173

p US official statistics do not contain data on the distribution of military production by areas. Analysis of the geography of military industries in US publications is often based on 174 data on prime contracts awards contained in Department of Defence and NASA reports. They give only a general idea of their territorial distribution because, first, they report only prime military contracts, ignoring subcontracts at various levels whereby a part of operations stipulated in primary contracts are transferred to other states; second, these contracts are concluded, as a rule, for the supply of military end-products; therefore they only partially reflect the involvement of basic industries (supplying raw materials, stores and other goods required for the manufacture of military end-products—aircraft, missiles, warships, etc.) in war production; third, they disregard the output of military goods by government factories..However, we have to use these data
•
Table 29 Distribution of DOD Prime Contracts by Areas (average annual percentage) Area 1939-4[ 1950-53 1960-62 (063-04 1967 1969 North East ........ New England ..... 32.5 8 9 33.2 8 1 30.5 10 6 26.5 9 5 26.8 10 4 27.5 10 3 Mid-Atlantic states . . Mid West ........ 23.6 37 9 25.1 34 3 19.9 18 5 17.0 20 3 16.4 23 3 17.2 20 3 North-East states . . . North-West states . . . South ....... 32.5 5.4 15 9 27.5 6.8 13 2 12.0 6.5 17 6 11.3 9.0 22 8 13.3 10.0 27 3 13.1 7.2 28 0 South- Atlantic states South-East states . . . South-West states . . . Far West ......... 7.1 2.8 6.0 13.3 6.8 1.7 4.7 18.5 9.6 1.7 6.3 32.1 13.1 2.4 6.7 30.4 12.5 2.8 12.0 22.6 12.7 3.4 11.9 24.2 Mountain states .... 1.1 12 2 0.6 17 9 4.7 27 4 4.3 26 1 2.3 20 3 3.6 21 6 Other .......... 0.4 0.8 1.3 Total .......... 100 100 100 100 100 100

Sources: R. E. Lapp, The Weapons Culture, New York, 1968, pp. 184-85; W. Isard, J. Ganshow, Awards of Prime Military Contracts by County, Stale and Metropolitan Area of the United States, Fiscal Year 1960; W. Isard, G. Karasaka, Unclassified Defense Contracts: Awards by County, State and Metropolitan Area of the United Stales, Fiscal Year 1962, Philadelphia, 1962, Fiscal Year 1964, Philadelphia, 1965.

175 for discussing the geographical patterns of the US arms industry as more accurate information is unavailable.

p Since data for individual states are not typical of the distribution of arms production (states diifer in size of territory, population, level of development and economic structure), larger territorial units—"census districts" (all states are grouped into 9 districts) or such major regions as the North East, Mid West, South, Far West (see Table 29)—are taken for comparison of the distribution of prime contracts of the US Department of Defence in different periods.

p During the Second World War, military production tended to follow the overall geographical pattern of the country’s productive forces. The bulk of military contracts went to the North-East states (Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and others) and the Mid-Atlantic states (New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey). This coincidence in the distribution of military and industrial production is attributable to the fact that the manufacture of military goods, most of which were armoured vehicles, ordnance, small arms, ships and other conventional weapons, could at that time be organised at existing factories of corresponding industries geared to war production.

p In the post-war period, the rapid advancement of weaponry was attended with substantial changes in the structure of military production: the share of aircraft, nuclear weapons, missiles, radioelectronic equipment sharply increased, whereas that of conventional armaments diminished. Changes in the structure of war production entailed great changes in its geographical distribution. A considerable part of arms production began to be concentrated in those districts which had highly developed aircraft, missile and radioelectronics industries, in particular, in such relatively new industrial states as California and Texas, as well as in the states of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and others.

p When examining the distribution of military production the eye is struck by the sharply increased importance of the Far West in the fifties and early sixties, which was due above all to the concentration in this area of the aircraft, missile and much of the radioelectronics industry. The tendency towards a notable increase in the role of the Pacific states and a lesser role of the old industrial districts was in evidence as far back as the early fifties, but this process was 176 somewhat offset by the considerable demand for conventional arms during the Korean war. After that war, the role of the Western states continued to grow rapidly. In the first half of the sixties, the Far West accounted for about one-third of the Department of Defence contracts, which was approximately 150 per cent higher than the area’s share in the total output of the country’s manufacturing industries. The share of the Far West was still greater in NASA contracts. For the total value of military contracts the states of the Far West were far ahead of such old military production areas as the North-East and Mid-Atlantic states. Among the Western states California was particularly prominent, accounting for over one-fifth of the value of Pentagon contracts and for almost a half of NASA’s. California left far behind such states as Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and New York that had been known as the leading arms manufacturers during the Second World War and the Korean war. In the post-war years, the share of the North East and Mid West m military contracts notably diminished. It is characteristic that the role of these areas in the country’s military production is much smaller than it is in industrial production as a whole.

The South accounted for approximately one-fifth of the total military output, which was slightly above its share in the country’s total industrial production. Thus, there were considerable disproportions in the distribution of military production and industry as a whole. The rapid escalation of the US war of aggression in Vietnam, started in 1965, led to considerable changes in the distribution of war production. The share of the South and Middle West notably increased, and the share of the Far West reduced in the total of Department of Defence contracts. The reason is that to meet the requirements of its war in Vietnam, the USA sharply increased the manufacture of ordnance, small arms, ammunition, transport vehicles, oil products, apparel and some other goods of which the North and South are traditionally the main producers. This notwithstanding, the share of the North in military production remains smaller than it is in the country’s industrial production as a whole. Let us examine the changes brought on by the Vietnam war in the positions of 10 states handling some two-thirds of all military contracts.

