The Military Industrial Complex Conspiracy(?)

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (19 posts)
  1. GA Anderson profile image88
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    This could be just grins and giggles for some and supporting evidence for others.

    Here's the deal. . .

    A credible TED Talk speaker was talking about the Ukraine crisis. At one point he said from the first step of the invasion, when or lose, Putin has changed the world for the worst because nations, after this wake-up call, will begin budgeting more and spending more are their militaries, and that extra money will come at the expense of all our other societal programs; healthcare, etc. etc. that have allowed 3rd worlds to move forward and first worlds, (nations), to excel.

    I think that is a fair statement. But, the thought I had was the amount of money being talked about. Trillions, (all nations combined), and it wasn't a thought about who is losing it, it was about who was getting it.

    Think about it, all those involved European nations, hitting the arms market, the legit ones.

    Dozens of nations with billion-dollar allowances, ringing the phones of the walls, ([i]yeah, that one will date you ;-) ), of all the major arms makers.

    Hmm . .  a windfall from the sky, or an achievement award?


    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      One might also consider the huge gains in medical science and anything in the tech field that comes directly from military spending.  Both benefit hugely from more military spending, and so do the people as those things enter common usage.

      1. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Buzzer sound: Zzzzzzzz! Wrong answer. This is about the MIC's world control. You went in the wrong direction.

        Seven men control the world's armaments industries. They also control the governments of nations. Now they have grabbed the brass keys to the banks.

        It's them I'm tellin' ya.


        1. Ken Burgess profile image75
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Neutral pacifist and non-aligned countries are choosing militarization.

          In Finland recent polling showed a majority of Finns advocating entry into NATO.

          The historically non-aligned country now wants in. “The parliamentary debate followed a decision Monday to send military aid to Ukraine, breaking with a longstanding Finnish policy of not sending weapons to war zones. Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin at a news conference Monday called the decision historic,” -from the WSJ.

          Japan, the only country that was the victim of two military nuclear bomb attacks now discusses hosting American nuclear weapons.

          Poland, Romania, Taiwan, etc. you can bet their military orders will be increasing drastically.

      2. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Wilderness, the pluses you speak of are a mere footnotes when compared with the larger implications, so much money changing hands as an incentive to keep everybody on a war footing. Defense contractors, entire industries based on contrived geopolitical animosities, very much similar to the conditions during the "Cold War".

        Dwight Eisenhower was correct about his 1961 warning regarding the military industrial complex.

    2. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      A very interesting thought to ponder especially since I have no real knowledge of what MIC is other than we as other nations have a defense budget. Jokingly does Russia have an offense budget. I imagine defense contractors will benefit while they do now anyway.

      Being ignorant poking my nose about I found this site Military Industrial Looks like a good intention site as there is not a lot of info there. But, the page linked below is eye opening. It is a list of U.S. Companies that contracted with our DOD 2006 - 2016. Just scrolling was enough for me to be more in awe.

      I plan to look a little more at this topic.

    3. peterstreep profile image79
      peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. For Europe, it's a wake-up call. And surely talks will start to build a European army. Now the UK is out for the European Union this is possible as this country was always against it.
      And now the political climate has changed.
      I can see arms dealers knocking on Europe's door.

      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, if it wasn’t for the UK Government’s veto 10 years ago when the EU Commission made the initial proposal for an EU Army, then the EU may well already have its own Army. 

        Now, after Brexit, and with France making fresh proposals, back by Germany, for an EU Army, then at least it’s back on the Agenda.

        This short video below lays out the issues and problems quite clearly:

        EU Army: Is Europe Planning to Integrate Military Forces:

  2. Nathanville profile image92
    Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

    I found no evidence on the web that the ‘Arms Industry’ is controlled by seven men?  In fact it seems to be more as one would expect e.g. a handful of major countries selling arms to the world.

    The World’s Largest Post-war Arms Exporters being:-

    •    USA
    •    Russia
    •    UK
    •    France
    •    Germany
    •    China
    •    Italy
    •    Czech Republic
    •    Netherlands
    •    Israel
    •    Iran

    And far from the Arms Industries controlling the Governments, it’s the reverse, Governments controlling the Arms Industry; well it least in the UK e.g. the UK Government is implicit in the manufacture and sell of British Arms around the world.

    Arms sales have already increased 20% over the past 10 years, and in the light of current events are likely to increase even further in the coming years; assuming Putin doesn’t carry out his threat and targets the USA and Europe with nuclear weapons.

    But putting all that aside, wilderness is correct in that R&D (Research and Development) in the development of Arms will generate “huge gains in medical science and the tech field”.

    1. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      oh geez Arthur, It was a joke. I told ya'll that in the first sentence, "grins and giggles."

      . . . and then followed that line with my response to Wilderness.

