companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Many former defense contractors have shifted operations to the civilian market and sold off their defense departments.^[22] In recent years, traditional defense contracting firms have faced competition from Silicon Valley and other tech companies, like Anduril Industries and Palantir,^[25] over Pentagon contracts. This represents a shift in defense strategy away from the procurement of more armaments and toward an increasing role of technologies like cloud computing and cybersecurity in military affairs.^[26] From 2019 to 2022, venture capital funding for defense technologies doubled.^[27]

Military subsidy theory

According to the military subsidy theory, the Cold War–era mass production of aircraft benefited the U.S. civilian aircraft industry. The theory asserts that the technologies developed during the Cold War along with the financial backing of the military led to the dominance of U.S. aviation companies. There is also strong evidence that the United States federal government intentionally paid a higher price for these innovations to serve as a subsidy for civilian aircraft advancement.^[28]

Current applications

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), total world spending on military expenses in 2022 was $2.240 trillion. 39% of this total, or $837 billion, was spent by the United States. China was the second largest spender, with $292 billion and 13% of the global share.^[29] The privatization of the production and invention of military technology also leads to a complicated relationship with significant research and development of many technologies. In 2011, the United States spent more (in absolute numbers) on its military than the next 13 countries combined.^[30]

The military budget of the United States for the 2009 fiscal year was $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion.^[31] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department's budget. Overall, the U.S. federal government is spending about $1 trillion annually on military-related purposes.^[32]

In a 2012 story, Salon reported, "Despite a decline in global arms sales in 2010 due to recessionary pressures, the United States increased its market share, accounting for a whopping 53 percent of the trade that year. Last year saw the United States on pace to deliver more than $46 billion in foreign arms sales."^[33] The U.S. military and arms industry also tend to contribute heavily to incumbent members of Congress.^[34]

U.S. President Joe Biden signed a record $886 billion defense spending bill into law on December 22, 2023.^[35]

Political geography

The 20 largest US defense contractors as of 2022 ranked by their defense revenue.^[36]

The datagraphic represents the 20 largest US defense contractors based on the amount of their defense revenue. Among these corporations, 53.5% of total revenues are derived from defense, and the median proportion is 63.4%; 6 firms derive over 75% of their revenue from defense. According to the Wikipedia entries for the companies, the headquarters of 11 of these corporations are located in the Washington metropolitan area, of which 5 are in Reston, Virginia.

Other countries

Further information: List of countries with highest military expenditures

Military spending, top 25 countries by % GDP, 2024[37] Country % GDP spent on military Ukraine 34.5 Israel 8.8 Algeria 8.0 Saudi Arabia 7.3 Russia 7.1 Myanmar 6.8 Oman 5.6 Armenia 5.5 Azerbaijan 5.0 Kuwait 4.8 Jordan 4.8 Burkina Faso 4.7 Mali 4.2 Poland 4.2 Burundi 3.8 Brunei 3.6 Morocco 3.5 United States 3.4 Estonia 3.4 Colombia 3.4 Latvia 3.3 Greece 3.1 Lithuania 3.1 Chad 3.0 Kyrgyz Republic 3.0

Military spending, top 25 countries by PPP, 2024[38][39] Country $billions spent on military United States 997 China 555 Russia 412 India 283 Ukraine 188 Germany 97 South Korea 95 Japan 91 France 90 United Kingdom 85 Brazil 69 Poland 61 Italy 60 Türkiye 55 Indonesia 47 Colombia 45 Mexico 40 Spain 39 Australia 31 Canada 31 Netherlands 21 Philippines 21 Romania 21 Greece 17 Malaysia 14

Australia

Australia lacks a close military-industrial relationship.^[40]: 121

Canada

Canada lacks a military-industrial complex: the defense industry is clearly subservient to government rather than the other way around.^[41]: 118

Nazi Germany

The Nazi political leadership dominated both industry and the military, indicating that no military-industrial complex existed in Nazi Germany.^[42]: 76

South Africa (Apartheid-era)

No military-industrial complex existed in Apartheid-era South Africa. Instead, an overwhelming sense of a permanent threat and adoption of a siege mentality led to universal support among politicians for a strong military.^[43]: 194

