Response for Monday Sept 10th
It was pretty clear from the readings that a big theme in this section is the "military-industrial complex". From what I understand from reading, this is a term used for the huge spending budget of the military in the U.S. My question is why do we spend so much on our military? I feel that is very important for our military to have a big spending budget, but not as big as it is now. According to one chart I looked up, which I believe is the same one from your powerpoint, the U.S. spends about three times as much on its military than the next closest country in 2014. Even if we lower the budget by a third of what it is now, we will still spend twice as much as any other country. We can then distribute that one third into other U.S. departments. And by the way, that one third would be around $200 billion. Another chart showed that the Military spends 54% of all of U.S. spending. What I'm trying to say is can't we still be the world's most powerful military with a slightly lower budget? I don't know what the other departments could use the extra money for but I'm sure they'd find a use for it.
After reading the passages I realized that the "military-industrial complex" is much farther reaching than just the military. Historically the United States has always had a strong armory but as time moved on it started to incorporate into a business and not a necessity. This meshing into a business brought the military industry into politics and economics also. Eisenhower in his 1961 address warned that the industry may become "too powerful and too wasteful" as the book puts it. But has it? The Defense Industry adopted CEOs of major businesses into its workings which, for awhile, turned the industry into a "profiteering" business after WWI. The shift to a corporation came with checks from different commitees who sought out to expose the truths about the overcharging for weapons done by the suppliers. With this exposing came guidelines placed on these producers. However, in the case of McNamara's "total package procurement", a major supplier almost went bankrupt which could of been a huge loss for the military. It seems like before a major war there is a huge increase in military spending (which is commonplace) and after the war there are major cuts and checks on military spending. So to answer my question, I think that some of the increasing and decreasing is just a common practice. Some regulations on suppliers are good and some are bad. But when and how can we find a balance?
ReplyDelete-Riley O'Korn
DeleteI believe lowering the spending budget for the military is not necessary. I understand financial issues are very relevant, especially when discussing the American military. This though is something extremely important in now. Our military is what protects us, gives us our freedom, keeps us safe, and much more. I’m a strong supporter of the United States Military Services as I’m sure many people are who opposed of this rise in financial increase in our budget. So I’m not saying these people who are opposed of it are non-supporters to declare that. Over time, situations change, the world changes, people change, strategies change, ideas, (other) countries, and a clear one is technology. I think what is nice about this budget increase is that it allows our services to adapt and upgrade their ideas, strategies, systems, and etc..
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, that continues to allow our country to experience the success it has found over the creation of it. I take much pride being an American citizen, I see it as a privilege. I believe our country is the best country on this Earth just because that's how I grew up seeing it as. I’ve had numerous family members, friends, and classmates enroll themselves into the military. That might be one reason of my high pride of the country and the military but not completely all of it. To answer a sub question, can this money be used better elsewhere in our country? Essentially, I think it could but right now at this time what our country, government, and society is experiencing; I believe our high budget for the military is more of a safe and healthier idea. - Jaden D
For Wednesday:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter 6 from Cold War Dixie by Kari Frederickson, I found it very interesting that companies, such as Du Pont, had everyone fooled. The military industrial complex had the whole country thinking that industrializing the nation and manufacturing supplies for the war was going to make the country prosper. For example, on page 127, it talks about Du Pont having its own radio station, Cavalcade of America. Du Pont used the radio station to tell stories of individualized courage and achievements that were based on historical events. Another example is Du Pont’s aggressive public relation campaign. On page on 128, the effectiveness of the campaign is demonstrated. In a survey in 1937, less than half of the people who participated held a favorable opinion of the company. 20 years later, after the campaigning, 79 percent of participants favored the company. Du Pont had everyone thinking that the company will guarantee success and prosperity in the region, and this was the same for many other industrial companies around the nation. On page 126, it explains that the companies even left the president powerless. People gave scientists and innovation so much credit, that if President Eisenhower challenged the surge of industrialization across the country, he would just look anti-intellectual. On page 144, this surge is demonstrated through Aiken, a city that used to be an area for tourists, and had progressed to an example of the modern south. Aiken got a bomb plant, Pyle National plants, and had become a city that was the direct result of the industrial military complex. This shift happened so fast, as a result of the Cold War, and the companies that embraced the military industrial complex.