The Story of the Connection Between National Security and Economic Development

Since the world recognized modern armies, countries began to think about how to benefit from military innovation in civilian fields. However, the real boom in organized thought in this direction occurred after the Cold War. Countries found themselves with factories that produced military technology for deterrence purposes, meaning the goal was not to attack, but to send a message: "I have enough military strength to protect myself if you initiate an attack." Thus, the entire world was spending huge budgets on defense according to the principle of deterrence..

After the Cold War, a serious global problem emerged: these factories, engineers, machines, and entire industrial systems were no longer needed to the previous extent, after the decline in demand for defense products. The question became: what do we do with all these resources?

Despite its apparent simplicity, the answer was not easy. Thus, thinking began about what would later be known as "Dual Use Technologies," which are technologies suitable for both civilian and military use. This was due to the reduction in funding, so companies began to focus on developing technology that could be sold in times of peace and war alike..

Consequently, numerous studies emerged discussing the relationship between military innovation and civilian innovation during both peacetime and wartime. If we look at the history of technology from the industrial revolution to the age of artificial intelligence, we find one constant: military needs are often the driving force behind technological innovation, while the economy completes the development process later..

For those wishing to delve deeper, they can explore the works of "Moyer," "Campfort," and "Milward," where they will find scientific articles explaining how U.S. military funding, especially after World War II, created an interlinked system connecting the military with companies, universities, and laboratories..

This interconnection later produced the Internet, computers, GPS, jet aviation, and semiconductors. Neither the free market could achieve this alone, nor would private companies dare to fund research that might last twenty years without a guaranteed outcome. But military needs are different because they are tied to a clear objective: national security, regardless of the cost..

In contrast to the logic of the free market, which focuses on profit and productivity, the defense industries prioritize need and efficiency, while cost comes afterward..

Some researchers claim that wars accelerate the pace of technological advancement, but in a limited way. It is not correct – as it might seem logical – to assert that war necessarily creates important technology. What actually happens is urgent improvements and quick solutions during wars, whereas in peacetime, there is room for radical leaps and major inventions that completely change industry shapes, as happened in the United States after the Cold War..

The picture is completed by the book by "Rothan" titled: Is War Necessary for Economic Growth?

Rothan clarifies that war itself does not achieve growth, but rather the institutions built around it are what create growth.
When I first read this idea, I thought to myself: what is new in what he says? This is what many before him echoed. But upon continuing to read closely, we discover that he discusses a completely different angle, even if the idea seems familiar..

He clarifies that the amount spent is not what is important; the real question is: do you have a system capable of exploiting this expenditure?
That is: is there effective communication linking military research and civilian industry?

He explains how the varying levels of this interconnection between the United States, Japan, Germany, and the Soviet Union significantly affected the economies of these countries and the types of technology they developed..

He then explains that the process goes through essential steps; the first being to build a research and development system oriented toward a clear mission (Mission-Oriented R&D), which are long-term research efforts with specific goals that private companies cannot bear alone, and here the state intervenes to take on the first and most important part..

Subsequently, a system is created that enables military innovation to transition to the civilian market easily and without complications.
The state then maintains continuous communication between the military, industry, and universities.
These are the steps that transformed military innovation in the United States into a self-sustaining institution, not merely a spontaneous reaction occurring without vision or connection to civilian industries..

Therefore, the question that the decision-maker should pose is: do I have interconnected innovation institutions, or is there a gap between military and civilian innovation?

This question is extremely important because it directly impacts decisions such as: do we buy weapons or develop them locally? If we develop them, how can we benefit from this technology in other industries?

This understanding also clarifies why countries strive to transfer military technology, not just for war manufacturing purposes, but because there are thousands of civilian companies and dozens of civilian industries that benefit from that technology.
Manufacturing may create technology, but if the economy is not ready to receive it, nothing will be realized. At best, the result would be like someone buying a "Mercedes" car and then attaching a donkey to pull it!

This is the problem many countries face, increasing their defense budgets without a corresponding rise in their technological and industrial development. Incidentally, this is one of the biggest problems Eastern European countries have with the European Union and NATO, as they say: "We have increased our defense budgets, but French, German, Spanish, and Italian companies are the ones benefiting." This issue is part of the doctoral thesis I am working on..

In short, understanding the relationship between military innovation and economic growth is no longer a luxury at all, but rather the path to deeply and truly understanding the meaning of defense industries, beyond superficial perceptions that confine it to munitions, aircraft, and armored vehicles..

The matter is much larger and deeper than that, because we are now talking about a different principle stating that strong countries are those that have an institution producing weapons, technology, and the economy together, and reproducing them in a system that serves the entire economy..

This is an AI-generated English translation. The original text is in العربية