Soviet Union

The Red Army sought control over Soviet industry in the 1920s during Lenin's reign, but Stalin actively prevented the formation of a military-industrial complex that could have challenged his power.^[44]: 162 He used a divide and rule strategy to prevent collusion between military and industrial factions.^[45]: 3 Although Stalin needed a strong military to defend himself against external threats and used the Soviet military command to execute forced industrialization and the transition to a command economy, he also came to fear military and industrial leaders. The officials who proved to be too independent for his liking were purged. Heavy industry minister Sergo Ordzhonikidze was driven to suicide while prominent general Mikhail Tukhachevsky was killed. New economic and military leaders emerged during WWII who were then humiliated, imprisoned, or killed. Furthermore, Stalin structured incentives so that military and industrial actors gained more from rivalry and cheating one another than from cooperation.^{[46]: 255–256}

While the Soviet Union lacked a military-industrial complex, it was the most militarized large economy the world has ever seen and illustrates the dangers inherent in militarism.^[47]: 1-6 A climate of secrecy and control, rigid centralized allocation of resources, economic isolation from the rest of the world, and unquestioning acceptance of Communist rule were all predicated on national security. The economic and societal costs were in many cases not tracked, or were withheld from civilians. Because these costs were hidden in the Soviet system, but exposed by the transition to a market economy, many Russians blame the new market economy of the Russian Federation for creating these costs in the first place.^{[47]: 1-6 [48]: 130-131}

Sweden

Nationalization of arms production was considered by a special commission in Sweden during the 1930s championed by the liberal and socialist left. Greater weight was given this idea when it was revealed that several Swedish arms makers were controlled by German interests including Landsverk, the country’s only maker of tanks, and Bofors, the largest arms maker in Sweden. Prohibition of foreign ownership of Swedish arms industries and state regulation of these industries were enacted in 1935 in response to the commission’s study, but outright nationalization was rejected. The merchants of death theory achieved prominence again in the 1960s when arms makers were accused of preventing world disarmament.^[49]: 168

Similar concepts

See also: Industrial complex and List of industrial complexes

A thesis similar to the military–industrial complex was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist government ties to heavy industry. It can be defined as, "an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs."^[50]

An exhibit of the trend was made in Franz Leopold Neumann's book 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 the ideas of other similar industrial complexes, including:^{[51]: ix–xxv}

• Animal–industrial complex;
• Prison–industrial complex;
• Pharmaceutical–industrial complex;
• Entertainment-industrial complex;
• Medical–industrial complex;
• Corporate consumption complex.^[52]

Virtually all institutions in sectors ranging from agriculture, medicine, entertainment, and media, to education, criminal justice, security, and transportation, began reconceiving and reconstructing in accordance 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 another.^[51]

The concept of the military–industrial complex has been also expanded to include the entertainment and creative industries as well. For an example in practice, Matthew Brummer describes Japan's Manga Military and how the Ministry of Defense uses popular culture and the moe that it engenders to shape domestic and international perceptions.^[53]

An alternative term to describe the interdependence between the military-industrial complex and the entertainment industry is coined by James Der Derian as "Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment-Network".^[54] Ray McGovern extended this appellation to Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex, MICIMATT.^[55]

Tech–industrial complex

In his 2025 farewell address, outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden warned of a 'tech–industrial complex', stating that "Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation, enabling the abuse of power."^[56] Commentators noted that this statement was made following Elon Musk's upcoming role in the second Donald Trump administration and public overtures towards Trump by technology industry leaders including Meta's Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon's Jeff Bezos, including the dismantling of Facebook's fact-checking program.^[57][58][59]

See also

• Economy portal

Economics of national defense efforts

• List of defense contractors
• List of countries by military expenditures
• Top 100 Contractors of the U.S. federal government
• Corporate statism
• Government contractor
• Marketing of war
• Militarism
• Military budget
• Military-civil fusion
• Military-entertainment complex
• Military–industrial–media complex
• Military-digital complex
• Military Keynesianism
• National security state
• Private military company
• Rosoboronexport
• Upward Spiral
• War profiteering

Literature and media

• The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (2008 book by Nick Turse)
• The Power Elite (1956 book by C. Wright Mills)
• War Is a Racket (1935 book by Smedley Butler)
• War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (2007 documentary film)
• Why We Fight (2005 documentary film by Eugene Jarecki)

Other complexes or axes

• List of industrial complexes

Miscellaneous

• Last Supper (Defense industry)