"Rose Covered Glasses" is a serious essay, satire and photo-poetry commentary from a group of US Military Veterans in Minnesota.
See Right Margin for Table of Contents and Free Book Downloads via "Box"
Free SCORE mentoring for small business at: https://classic.micromentor.org/mentor/38640
Technology
has permitted marvelous advances and opportunities in communication and
convenience.
It
has also impacted independent thought and created concerns with respect to
privacy and transparency in government. Our focus has shifted recently to sophisticated
forms of government technological control that may be both legal and illegal, and are being challenged in our
court systems.
Mass
marketing and communications have created expectations beyond reality in venues
from romance web sites to building wealth. They have also confused us about our government functions, our elected representatives and where they are taking us.
We
have grown used to the convenience of viewing the world through media sound
bites, opinionated, biased, news and insincere, short sighted, money driven
politicians, who are financed by loosely controlled contributors and influenced
by lobbying firms that spend enormous amounts of money made available by the
wealthy to impact our opinions.
We
have become less competitive in the global economy, as a concentration of
wealth has shifted to a very few and our corporations evolve operations outside
the country, taking the resulting tax relief, profits, investments and
resources with them.
THE CONUNDRUM
Consider simpler times a few years past. Trust was
necessary in many venues as a means of survival on a day-to-day basis. We
relied on others extensively for our well-being from our local store to our
banker, from the policeman to the politician. And we knew them all better, we
could reach out and touch them and we were not viewing them in sound bites and
web sites, nor were we being bombarded with multiple forms of input to digest
about them.
Americans have very little trust in the current era.We see a negative, idealistically bound,
bloated government, growing like a money- eating beast and putting generations
in hock with unwarranted incursions into foreign countries and a focus on big
corporations and big business.
THE CHALLENGE
The
key to our true independence is in becoming involved as individuals, taking flight on wings that grow
strong by exercising our intellect, our shared opinions and our participation
in government.We must research a
personal perspective based on our personal values and take time in the fast
pace our culture demands to communicate with those we elect to government –
before and after the election.
Trust is hard to establish in the modern era.We see very little true statesmanship in the good people we send to
Washington, who promptly become ground up in the huge machine there in order to
survive.That machine must change and
the people we send to change it must share that objective with us.
HOW STRONG ARE OUR WINGS?
Communications
and expectations are two vital elements in measuring trust.
To an extraordinary extent, the age in which we live is requiring us to
redefine trust and the degree to which communication and expectations
contribute to it. To
become truly independent, we must become much more sophisticated ourselves in
the manner with which we view all this input and sift it in a meaningful way to
have true trust.
To
a very large degree this is a personal responsibility. We must become involved,
make prudent judgments and think for ourselves, then communicate our
expectations to those who represent us.
If
we do not, we run a high risk of tyranny and that fact is inescapable.
Our constitutional republic is at war with our unbalanced capitalistic economic system.
Written over 200 years ago , the constitution is now being shred by opportunistic forces using technology and communication to pierce freedom weakness seams in the document that the founders did not anticipate or imagine.
Through the struggles of our times the bedrock democratic ideal behind that document can only be saved by the people of this country themselves.
"(Stockholm, 2 December 2024) Revenues from sales of arms and military services by the 100 largest companies in the industry reached $632 billion in 2023, a real-terms increase of 4.2 per cent compared with 2022, according to new data released today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), available at www.sipri.org.
Accurate, dependable information is more important than ever. Invest in the facts. Support SIPRI.
Arms revenue increases were seen in all regions, with particularly sharp rises among companies based in Russia and the Middle East. Overall, smaller producers were more efficient at responding to new demand linked to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, growing tensions in East Asia and rearmament programmes elsewhere.
SIPRI Top 100 companies ramp up production and build workforces
In 2023 many arms producers ramped up their production in response to surging demand. The total arms revenues of the Top 100 bounced back after a dip in 2022. Almost three quarters of companies increased their arms revenues year-on-year. Notably, most of the companies that increased their revenues were in the lower half of the Top 100.
‘There was a marked rise in arms revenues in 2023, and this is likely to continue in 2024,’ said Lorenzo Scarazzato, a Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘The arms revenues of the Top 100 arms producers still did not fully reflect the scale of demand, and many companies have launched recruitment drives, suggesting they are optimistic about future sales.’
US companies’ arms revenues rise, but production challenges remain
The 41 companies in the Top 100 based in the United States recorded arms revenues of $317 billion, half the total arms revenues of the Top 100 and 2.5 per cent more than in 2022. Since 2018, the top five companies in the Top 100 have all been based in the USA.
