NOTES:

People have always profited off of wartime in one way or another, either by gaining land, by gaining tactical advantages over other civilizations, or by increasing prices due to the changes in economies that occur during wartime. However, this effect was shot into overdrive in some ways with the Industrial Revolution and the ability to make massive amounts of items in a relatively short period of time. The Military Industrial Complex has its beginnings in the idea of the “War economy”, an idea where certain practices or manufactured goods were subverted for the war effort. The idea is that big wars require big and fast economies, that war was in some ways limited or impeded by the inability to manufacturer so much in such short a period of time, and so our ability to kill each other also limited. The Military Industrial Complex is an industrial process which is made to profit from war and which therefore attempts to prolong or cause war or fear of war to increase profits, really from War Profiteering, which only became a real thing during the Industrial Revolution. One particularly interesting idea is the “Shoddy Millionaire”, folks who supposedly made their millions off of the Civil War, specifically selling shoddily made shoes and clothing and weaponry to the Union Soldiers

  • 1947 First use of the term in academic writing (as was meant by today's meaning as well):  the economist and diplomat Winfield W. Riefler, writing in Foreign Affairs in 1947. — specifically discusses the role of industrial output in determining the outcome of the war, and lays out the intersection between civilian and military components of an economy necessary for “a military-industrial complex to function.” Given the subject matter, the prominence of the author, and the prestige of the journal involved, it seems likely that someone in Eisenhower’s advisory circle — including Eisenhower himself — would have read this article, though I have found no specific connection between it and Eisenhower’s farewell speech. From James Ledbetter

1961: Eisenhower Speech, warning of the “Military-Industrial Complex” gaining undue influence, often cited as being a veiled warning of their acquisition of alien technology.

Some interesting misconceptions, including that this was originally supposed to be Military-Industrial-Congressional but actually was meant to be Scientific, which honestly would make more sense. No real evidence for this missing third term actually, according to the notes of the speech before it went out and also according to memoirs of those who helped craft Eisenhower’s time in the white house. From James Ledbetter


Eisenhower Warning from his farewell address, Jan 17th, 1961

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.


GSK

INTERESTING BITS FROM LA TIMES:

GSK led an unremarkable middle class existence. He was a Navy veteran, registered Democrat, retired truck mechanic, and he shared his modest home with one of his three daughters and a grandchild. He killed 12 people in attacks ranging from Rancho Cordova in Sacramento County to Irvine and Dana Point in Orange County. He married, Sharon Huddle, a lawyer. One daughter is a physician practicing at a Roseville emergency room. Another is a graduate student. His police career there ended after a clerk caught him shoplifting a hammer and a can of dog repellent.

ACCORDING TO DIGITAL TRENDS.COM

“For almost seven years, cold case expert and retired Contra Costa County District Attorney inspector Paul Holes searched genealogy websites for DNA matches to evidence collected at the crime scenes, according to The Mercury News. A 73-year-old man in Clackamas County, Oregon had uploaded his DNA data to GEDMatch, an open-source genetic platform. When Holes compared the man’s DNA to samples taken from the crime scenes, he had a hit, but it was not an exact fit. Holes said it was a “weak match.”
Authorities subsequently obtained a court order to obtain a DNA sample directly from the Oregon man, who was cooperative. He was cleared of suspicion, but he and the Golden State Killer shared “an unusual trait.”
In the process of getting the court order, Holes said, “We generated the legal documentation more as a matter of routine, due diligence … But he was willing all along to provide his DNA.”
Subsequent searches resulted in narrowing the investigation to DeAngelo from a family tree with about 1,000 people. In the end, the matches that linked DeAngelo’s DNA to the crime were from third and fourth cousins.
Commercial DNA ancestry-tracking companies require court orders for any files in their databases. Access to GEDMatch’s 900,000 DNA file open database has no restrictions, however.”