https://www.britannica.com/topic/military-industrial-complex
另请参阅 RCW 关于“肮脏十二人”的研究项目：大规模杀伤性武器的企业合作伙伴
美国总统德怀特·艾森豪威尔在 1961 年的演讲中将“军工联合体 (MIC)”一词带入了二十世纪的词汇表。艾森豪威尔警告说：
在政府委员会中，我们必须防止军工联合体获得不正当的影响力，无论是有意还是无意的。权力错位导致灾难性崛起的可能性是存在的，而且将持续存在。我们绝不能让这种组合的重量危及我们的自由或民主进程。我们不应该把任何事情视为理所当然。只有警觉且知识渊博的公民才能迫使庞大的工业和军事防御机制与我们的和平方法和目标正确结合，以便安全和自由共同繁荣。
MIC 的概念通常用于指立法者、国家武装部队和所谓的“国防”工业（又称战争奸商）之间的政策和货币关系。这些关系包括政治捐款、对武器和战争支出的政治批准、支持官僚机构的游说以及对行业的监督。
国际视角
现代 MIC 源于 19 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代英国、法国和德国的工业革命。交通运输革命（轮船和铁路）使这些国家能够进行长距离动员，促进了“帝国主义时代”。可以说，战争的工业化也加剧了紧张局势。随着第一次世界大战 (WWI) 的开始，释放的军事潜力在欧洲产生了可怕的后果，这是一场在战壕中进行的消耗战，付出了巨大的人道主义和经济代价。
第一次世界大战结束时，大多数国家并未完全复员；相反，技术被更快地融入军事用途。这导致军方与私营公司之间的关系得到加强，包括日本和美国在内的其他国家也建立了中等收入国家。1930 年至 1939 年期间，军费开支翻了一番。
第二次世界大战 (WWII) 期间，GDP 的很大一部分用于战争。1943 年，盟军的 GDP 总额为 2,2230 亿美元（按 1990 年价格计算）。二战对参战国的经济产生了深远的影响，大多数西方国家的公共支出和税收水平都发生了变化。
二战也与先进武器技术的出现同义，尤其是核武器。许多工业化国家的政治精英开始以军事术语来定义国际现实。二战后，军事需求继续影响企业经济，冷战体现了两个超级大国之间无休止的军备竞赛。低强度、非常规冲突时期，被潜在核冲突的持续威胁所笼罩，营造出一种氛围，人们认为需要不断采购军事产品和服务，包括大规模的海军、空军和陆军。目前的美国军工联合体就是在这种环境下诞生的。
政治、军事和经济机构之间这些牢固而看似密不可分的联系，导致 E.P. 汤普森在 1982 年宣称，美国（和苏联）“没有军工联合体；他们就是军工联合体。”根据斯德哥尔摩国际和平研究所 (SIPRI) 的数据，全球军费开支持续增加，美国军方在作战和资金方面都占据主导地位。2011 年的军费总开支为 1.74 万亿美元。
美国现任政府和“国防”工业捐款
“国防”工业往往向现任国会议员提供大量捐款。虽然它不是向政客捐款最多的，但它是政治上最强大的部门之一。该部门包括实验室、大学以及各种武器、航空航天和电子公司。
据响应性政治中心称，在 2008 年竞选周期中，与“国防”部门相关的个人和政治行动委员会向政治候选人和委员会捐款近 2400 万美元，民主党和共和党各占一半。虽然共和党在过去受到青睐，但最终捐款还是会捐给掌权的人。据信，在过去二十年里，该部门共捐款 1.508 亿美元，其中 57% 捐给了共和党候选人。
响应性政治中心表示，国防部门还拥有强大的联邦游说力量，2009 年花费了 1.365 亿美元，低于前一年 1.508 亿美元的高点。2009 年，超过 1,100 名游说者代表
拥有近 400 名客户。过去二十年来，“国防”游说花费的金额和游说者的数量稳步增长。
该行业最大的公司包括洛克希德马丁、波音、通用动力、诺斯罗普格鲁曼和雷神。允许这些公司向政客捐款意味着武器制造商可以获得政府的“国防”合同，这些合同往往利润丰厚。这也意味着他们可以通过瞄准众议院和参议院成员来影响预算，这些成员是负责监督军事和“国防”支出的武装部队和拨款委员会的成员。虽然共和党和民主党都在全国招募代表来保证五角大楼数十亿美元的合同，但纳税人才是全国大型武器制造厂的承保人。许多说客，包括退休军人，利用他们在五角大楼工作期间获得的内部信息来谈判数十亿美元的合同。国防游说者与军方混在一起，以确保不需竞标的合同，这与“安全和自由”的繁荣形成了鲜明对比。
军工联合体对裁军的影响
政治、军事和经济精英的交织是民主的虚伪——如果不是腐败的话。这种投资的交织需要不断扩大的增长才能生存，这不仅从根本上与废除核武器背道而驰，而且是对和平与正义的诅咒。让纳税人承保军事合同和武器制造厂不仅意味着资源被分配到医疗保健、教育和社区基础设施之外，也与废除核武器的目标相矛盾。民间社会必须努力摆脱武器，这将需要继续挑战政治和经济结构。
Military-industrial complex
https://www.britannica.com/topic/military-industrial-complex
Also see RCW’s research project on the Dirty Dozen: corporate partners in mass destruction
US President Dwight D. Eisenhower brought the term military-industrial complex (MIC) into the lexicon of the twentieth century with his 1961 address. Eisenhower warned:
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.The concept of MIC is commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the so-called “defence” industry (aka war profiteers). These relationships include political contributions, political approval for expenditure on weapons and war, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry.