Of the 41 US companies, 30 increased their arms revenues in 2023. However, Lockheed Martin and RTX, the world’s two largest arms producers, were among those registering a drop.
‘Larger companies like Lockheed Martin and RTX manufacturing a wide range of arms products often depend on complex, multi-tiered supply chains, which made them vulnerable to lingering supply chain challenges in 2023,’ said Dr Nan Tian, Director of SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘This was particularly the case in the aeronautics and missile sectors.’
European arms industry trails rest of world in revenue growth
The combined arms revenues of the 27 Top 100 companies based in Europe (excluding Russia) totalled $133 billion in 2023. This was only 0.2 per cent more than in 2022, the smallest increase in any world region.
However, behind the low growth figure the picture is more nuanced. European arms companies producing complex weapon systems were mostly working on older contracts during 2023 and their revenues for the year consequently do not reflect the influx of orders.
‘Complex weapon systems have longer lead times,’ said Lorenzo Scarazzato. ‘Companies that produce them are thus inherently slower in reacting to changes in demand. That explains why their arms revenues were relatively low in 2023, despite a surge in new orders.’
At the same time, a number of other European producers saw their arms revenues grow substantially, driven by demand linked to the war in Ukraine, particularly for ammunition, artillery and air defence and land systems. Notably, companies in Germany, Sweden, Ukraine, Poland, Norway and Czechia were able to tap into this demand. For instance, Germany’s Rheinmetall increased production capacity of 155-mm ammunition and its revenues were boosted by deliveries of its Leopard tanks and new orders, including through war-related ‘ring-exchange’ programmes (under which countries supply military goods to Ukraine and receive replacements from allies).
Wartime production leads to sharp rise in Russian firms’ arms revenues
The two Russian companies listed in the Top 100 saw their combined revenues increase by 40 per cent to reach an estimated $25.5 billion. This was almost entirely due to the 49 per cent increase in arms revenues recorded by Rostec, a state-owned holding company controlling many arms producers, including seven previously listed in the Top 100 for which individual revenue data could not be obtained.
‘Official data on Russian arms production is scarce and questionable but most analysts believe that the production of new military equipment increased substantially in 2023, while Russia’s existing arsenal underwent extensive refurbishment and modernization,’ said Dr Nan Tian. ‘In particular, combat aircraft, helicopters, UAVs, tanks, munitions and missiles are all thought to have been produced in greater numbers as Russia continued its offensive in Ukraine.’
South Korean and Japanese companies lead revenue growth in Asia and Oceania
The 23 companies in the Top 100 based in Asia and Oceania recorded 5.7 per cent arms revenue growth year-on-year, to reach $136 billion. The four South Korea-based companies recorded a combined 39 per cent increase in arms revenues to reach $11.0 billion. The five companies based in Japan saw their combined arms revenues rise by 35 per cent to $10.0 billion. A policy of military build-up in Japan since 2022 drove a flurry of domestic orders, with some companies seeing the value of new orders increase more than 300 per cent.
‘The sharp growth in arms revenues among South Korean and Japanese companies reflects the bigger picture of military build-ups taking place in the region in response to heightened threat perceptions,’ said Xiao Liang, a Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘South Korean firms are also trying to expand their share of the global arms market, including demand in Europe related to the war in Ukraine.’
Middle East arms producers see revenue growth linked to Gaza, Ukraine conflicts
Six of the Top 100 arms companies were based in the Middle East. Their combined arms revenues grew by 18 per cent to $19.6 billion. With the outbreak of war in Gaza, the arms revenues of the three companies based in Israel in the Top 100 reached $13.6 billion. This was the highest figure ever recorded by Israeli companies in the SIPRI Top 100. The three companies based in Türkiye saw their arms revenues grow by 24 per cent to $6.0 billion, benefiting from exports prompted by the war in Ukraine and from the Turkish government’s continued push towards self-reliance in arms production.
‘The biggest Middle Eastern arms producers in the Top 100 saw their arms revenues reach unprecedented heights in 2023 and the growth looks set to continue,’ said Dr Diego Lopes da Silva, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘In particular, as well as taking in record arms revenues in 2023, Israeli arms producers are booking many more orders as the war in Gaza rages on and spreads.’
Other notable developments
The nine companies in the Top 100 based in China saw their smallest year-on-year percentage increase in arms revenues (+0.7 per cent) since 2019 amid a slowing economy. Their total arms revenues in 2023 reached $103 billion.