      All good cons start with a kernel of truth and mine was that nations will increase their military spending. The rest is just BS to be played with—like that "seven men" stuff.

      You now have to skip a turn. ;-)


      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, I’ve skipped a turn smile

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Okay, you are back in the game. And since this joke thread took a serious turn, I have a thought about the EU Army thing. I think it would be a terrible and dangerous idea.

          There are so many questions:

          How big would the army be, and where would they be based?
          Who would command the army and who would control its use?
          . . . and dozens more

          But the biggest bad part of the idea is the question raised by the current crisis. What would an EU army be able to do in this Ukraine scenario?

          I am trying to stay out of the sphere of the nuclear devastation claims of the Alarmists, but I am no longer sure that Putin's threat of nuclear force is a bluff. What would an EU army be able to do when faced with that reality?

          I think NATO's `coalition forces', (army), model is the best possible scenario.


          1. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I understand your fears and concerns about the idea/concept of an EU Army; another American I’ve chatted with via on this topic had similar concerns!

            If anything comes of it, what form it would take is uncertain; but there are a few points, in response to questions you raise, that I can perhaps cover with more confidence!

            •    The EU already has a similar arrangement to NATO in respect to ‘defence’ e.g. an ‘attack’ on one EU Member State is an Attack on All EU Member States; just as an attack on one NATO Member is an attack on all NATO members.  So therefore, for example, if Russia was to subsequently invade Sweden (a neutral country that’s not part of NATO), then as Sweden is part of the EU, Russia would be declaring war on the EU.

            •    If there was to an EU Army, it would be organised, and operated in the same manner as NATO is, and would draw upon the same military resources in Europe that NATO has.  In many respects it’s a duplication of NATO, but it would allow Europe to take care of its own defences more, taking some burden off of the USA; with the USA in reserve, if required.

            •    The EU Army wouldn’t be able to do any more than NATO can do in the current Ukraine crisis as Ukraine is NOT part of the EU.

            There is precedence for this in that although the UK used its veto 10 years ago to prevent the EU from creating an EU Army, at the same time the UK formed its own ‘joint’ Anglo-French Army (including air, sea and land) on the same principle e.g. if France or Britain was to be attacked, then both France and Britain would fight together as a single Amy against a common enemy.

            The Combined Joint Expeditionary Force (CJEF) is an Anglo-French military force, and they periodically carry out manoeuvres on Salisbury Plain in England (and elsewhere). 

            Britain & France Show Off Combined Strength On Ex Griffin Strike:

            British & French Air Forces Unite For Exercise Griffin Strike:

            On your final point, in a nuclear war scenario; from what I seen Putin wouldn’t restrict his nuclear weapons just to EU Member States, he’s has a particular distaste for the UK & USA as indicated in some of his recent comments.  And it’s nothing new, the UK has been under constant threat from Russia all my life, as I’ve frequently mentioned over the years in these forums. 

            So if Putin decided to use nuclear weapons against the West we would all be in the same boat e.g. Russian nuclear missiles are just as capable of hitting the USA and UK as anywhere.

            1. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yep, a nuclear confrontation will involve all of The West's nations. We are all "in the same boat."


            2. peterstreep profile image79
              peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks for these points, Nathan.
              For one part I think it makes sense for Europe to have its own army. As to be less dependent on the US.
              That said, it will be another spending bill. Money that perhaps could be better spent on other things.
              Of course, there will be a lot of lobbying, and a huge market for arms sales will open up.
              And so there will be even more arms in the world.  And if you buy a toy you want to use it one day or another...(That's one of the reasons why I'm against private guns sales in general. You buy a machine gun, you want to use it and are going to use it one day. If only to see if it works..)
              Having another big army in the world could make the world a less safer place.
              I can see the benefits of an army though. To unite the European countries even more. And with extreme weather becoming the norm, it would be a good thing to have a professional task force at hand. So I would like to see a task force specialized in humanitarian crises and battling the climate crisis.
              I still praise myself lucky that I'm of an exceptional generation that has never known what war meant.
              The positive side is that looking at the big picture, worldwide fewer wars are fought. (according to Stephen Pinter) The better the state of the economy of the world, the less countries are inclined to make war.
              But climate change could have a big impact on resources and water. refugees leaving their country as it's inhospitable and dry. etc.

              1. Nathanville profile image92
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I concur with what you say peterstreep.  It would make sense for the EU to have its own army, and be less dependent on the USA.

                Yes it would be another spending bill, but only because many European countries who are NATO members don’t pay their full membership anyway e.g. 2% of GDP; and I’m sure that for an EU Army to work properly EU Member States are going to have to step up to the mark and pay their fair share, and not just depend on the USA to make up the difference, as they do now.