International perspective
Modern MICs rose out of the industrial revolution in Britain, France, and Germany in the 1880s and 1890s. The revolution in transportation (steamships and railroads) made it possible for these nations to make long-distance mobilizations, facilitating the “Age of Imperialism”. Arguably, the industrialization of war also fueled tensions. The military potential that was unleashed had horrible consequences in Europe with the beginning of the World War I (WWI), which was a war of attrition fought in trenches, at great humanitarian and economic cost.
At the end of WWI, the majority of countries did not completely demobilized; instead there was a shift toward faster integration of technology into military usage. This resulted in strengthening relationships between the military and private companies, and the establishment of MICs in other nations, including Japan and the United States (US). The period between 1930 and 1939 military spending doubled.
World War II (WWII) saw large proportions of GDP spent on war. In 1943 the Allied total GDP was 2,223 billion international dollars (in 1990 prices). The impact of WWII was profound for participants’ economies, with changes in the public spending and taxation levels of most Western nations.
WWII is also synonymous with the advent of advanced weapon technologies, especially nuclear weapons. The political elite in many industrialized countries came to define international reality in predominantly military terms. After WWII, military demands continued to influence the corporate economy, with the Cold War embodying a relentless armaments race between the two superpowers. The period of low-intensity, unconventional conflict, overshadowed by the constant threat of a potential nuclear conflict, allowed an atmosphere to be created where there was a perceived need for constant procurement of military goods and services including large naval, air, and land forces. It was from this environment that the current US MIC was born.
These robust and seemingly inextricable ties between the political, military, and economic establishments led E.P. Thompson to declare in 1982 that the United States (and the Soviet Union) “do not have military-industrial complexes; they are such complexes.” According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) a continuous increase in military spending continues worldwide, with the US military dominating both operationally and monetarily. The total military expenditure in 2011 was 1.74 trillion USD.
American incumbents and “defence” industry donations
The “defence” industry tends to contribute heavily to incumbent members of Congress. While it is not the highest contributor of money to politicians, it is one of the most politically powerful. The sector includes laboratories, universities, and various weapon, aerospace, and electronics companies.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, individuals and political action committees associated with the “defence” sector contributed nearly $24 million to political candidates and committees during the 2008 campaign cycle, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. While Republicans have been favoured in the past, ultimately contributions are made to whoever is in power. It is believed that during the last two decades, the sector has contributed a total of US$150.8 million, with 57 percent going to Republican candidates.
The Center for Responsive Politics states that the defense sector also has a formidable federal lobbying presence, having spent US136.5 million in 2009, down from a high of US$150.8 million the previous year. In 2009, more than 1,100 lobbyists represented nearly 400 clients. The amount spent on “defence” lobbying and the number of lobbyists has steadily increased during the last two decades.
The sector’s biggest companies include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. Allowing these companies to make donations to politicians means that the weapons manufacturers can secure government “defence” contracts, which are often lucrative. It also means they influence the budget by targeting House and Senate members who sit on the armed forces and appropriations committees overseeing military and “defence” spending. While both Republicans and Democrats recruit reps across the country to guarantee the Pentagon’s billion dollar contracts, it is the taxpayer that underwrites the large weapon manufacturing plants across the country. Many lobbyists, retired service men and women, negotiate billion dollar contracts using insider information they obtained while employed at the Pentagon. The muddy world where defense lobbyists mingle with the military to secure no-bid contracts is in contrast to the prospering of “security and liberty”.
Implications of the MIC for disarmament
The intertwining of the political, military, and economic elite is democratically hypocritical – if not corrupt. This intertwining of investments, which requires always-expanding growth to survive, is not only fundamentally at odds with abolition, but is an anathema to peace and justice. Having taxpayers underwrite military contracts and weapon manufacturing plants not only means that resources are allocated away from healthcare, education and community infrastructure, it also contradictory to the goal of abolition. Civil society must endeavor to getting rid of the weapons, which will require continued challenging of political and economic structures.
