With the Trump administration preparing to increase the vast US defense budget to more than $1 trillion, it’s the right time to explain how the US arms industry is taking part in the normalized structure of corruption that I call defense racking. The military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned in 1961 was severely wasted, growing and evolved in ways that encouraged armed conflict and undermined national defense. This harmful glyft system is described and provides subject recommendations to end it.
In August of several years, I set out on the financial distribution system of the US Military Industrial Complex (aka BLOB) with the diagram shown below. Eisenhower originally intended to describe it as a complex of military industrial integrators, but this would have a more accurate terminology.
Generally, few people direct the hundreds of millions of flows that the United States spends on defense each year. Senators and representatives of the Congressional Armed Service and Approval Committee are simple targets for lobbyists in defense companies. The arms maker spends around $70 million a year on lobbying in Washington, and will donate gensurely to members of the key committee that manages the defense budget.
The committee staff who advise on defense budget items are flammable by industry lobbyists who are more considerate and skilled in persuasive art. As of 2023, 708 active Washington lobbyists were working for defence companies. Most of these lobbyists pass through the “revolving doors” of military or government work and are familiar with political terrain.
Lobbyists have two goals. Promotes growth in the over-Livense defense budget and advocates employer weapons programs. It’s a huge amount of money. In recent years, the US defense budget has consumed about one-eighth of the federal budget, but about half of the discretionary budget. All discretionary budgets are expenditures that are not legally mandatory and therefore direct spending under Congressional control each year.
If Trump proposed cuts and defense budgets on domestic programs rise to $1 trillion, the US will spend more discretionary budgets on arms and war, pushing defense shares to over 60%.
How is the US defense industry a successful racket? I have already mentioned their strong lobbying capabilities. So let’s look into the sub-arge of their trade.
Threat inflation
Large defense budgets must be justified by threats to the US. If there is no legitimate threat, it is easy to remind you of an imaginary threat. Working with think tanks, media contacts and politicians at Berlikoh, almost all foreign organizations will pose a serious threat to the “interest” of defence lobbyists. At various times, Cuba, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya considered the military threat. For 20 years, Islamic terrorism has been a threat that justified the HGE US military budget. With the revival of the Cold War conflict between Russia and China, we have returned to the true national security threats that have been tested. The costumes will change, but the show will continue.
Gold plated
This is an article about faith in the US defense community where highly complex weapons have risen, rising lower estimated weapons of potential enemies. This bias towards the ambitious application of cutting-edge technology is beneficial for weapons manufacturers as it raises the costs of weapons programs and justifies delays and difficulties in completing projects. The result is a process of overspecifying the weapon’s design in the deployed system, resulting in disappointing results.
An example of this approach is the M7777 Howitzer. This field gun is designed to be highly transportable, with titanium components and other lightweight components incorporating them. On the Ukrainian battlefield, the M777 was sufficient for barrel life, and replacing barrels and other worn areas became a logistical issue. The rare distinction was that B2 stealth bombers cost $2 billion per aircraft, and until 2008 it cost more than gold. Examples of gold clauses are Gerald Ford aircraft carriers, Zumwalt destroyers, and Osprey Tilt-Rotor Transport Aircraft.
B2 stealth bomber – Golden Goose?
Non-competitive
The market magic is not doing any favorable work for US taxpayers as defense companies have integrated into five giants who manage the biggest weapons projects, such as the F35, nuclear submarines, ICBMS and the Patriot missile system.
Morover, a sub for contract bids, has now become single source. The $13 billion contract for exchange was awarded to Northrop Grumman without a competitive bid by the Minuteman ICBM force launched on the ground in the US. What’s not going well?
Deferred bribery
Without an explicit offer, hanging Luerontive’s future employment prospects is not a concrete Bible. A senior US military offer can retire in 20 years and receive a pension of approximately 50% of the military salary. This process will turn the revolving doors, and most of Washington’s defense lobbyists have Milo and government careers. Even retired legislative representatives can lobby employment if they are affecting major funding committees. Therefore, decisions regarding military spending are in the hands of those who stand to benefit from actions that are friendly to potential future employers, and it is all perfectly legal.
Moving goal post
When developing complex and sophisticated weapon systems, there are frequent trading and cost overruns. Defense contractors are rarely punished for failing to meet schedule and cost requirements. Interad, the project timetable will be extended and supplemental funds will be awarded. The F35 Fighter program is more than eight years behind, surpassing the original cost expectations of $165 billion.
Lower the net
Performance specifications allow the program to continue when a big weapons program gets into trouble. All maneuverability, acceleration and combat radius requirements for the F35 were all eased over the course of the program. In recent years, general reductions in weapons testing requirements have also been underway, largely underway to the preferences of defense contractors.
Secret Shield
If no one knows what you’re doing, no one knows that you’re wrong. This saying applies to the US Department of Defense’s “Black Budget” program. Given the failure of the sculpture of publicly accurate defense projects, we can only imagine what the cheating is behind the cape of the programme around the secrets, which is considered too sensitive to disclosure. The Secret Program’s Black budget is well above $50 billion.
What can you do
While the US Congress is unlikely to resist the lobbying power of the defense industry, there are serious measures to take to reduce defense abuse.
Debate is about stopping the elegance of a business for contractors for fraud that undermines the interests of the government. This may be a voice interval or a permanent ban. Criticism is a rarely used legal sanction. An increasing threat of discussion results in a slurred deadline and a dim-down cost overrun.
Blocking revolving doors can easily be effective through the law, allowing for more time required to elapse between government services and termination of employment as a lobbyist. An interval of five or ten years of establishment significantly reduces the negative consequences of rotating door employment.
The Department of Defense audit will improve monitoring of contractor activities and provide valuable management information regarding the lifecycle costs of key weapons programs. Unfortunately, DOD failed to achieve a successful audit. This goal probably won’t hurt until Congress is punished by armed services for failing audits.
Independent design and project reviews can help avoid many failures in weapons development projects by assessing risk better. Contractors working in a tolerant regulatory environment have evil incentives to access program risks if there are no serious consequences of poor performance. Independent reviewers are not subject to such inffluences.
Citizenship is the ultimate remedy for defense racketelling. The selective nationalization of the project was applied for the mass production of reliable and effective traditional weapons, which are considered by defence companies to take on unattractive operations. Management incentives by maintaining misdirected profit incentives and prioritizing on time and within budget
Conclusion
The US defense companies have moderated a huge portion of their annual federal budget, ranging from about half to $1 trillion, through legally approved rachers in the Congressional hall. Apart from the enjoyment of resources from productive domestic uses, the money you spent has not strengthened it, but has produced a series of heavily flawed weapons projects that undermined US national security. Reforms in this area are severely needed. These should include measures to curb the political influence of defense companies, improve the weapons procurement process, and encourage enhanced effective surveillance of defense projects. Until such reforms are implemented, bare capitalism in the US defense industry remains an ugly sight.