                For EU Member States like Poland, Latvia, Romania, Estonia and Greece, all of whom pay more than their required 2% on Defence for NATO membership, it shouldn’t affect them as they already have a healthy defence budget. 

                It’s the other EU Member States that would have to pay more, including France, Germany, Denmark and Belgium, and Spain and Italy, just to mention a few.

                In envisage that any EU Army would be made up of each Member States National Army, and be under the Command of the EU; just as NATO is made of each Member Country’s National Army, which are under the command of NATO; and as I mentioned previously, the Anglo-French Army are British and French Armies who operate under a single Command.

                Below is the latest list of each NATO Member’s share of GDP they spend on Defence:  As a NATO Member each country is expected to invest 2% of their GDP on Defence:-

                •    USA = 3.42%
                •    GREECE     = 2.24%
                •    ESTONIA = 2.13%
                •    UK = 2.13%
                •    ROMANIA = 2.04%
                •    LATVIA    = 2.01%
                •    POLAND = 2.01%
                •    LITHUANIA = 1.98%
                •    TURKEY     = 1.89%
                •    FRANCE     = 1.84%
                •    CROATIA = 1.75%
                •    SLOVAKIA = 1.74%
                •    NORWAY = 1.70%
                •    MONTENEGRO    = 1.65%
                •    BULGARIA = 1.61%
                •    PORTUGAL = 1.41%
                •    GERMANY = 1.36%
                •    DENMARK = 1.35%
                •    NETHERLANDS = 1.35%
                •    CANADA = 1.27%
                •    ALBANIA = 1.26%
                •    ITALY =    1.22%
                •    HUNGARY = 1.21%
                •    CZECH REPUBLIC = 1.19%
                •    SLOVENIA = 1.04%
                •    BELGIUM = 0.93%
                •    SPAIN =    0.92%
                •    LUXEMBOURG = 0.55%

                Yes, having an EU task force that’s specialise in humanitarian crises and battling the climate crisis is something I think an EU Army would be good at; and I think such an EU task force already exists albeit small scale!

                Yes, I did remember right (on doing a google search) it turned out that it was the EU Maritime Force I was thinking of, which I’d seen in the TV news during the 2015 EU immigration crisis:  Also, interestingly that’s just the tip of the iceberg, as provided through the Treaty of European Union the EU currently has 8 different types of military forces, in different partnerships; including the EU Corps.  The EU Corp, established in 1992 consists of about 1,000 troops.

                Further details are given here: - … pean_Union

                And below is an image of the EU’s Military Coat of Arms:-


                1. peterstreep profile image79
                  peterstreepposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Ha, that's interesting. Thanks for googling.
                  I guess, if there's a European army, countries are less willing to pay for the NATO.  it could well be the end of it. NATO almost looks like a European army with the extension of the  UK (sorry..) and the US.
                  As Trump showed that we can't take the US for granted as a partner it would not be a bad idea. Start a new "NATO" and leave the US out of it. (Wasn't this something Trump wanted?) The US on its own with the UK as a partner and Europe on its own.
                  But I don't think the US would like that as it would lose dominance over Euope in many ways.

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I largely agree with you in that historically the USA has been reluctant to get involved in European wars, the USA was three years late for the 1st world war, and two years late for the 2nd world war; something that didn’t go down too well with the British people, and hasn’t been forgotten.

                    And even now, Poland (a NATO Member) wants to give Ukraine its warplanes, and although Britain is giving the thumbs up, America was rather tetchy about the idea yesterday! - And at a time, when “Time is of the Essence”.

                    So now that the EU is becoming a ‘super power’ in its own right, perhaps it’s time for Europe to loosen its ties with the USA and stand on our own two feet; albeit, for world peace and security an EU Army having an Alliance with the USA, with the USA being supportive rather than leading might be a good compromise e.g. the USA joining in any conflict only when formally requested by Europe?

                    Certainly if the USA took less of a lead there would be no excuse for the USA in spending so much on their Defence Budget e.g. 39% of the global spending on defence is by the USA, and only 13% by China (the 2nd largest budget).  Russia is 4th with only 3.1% and the UK 5th with 3% of the world budget on Defence.

           … penditures

  3. MG Singh profile image68
    MG Singhposted 2 years ago

    If one is a student of military history one will understand that whatever army Europe builds it cannot bring security to Europe for the simple reason Europe has no "defense in depth". Most European countries are extremely small and in a conventional war will have a difficult figh,  because of lack of manpower and an aging population because of low birth rate which will be aggravated in the years to come. If they go in for a nuclear exchange the small countries of Europe unlike like USA and Russia will simply cease to exist on the world map. I appreciate the positive approach but in any scenarios, we have studied in the staff College and War College there is no scenario or course of action that can save Europe other than the 'detente' with Russia. So the  EU  must make an accommodation with Russia and China.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)