The combined arms revenues of the three Indian companies in the Top 100 increased to $6.7 billion (+5.8 per cent).
NCSIST, the only Taiwan-based company in the Top 100, recorded a 27 per cent increase in its arms revenues to $3.2 billion.
Türkiye’s Baykar produces armed uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) that have been widely used in the war in Ukraine. Exports accounted for around 90 per cent of its arms revenues in 2023, which increased by 25 per cent over the year to $1.9 billion.
The United Kingdom’s Atomic Weapons Establishment, which designs, manufactures and maintains nuclear warheads, recorded the largest year-on-year percentage increase in arms revenues (+16 per cent) among UK companies in the Top 100, to reach $2.2 billion.
About the SIPRI Arms Industry Database
The SIPRI Arms Industry Database was created in 1989. At that time, it excluded data for companies in China, the Soviet Union and countries in Eastern Europe. The current version contains data for 2002–23, including data for companies in Russia. Chinese companies are included from 2015 onwards.
‘Arms revenues’ refer to revenues generated from the sales of military goods and services to military customers domestically and abroad. Unless otherwise specified, all changes are expressed in real terms and all figures are given in constant 2023 US dollars. Comparisons between 2022 and 2023 are based on the list of companies in the ranking for 2023 (i.e. the annual comparison is between the same set of companies). Longer-term comparisons are based on the sets of companies listed in the respective year (i.e. the comparison is between a different set of companies).
This is the first of three major data launches in the lead-up to the release of SIPRI’s flagship publication in mid 2025, the annual SIPRI Yearbook. Ahead of this, SIPRI will releaseits international arms transfers data (details of all international transfers of major arms in 2024) as well as its world military expenditure data (comprehensive information on global, regional and national trends in military spending in 2024).
Media contacts
For information or interview requests contact Mimmi Sh
"The
cost of war is in the trillions. That type of money could have saved
hundreds of thousands of lives in the medical industry or literally
millions of lives in the developing world. Why is the US spending so
much money on fighting a war that has claimed so few US victims?"
OUR ANSWER:
Aside from the threat of another 911 and the fact that we
have lost over 4,000 young soldier’s lives, the real reason is there is money
in it for big business and the Military Industrial Complex.War is a racket. So is occupying under the
guise of democracy. People make big money at it and an entire Military
Industrial Complex thrives on it.
The details of exactly how this occurs were in a warning by
President Eisenhower as he left office. His words were very
prophetic:
The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) consists of both the Pentagon and
the contractors that serve it, their lobbying firms and the
politicians who promote weapons systems, incursions and services to
the government for profit and gain.
The MIC has tremendous power, even though it is presently being tested by
Sequestration. For further details and specific example of
how the MIC has influenced our decision makers and contributed to the
deaths of our finest youth, please see the following:
A quote many years ago from Major-General Smedley D. Butler: Common Sense
(November 1935)
" I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service as
a member of our country's most agile military force---the Marine
Corps. I have served in all commissioned ranks from a second
lieutenant to major-general. And during that period I spent most of
my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall
Street, and for the bankers, In short I was a racketeer for
capitalism
Thus, I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American
oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place
to live for the National City Bank boys to collect
revenues in…. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought
light to the Dominican Republic for American Sugar
interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right"
for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in1927 I
helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way
unmolested. During those years I had, as the boys in
the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded honors,
medals, promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al
Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three
city districts. We Marines operated on three continents. War Is A
Racket"
The beat goes on today with the KBR's the Lockheed Martins and the other huge
corporations supplying and supporting wars.
Every major aerospace company from IBM to Lockheed Martin and Boeing has
totally stand-alone divisions that serve as cost centers and pursue monumental
interests in the politics of government and the billions in service
contracts that are outsourced there. This has gone on for years. I
watched it for 3 decades on the inside of these companies.
These companies routinely spend more in lobbying expenses than they pay in
income taxes each year.
The interests of these firms is now changing slightly with
Sequestration and many are making acquisitions and marketing
services in the Health Care sectors or escalating their interests
in civil aviation, education and other fields.