177 Table 30 Distribution of DOD Contracts by State Attributable to Vietnam Build-Up State 1964/65 1966/67 Total value, thous. mii. dollars Share in national total, per cent Total value, thous. mil. dollars Share in national total, per cent California ........ 5.2 1.5 2.2 1.0 1.2 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.4 22 6 10 5 5 4 5 4 3 2 6.7 3.6 3.3 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 18 10 9 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 Texas .......... New York ........ Missouri ......... Connecticut ....... Ohio ........... Massachusetts ...... New Jersey ........ Georgia ......... Illinois .........

p Source: Business Week, February 10, 1968, p. 68.

p Table 30 shows that California as before holds first place for the volume of military contracts, but its share has notably diminished. Texas, which has dislodged New York from its second place, has more than doubled the absolute volume
•
Table 31 Distribution of DOD Contracts by State, 1966 State Subcontracts Prime contracts Place Share in total subcontracts, per cent Place Share in ;otal prime contracts, per cent California ..... . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 30.2 11.5 7.0 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 1 2 9 8 4 7 5 11 3 17 22.1 9.6 3.5 3.7 5.1 4.2 5.1 2.7 6.2 1.8 New York ...... New Jersey ........ Ohio ........... Connecticut ....... Pennsylvania ....... Massachusetts ...... Florida ......... Texas ......... Illinois .........

Source: Business Week, April 8, 1967, p. 38.

178 Table 32 3 QD Percentage Distribution of Surveyed Defence Employment by State and Product Group, June 1966 g Mid-Atlantic P states .... 13.8 4.1 0.9 7.6 7.7 29.3 9.6 6.7 14.7 9 » New York 8.2 — — 0.9 2.5 14.0 8.7 4.2 7.2 1 New Jersey 1.7 3.2 0.9 — 0.6 7.0 0.9 1.7 3.9 § North-East -3 states . . . 12.6 1.9 3.7 35.0 19.5 7.0 3.5 12.6 9.5 w PJ Ohio . . . 8.4 — 0.8 7.6 2.5 0.4 , ____ 2.5 3.6 § o Illinois 0.5 3.9 2.0 3.5 10.2 1.2 § —————————- n^ 2 179 Michigan 0.5 1.9 1.7 22.9 — 2.0 — — 1.6 E North-West % states . . . 15.3 0.7 — 9.4 31.8 6.1 __ __ 10.3 > H Missouri 10.4 0.7 — — 12.8 0.6 — — C A 3 5.1 z South-Atlantic o n states . . . 10.4 18.5 28.1 11.2 1.8 11.9 12.1 13.5 12.4 51 Maryland 0.1 6.8 2.3 — 0.3 6.5 — ____ 2Q C o m Virginia — 3.7 25.8 — — 1.1 10.4 ____ M 3.0 g z Georgia . . 7.1 — — — 1.5 — — — 2.6 § South-East  * states . . . 2.9 1.4 10.5 — 12.7 — — 4.2 3.3 Tennessee 1.0 0.7 — — 11.8 — — 4.2 1.5 South-West states . . . 12.1 1.2 1.6 — 14.0 3.8 — 5.9 6.8 Texas . . 10.6 0.8 — — 9.8 3.7 — 4.2 5.8 Mountain states 1.0 11.5 — — 0.4 1.0 — — 2.6 Pacific states 15.3 55.0 18.4 12.2 8.6 28.8 68.8 41.8 26.3 California 15.1 42.6 8.9 ’ 11.2 8.6 28.8 68.8 41.8 23.3 Source: Calculated from DOD surveys of military employment, the Centre for Strategic Studies, June 1967, pp. 80-81. Economic Impact of the Vietnam War, 180
•
of military contracts, mainly by supplies of oil products, ammunition, aircraft frames, food and kindred products. The increase in the volume of contracts in the states of Missouri and Illinois is attributable mostly to a growth in the production of ammunition and transport vehicles.

p It was believed until recently that several states won the lion’s share of prime contracts, while the majority of other states secured subcontracts after all. A Department of Defence survey, however, indicated that an even larger share of subcontracts was secured by the above several states for themselves. As Table 31 demonstrates, the 10 states win over 78 per cent of subcontracts, whereas their share in prime contracts is 64 per cent.

p Of considerable interest is the geographical pattern of the production of individual types of weapons and military equipment (see Table 32). The State of California holds the leading place in the manufacture of aircraft, missiles, space hardware, radioelectronic and communication equipment, as well as in military research and development. The overwhelming share of shipbuilding work for the Navy is handled in the states of Virginia and Connecticut. The main centres of manufacturing combat vehicles, ordnance and small arms are the states of New England and the North East. More than a half of the ammunition factories are concentrated in the North West and North East.

p There are wide variations not only in the geographical distribution of US military production but also between the levels to which the economies of individual states are militarised. According to estimates by the American economist Murray L. Weidenbaum, 20.4 to 30.3 per cent of the total number of factory and office workers employed in the manufacturing industries in seven states, 10.8 to 17.8 per cent in eight states, 5.2 to 9.4 per cent in ten states are employed in the arms industry.  [180•1 

The territorial distribution of military production and the extent of militarisation of individual states depend to a certain degree on the competition between monopolies and individual states for winning highly profitable military contracts. 181 The Business Week journal writes: "Debate over the ’ fairness’ of defense procurement is never far from the ignition point in Washington—and it is constantly being rekindled on Capitol Hill.”  [181•1  The level of militarisation of the economy as a whole and its individual branches, the structure of military production, the geographical distribution of the arms industries and the degree to which different states are militarised are determined in the main by the military and political plans of the USA and the modern development of weaponry. Therefore, future changes in the military strategy of US imperialism and progress in military technology will be undoubtedly accompanied by changes in the absolute and relative scale, structure and territorial distribution of US military production.