Defense Contractors Tell Investors World War III is Great for Business
They see it as a ‘historic opportunity.’
The mainstream media has been working overtime to position Putin’s Russia as our newest and most pressing international threat, and now even the most absurd events in media are linked to Russian interference. The reason why media is working so hard to create the impression that Russia is actively conspiring against is because conflict with the former Soviet Union is good for business.
If you had any remaining doubts that the world is being forced into perpetual military conflict so that a morally corrupt world elite can garner huge profits, then consider recent comments by members of the military industrial complex about the benefits of escalating tensions between Russia and the west.
Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Richard Cody retired as four-star army general and is now Senior Vice President of L-3 Communications, the seventh largest defense contractor in America, as noted by Business Insider. In 2015, L-3 was awarded 7,622 government contracts for an obligated amount of some $5 billion putting them in a key position to influence government and take advantage of any escalation of global military conflict.
Following the end of the Cold War, Cody said, peace had “pretty much broken out all over the world,” with Russia in decline and NATO nations celebrating. “The Wall came down,” he said, and “all defense budgets went south.”
Now, Cody argued, Russia “is resurgent” around the world, putting pressure on U.S. allies. “Nations that belong to NATO are supposed to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense,” he said, according to a transcript of his remarks. “We know that uptick is coming and so we postured ourselves for it.” – The Intercept
The Aerospace Industries Association, a trade organization representing arms manufacturers, recently published an article calling for increased military expenditures to better manage an upsurge in threats, of which, in addition to ISIS, Russia was listed.
“With respect to national security, we must respond to the rise of ISIS terrorism, Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep, provocative moves by Iran and North Korea and an increasingly powerful China. ” [Source]
Additionally, positioning Russia as a ‘saber-rattling’ threat to world peace, William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy notes, in plain language, that the perceived Russian threat is good for business.
Russian saber-rattling has additional benefits for weapons makers because it has become a standard part of the argument for higher Pentagon spending — even though the Pentagon already has more than enough money to address any actual threat to the United States. [Source]
Pointing out that Russia is now at odds with Ukraine and is controlling Crimea, Defense One is promoting the need for NATO to increase military spending as a defensive strategy for deterring the threat of direct conflict with Russia. Citing increases in the need for a broad range of military technologies and capabilities including aircraft, drones and tanks, the article concludes with a quote from the SAAB Group’s head of their UK division.
“It’s not just the U.S. Everyone is talking full-spectrum” war. – Claes-Peter Cederl, Head of Country Unit UK for the SAAB Group
Historical Warnings About the Military Industrial Complex
We’ve known for more than a century that war is rarely necessary for our physical survival, the survival of our way of life, or even for our ‘freedoms,’ having first been warned by Major General Smedley Butlerin his prophetic exposé, War is a Racket.
Historian Anthony Sutton, author of Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, wrote in great length of the financial history of World Wars I and II, documenting how economic forces conspired across national borders and between opposing coalitions to make finances and war materials readily available for the build up and execution of these global disasters. Hundreds of millions of people died as a result of these two wars, yet the companies and financial institutions that made it all possible have lived on, growing and diversifying over time.
Furthermore, even former U.S. Presidents have warned us of the dangers of allowing a military industrial complex to get too close to the governing bodies of our democracy. In his departure speech from office in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower left us with this startling explanation.