If it was too costly to do business with the government, 302,315 companies
and some of the largest corporations in the world would not be involved
in it. See the below link to contract awards and amounts in
2010 to large enterprises:
1. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
- $34,288,619,722
2. THE BOEING
COMPANY 19,358,512,809
3. NORTHROP GRUMMAN
CORPORATION 15,472,742,729
4. GENERAL DYNAMICS
CORPORATION 14,903,216,900
5. RAYTHEON
COMPANY 14,880,453,061
6. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS,
INC. 7,629,644,919
7. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 7,330,023,190
8. OSHKOSH CORPORATION 7,197,520,183
9. SAIC,
INC. 6,595,330,339
10. BAE SYSTEMS
PLC 6,587,705,335
As
an Army Veteran, and having worked in Aerospace over 3 decades to supportArmy programs, I found the below article by
John Keller, Editor in Chief, "Military & Aerospace Electronics"
magazine an objective and disturbing piece.Note the references to mission vacuum and lack of civilian leadership in
Washington D.C.
John
highlights that as the nation is struggling with stagnated politics the
services are hampered by a lack of hard information to plan ahead.
Mr.
Keller introduces a historical perspective and an excellent view of the hard
issues, challenges and uncertainty that the Army and industry in its supporting
role are facing today.
"MILITARY
AND AEROSPACE ELECTRONICS":
"A
variety of factors are gathering into a potential perfect stormthat could threaten the U.S. Army's future
mission, the continuingrelevance of the
oldest American military service, and how the defense industry can move forward
to support the Army's needs.
Some
of these factors are well-known: sequestration, dim prospectsfor budget growth, and substantial technology
research and developmentthat for most
practical purposes has come nearly to a dead-stop.
Perhaps
most serious, however, is how top military and civilianleadership define the Army's role moving into
the future, the topthreats the Army
will evolve to meet, and the very relevance of a largestanding Army in an era when large-scale,
big-iron military land battlesappear to
be part of the past.
Here's
where we are today: U.S. military forces are finishing theirexit from Iraq, where they have operated for
more than a decade. Theirfinal exit
from Afghanistan is but a few years off, or less. Whenoperations on Southwest Asia are completed,
where does the Army go fromthere?
The
Army has had a clear set of missions sincethe U.S. entered World War II in 1941. Although the close of the
SecondWorld War in 1945 saw a rapid
drawdown in U.S. military power, thestrengthening Soviet Union was on everyone's mind.
Less
than five years after World War II ended, North Korea invadedSouth Korea, which created another sudden and
dire mission for the Army.That mission
grew from containing North Korean forces to containingCommunism around the world, which continued
until the fall of the BerlinWall in
1990. One year later, Iraq invaded Kuwait, which gave rise toOperation Desert Shield, and eventually the
military ouster of Iraqiforces from
Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm, in which the Army played acentral role.
For
the next decade, keeping an eye on a contained-but-restless Iraqimilitary, on ethnic strife in what then was
Yugoslavia, and on othersimmering hot
spots throughout the world held the Army's attention andhelped define its mission.
Today
things are different. Counter-insurgency operations are nearingan end in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia does
not pose the immediatemilitary threat
that did its predecessors of the Soviet Union, andEurope has been relatively quiet.
Still,
trouble spots persist in areas like Syria and Iran, but withno open conflict yet involving U.S. Army
forces. There is no immediateand dire
threat in these areas, and hence no clear Army mission-at leastnot yet.
So
how does the Army move forward? Counter-insurgency, certainly. Special Forces
capability, ofcourse. But what's the
role of the large Army infrastructure involvinglarge combat infantry units, main battle tanks, armored fighting
vehicles, and other organizations designed for large ground conflicts?
I'm
not sure there is a role, and I'm not convinced that the top Armyleadership today knows what its role in the
future will be, either.Maybe the Army
is at a moment of transition, and leaders will get ahandle on the Army's core mission sometime
soon. With the civilianleadership
vacuum we have in Washington, I'm not sure the Army will beable to do so. If Army leaders are unable to
define the Army's long-termmission
clearly, then the defense industry will have no idea how toproceed, other than to guess.
These
factors were on display just below the surface last month atthe Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA). What
was striking in exhibitswas a lack of
direction in where we go from here. It was as though theindustry were pointing out to the Army
officers walking the aisles howfar
technology has led us to this moment, yet pleading for direction onwhere the industry should go from here."
JohnKeller is editor-in-chief of Military &
Aerospace Electronicsmagazine, which
provides extensive coverage and analysis of enablingelectronic and optoelectronic technologies in
military, space, and commercial aviation applications. A member of the Military
& Aerospace Electronics staff since the magazine's founding in 1989, Mr.
Keller took over as chief editor in 1995.
