In 1961 President Eisenhower made his famous speech warning about the ‘military industrial complex’ and the relationship between private defence corporations and government. Ever since this speech the topic has attracted much attention from conspiracy theorists and critics with complaints about corporate greed and nation states deliberately creating war for profit, however this is wrong.

The Second World War saw conflict break out on an industrial scale requiring the production and distribution of critical military supplies and munitions in order to support the war effort. The Allies potentially could not have won the war without implementing the production of weapons, ammunition and equipment on a vast industrial scale in order to support their ability to fight and win battles.

The current ongoing war in Ukraine illustrates the need for nation states to possess large amounts of supplies and a steady production of war matériel in order to support its defence. Caught by surprise from the stiff resistance from the Ukrainian military, what was supposed to be a ‘three-day special military operation’ to capture Kyiv has turned into a war of attrition with Russia running desperately low on basic essentials such as small arms ammunition, artillery shells and missiles. The loss of armoured vehicles and tanks to Russia has been so great that the Kremlin has been desperately resorting to resupplying its main battle tank capability from vintage war stocks of T-62’s made in the 1960’s.

Despite the third largest global defence budget (as of 2022), aircraft carriers and fifth generation stealth fighter jets, a recent paper suggests that if the United Kingdom were to be involved in a conflict as intense as the Ukraine-Russian war then it would run out of ammunition before the weekend had even finished. Influenced by the business world the UK has adopted the ‘just in time’ method of holding stock rather than retaining the necessary quantities of material for sustained engagement. Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics, therefore having logistical and factory level scales of production to support a military costs money, and an established defence industry to go with it.

Additionally, since the 2003 Iraq war the use of private military contractors has become much more high profile and widespread. A major benefit of the military industrial complex and utilising PMC’s include a cost effective use of tax payers money. They can be used to fund short term contracts with a clear scope of practice thus reducing long term expenses and freeing up the regular military to conduct their own long-term duties.

Another benefit of the military industrial complex is its usefulness with countering the growing threat that Japan, for example, faces from China. Since the 1990’s China’s military has been conducting a modernisation programme and is strategically shifting from a domestic land-based force to that of a naval and maritime power. Part of this strategy has seen China aggressively challenging Japan with air incursions and maritime clashes around the Japanese owned Senkaku Islands located in the East China Sea. In response to this Japan is putting measures in place to increase its defence budget to 2% of GDP in order to safeguard its security interests with a robust defence policy. The main challenge they face here is building up the domestic Japanese defence industry in order to leverage this increased budget into greater military and defence capabilities, all of which can be facilitated by the military industrial complex.

The military industrial complex isn’t just orientated towards defence, war, and conflict however, but it has also provided technological advances for the civilian sector as well. Capabilities such as radar technology for civilian weather forecasting and air traffic control have all benefited from developments by the military industrial complex. Furthermore, the military industrial complex provides economic prosperity with employment and can contribute towards a nation state’s growth in GDP.
In modern times the two main dominant approaches to international security have been realism and liberalism. The realism theory explores the idea that the world is full of anarchy and views the world as it is, rather than how we wish it to be. Under realism the best option for a nation state to safeguard its security is with the appropriation of power. Liberalism on the other hand has a different perspective on how a nation state should approach its security, focusing instead on cooperation and diplomacy between nation states.

A notable example illustrating how the realism theory in international security helped to prevent war and conflict was during the Cold War. Realism explores the theory that nation states seek to safeguard their security with the appropriation of power, which in this case involved nuclear weapons. Both the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union recognised the consequences of military conflict and how the concept of mutually assured destruction, a key component of the realist approach, would have devastated all parties involved, thus helping to deter open conflict. Realism theory further assisted with arms control agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union allowing both sides to recognise the need for strategic stability and to reduce the risk of accidental conflict.

In an increasingly complex and unstable world, realism is still seen as one of the main options to safeguard the security of a nation state. However, if a nation state wants to pursue the realist option, then this requires logistical and production capability to support this approach. Increased threats from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran illustrates that the trillion-dollar global defence industry isn’t creating ‘war for profit’, but rather money well spent as an insurance policy for investing in the defence of nation states from hostile aggressors.

The military industrial complex provides nation states the necessary military tools and equipment to ensure a competitive edge in order to defend its security interests, as well as logistics and supplies for sustained conflict. The choice is clear, adopt a liberalist approach, which is unlikely to be reciprocated by hostile nation states, or to pursue the realist approach. Therefore, legitimate investment in defence, and partnership with the military industrial complex, is necessary in order to provide an effective deterrence capability whilst safeguarding the security of western liberal democracies.lows us to have a better understanding of the world we live in and helps to identify global security issues and threats. ojects.