Scientific issues of military expenditures
The defence now lies at the forefront of professional electronics customers. As a result, the electronics became one of essential parts of what is called the military-industrial complex
The term appeared for the first time on January 29, 1961, in a speech to a military General Eisenhower formally. The President of the United States speaking to the American nation, warned the improper influence of military-industrial complex that could endanger the freedoms and methods democratic. The concept of military-industrial complex can be defined as a real system in isolation in which operates a network of multiple relationships between the military administration and large arms firms who live the appropriations granted by the defence.
Organized in lobbies, these complexes are calling officers generals, government officials, even former Ministers, who play their relations in the administration, they also know perfectly the workings for the benefit of enterprises employing them. The system is known for a long time. It grows to systematic increase necessary for the functioning of the armaments industries defence credits. The military-industrial complexes extend their influence beyond the borders of the country in which they fit, creating a sub assemblies in countries of the third world in a situation of buy them weapons: américano-saoudien complex complex anglo-ro, complex franco-irakien in the mid-1970s. But this type of structure is not an American specificity. She has known a remarkable growth in the Soviet system, and it is found, to a lesser extent in France, of the General delegation for armaments.
The country of liberal capitalism, in the heart of what was yesterday still Communist model military invaded whole swaths of the economy. The two countries have in common developed a research and technological development policy primarily designed for military purposes, the difference being the structure of the means of production and on the effectiveness and productivity.
The France is may be the only developed a defence industry which can be likened to a military-industrial complex. This choice, due to General de Gaulle, who wished to have free rein armaments, conducts nuclear ambitions of the country. It y'a tent years, he was out of the question of support which was to create a deterrent force. Technical and industrial means therefore was established to develop strategic oceanic force with all that this entails: RADs powder, guidance system, ranges, submarines, nuclear, etc.
On average, research and development budget expenditures represent overall 30 per cent of military equipment expenditure. France, military research and development effort is equal to one-third of government research and development effort. French industry as a whole is not sufficiently involved in the national effort to research and development (45 % , against more than 60 % for the United States and the Germany Japan national research and development activities across) and State while exercising decisive influence, especially in the military sector. Annual licensing deposits are Japan, 160000 Germany 30000 and only 12000 in France. Importance of military research and development is perhaps a partial explanation of this situation. Research and development military private was very low in 1975 (less than 20 % ) has grown to represent 60 % , the effort of some companies. This was true when international markets smiled to the French. Now this is normality comparable to what existed in 1975. It should be noted that the Germany and the Japan have not followed this type of economic policy for three reasons, namely their strategic dependence on the United States, protection was ensured almost free of balances from the cold war and the willingness to put in place a real economic power. As a military research-development of the Germany and the Japan expenditures have for several decades represented less than 10 % budgets public totals.
For Headquarters, research and development of the defence is the cornerstone of military superiority. Also, industrial States have tended to spend a very important part of their public funding of research to the defence. Unlike the civil research funding, research-defence work is done primarily in the industrial sector. For companies, this represents 70 % public funding received from the research. New technology-oriented companies have as first client Department of Defense, even if funds do not uniformly touch all industrial activities. In the United States, large firms have exercised a significant role in the choice of military technology, with often little discernment.
Similarly, transfers between military and civilian technologies require an adaptation of priorities. The big difference between two forms of research is based on the concepts necessary to any form of sophisticated defence technological quality and mandatory profitability for any economic activity calendar. In a market economy, technology has no interest in itself, is a media development company and an advantage in the competition she engages with other economic forces. More or less long term profit remains the main criterion of success. In contrast, research and development military, generally very capital-intensive, a vocation to build instruments likely to deter threats or hitting the opponent in the best conditions. It involves both measures of secrecy and a normal profitability criteria markets quasi-omission. Military technology is a fundamental asset in the strategy and tactics to threats from armed conflicts. In those circumstances, the cost loses the fundamental role which it exercises in competitive world.
Even if certain activities provide equivalent services (helicopters; computer) in the two sectors at different rationales dual activities often benefited in the military, including longer term contracts sector less disputed by conditions have attracted anxious firms both safety and cost effectiveness. Military products are more expensive, more specialized, more efficient, but they are also less based on economic considerations.
Of research and development, the United States rake, while the France was forced to better leverage its investment in trying to find better research pathways to achieve budget impasses that submit does not due its technological competitiveness. Too convinced of the effectiveness of the technological military, the France Moreover did not always very well return its investments in research, and the existence of the secret does not always allowed him a rapid diffusion of technological progress economically satisfactory potential civilian applications.
The effectiveness of military research and development should not be measured by the impact in the short term, as improving national security, international influence, the prestige and the advancement of science are also desirable objectives in the long term. Military secret and excessive search for the creation of new performance led product grandiose creation, segregation in the work and practices of public price weakly binding for accustomed to administrative processes businesses. There are few dual applications to products made directly for military purposes. The secret double confrontational role:
-On the one hand, it prevents the civil sector to spread a new possible adaptable technology to civilian production.
- But on the other hand, by its presence and its salience throughout the research, it encourages the development of "research cluster" on similar themes, opening the protagonists of increased opportunities for contracts, both the military and the civilian sector.
A scientific discovery is generally more of a single application, and it is very difficult to distinguish what is military what is civil. There are three assumptions about the economy of research and development:
Effect eviction assumes appropriations committed in military research and development are at the expense of the civil sector, but in case of disarmament, with the support of relevant political powers, the civil domain will be able to use the skills of the military sector.
Transfer of technology between the civil and military sector require the passage of a technological and strategic priority to economic priority, despite the widening gap is gradually created since 1945. but the military sector prohibits certain technological disclosures and often that a scientific discovery in the military country sector often marked with the seal of secrecy was finally rediscovered in another country, by the civil sector, for an immediate civil application in this case, military research and development has prevented civil produce results of high-tech research and development placing national in a bad situation competitive industry term.
Finally demand pull effect underlines the role of innovative production and market opportunities. Even applied to the military sector, the existence an additional application for research and development promote innovation forces. In this context, if civilian benefits were important, the United States, England and the France should be at the head of civil technologies, given their investments in defence technologies. This is not the case. In contrast, the Japan and Germany diverted a military development effort after the war, focused their attention on civil technologies. At this point that these two countries can now directly enter the military market.
Thus, the military administration and major companies are working together in the military-industrial complex, on the one hand for economic and business reasons, on the other hand for security reasons and branding of the military superiority weapon.
Similar tags: encyclopedia, Military Strategy, History (Story) of the War, Geopolitics, Geostrategy, Geopolitical blog, geopolitical card(map), mapping(cartography), conference, politics(Knol policy), conflicts war, course(price, courses) of geopolitics, sketch world, geopolitical file, employment(use) strategic, stakes of strategy, forum geopolitics, knoll geography, geography Africa, geopolitics America, Asia, china(antique hunting), geopolitics Israel, definition of geopolitics of the chaos, the contemporary, economic world, and geostrategy, United States, Europe, France, international, war and conflict, geopolitical history(story), Iran nuclear, middle east, global issue, go green, geopolitical institute, magazine geostrategic, oil world, magazine(review) of strategy, geopolitical site
