“War complex companies” refers to 

defense contractors and other businesses that are part of a nation’s military-industrial complex, a network of companies, government agencies, and other organizations that have a vested interest in military spending and defense. These companies supply the military with products like aircraft, weapons, and technology, and provide services such as logistics and training, as described on this Yahoo Finance article and this Wikipedia article. 

Key characteristics

• Product and service providers: They manufacture military equipment, such as aircraft, ships, vehicles, and electronics, and offer services like repair, maintenance, intelligence, and training.
• Part of a larger ecosystem: The military-industrial complex is a broader system that includes not only private companies but also government bodies, research institutions, and political leaders who can influence public policy related to defense.
• Influence on policy: These companies can exert political influence through lobbying and campaign contributions to promote policies that benefit their interests, which often leads to increased military spending, according to this article from CODEPINK.
• Profit motive: A key driver for these companies is profit, which can be significantly increased during times of conflict.
• Examples of companies: Some major examples of companies that are often cited as part of this complex include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Technologies, and General Dynamics. 
• 
  “War complex companies” is not a formal industry term, but typically refers to 
  companies within the military-industrial complex or the broader aerospace and defense industry. These are businesses that provide products and services to national militaries and intelligence departments. 
  These companies benefit from government defense spending, while the military benefits from a steady supply of weapons and supporting systems. 
  
  Products and Services
  These firms supply a wide array of goods and services, including: 
  Military and civilian aircraft and parts
  Ships and marine equipment, including submarines and destroyers
  Vehicles like tanks and heavy land vehicles
  Weaponry such as guided missiles and electronic systems
  Intelligence information, logistics, and technical support 
  
  Major Examples
  The U.S. military-industrial complex is dominated by a few major players, often called the “Big Five”. Other significant global defense contractors also exist. 
  Lockheed Martin: One of the largest defense contractors, involved in aerospace, defense, arms, security, and technology.
  Northrop Grumman: A major player in the aerospace and defense sector, often criticized as a war profiteering company.
  General Dynamics: Primary supplier of tanks and heavy land vehicles to the US government, and manufacturer of destroyers and nuclear submarines.
  Boeing: A diverse defense contractor that produces a wide range of military aircraft and other defense products.
  Raytheon: A large multinational company that manufactures lethal equipment used in conflicts, posing a risk of contributing to serious human rights abuses.
  BAE Systems: A British multinational arms, security, and aerospace company.
  Rheinmetall AG: A German company supplying global armed forces with systems for modern military operations.
  Saab AB: A Swedish defense and security company that provides military aircraft and submarines. 
  For a comprehensive list of companies in this sector, you can refer to relevant financial sector information on platforms like Yahoo Finance. 
• 
  The military-industrial complex (MIC) faces significant controversies and criticisms, primarily centered on its immense influence over government policy, defense spending, and its role in perpetuating global conflicts
  . 
  Key controversies include:
  Political Influence and Lobbying: Defense contractors spend millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions to influence members of Congress and other government officials. This creates a “revolving door” where former Pentagon officials and members of Congress are hired by defense firms, leveraging their insider knowledge and connections for private gain. This influence is criticized for prioritizing the industry’s financial interests over genuine national security needs and public welfare.
  Excessive Spending and Lack of Accountability: Critics argue that the close relationship between the military and contractors leads to inflated defense budgets, often at the expense of social programs, education, healthcare, and infrastructure. The complexity of defense contracts and a lack of competition (due to industry consolidation into a few giants like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman) can result in price gouging, fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer dollars, with contractors sometimes charging exorbitant prices for basic parts.
  Perpetuation of Conflict: A central criticism, echoing President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address warning, is that the MIC fosters a culture of militarism and interventionism. Because defense companies profit from war and conflict, they have an economic incentive to advocate for continued military engagement and an aggressive foreign policy, rather than diplomatic or peaceful resolutions. This can contribute to “endless wars” and global instability.
  Impact on Democracy and Foreign Policy: The substantial influence of the MIC on policy decisions can erode democratic institutions by placing military and economic considerations above civilian oversight and public discourse. On a global scale, providing weaponry and military support to other nations can impact their security policies and potentially destabilize emerging democracies.
  Environmental Harm: The military-industrial complex contributes significantly to environmental damage. The U.S. military, in particular, has a massive carbon footprint, and military operations and training can lead to the poisoning of ecosystems and biodiversity loss.
  Job Creation Debate: While proponents often argue the MIC is a vital source of jobs, critics counter that the defense sector is a declining industry in terms of job creation per dollar spent. They argue that investing the same funds in alternative sectors like clean energy, education, or infrastructure would generate significantly more jobs. 
• 
  The “revolving door” in the military-industrial complex is a metaphor for the frequent and cyclical movement of personnel between high-level government positions (in the Department of Defense, the military services, and Congress) and lucrative jobs within the private defense industry
  . 
  
  How the “Revolving Door” Works
  The process involves individuals transitioning back and forth between roles, creating a potential for conflicts of interest: 
  From Government to Industry: High-ranking military officers and government officials leave public service and take positions as lobbyists, consultants, board members, or senior executives for the defense contractors they previously oversaw or worked with.
  From Industry to Government: Individuals with experience and connections in the defense industry are appointed to government positions where they make policy and procurement decisions that affect their former (or future) employers. 
  
  Key Concerns and Impact
  This practice is highly controversial and raises several ethical and practical concerns:
  Conflict of Interest: Officials may use their public office to favor future employers or former clients, potentially leading to corporate favoritism, bad deals, and bloated budgets funded by taxpayers.
  Unwarranted Influence: By hiring well-connected former officials, weapons makers gain significant, potentially undue, influence over the process of determining the size and shape of the Pentagon’s budget and national security policy.
  Perpetuating Militarism: Because defense companies profit from conflict, the revolving door can create an incentive for an aggressive foreign policy and sustained military spending, rather than prioritizing peaceful diplomacy or domestic needs.
  Lack of Accountability: The cozy relationships formed through this practice can hinder effective oversight and accountability, as former colleagues may be reluctant to scrutinize the activities of the companies that now employ them or their peers. 
  
  Statistics and Regulation
  Despite existing conflict-of-interest laws and “cooling off” periods, the practice remains widespread. 
  A 2023 analysis found 672 instances in 2022 where former U.S. government officials, military officers, and senior legislative staff worked for the top 20 defense contractors as lobbyists or executives.
  In the five years prior to an October 2023 report, over 80% of retired four-star U.S. generals and admirals went on to work in the arms sector.
  Current laws focus on post-employment restrictions and require registration and disclosure of lobbying activities, but critics argue that more stringent measures, such as longer cooling-off periods or lifetime bans on certain activities, are needed to fully address the issue. 

To build an industrial war complex company, you need to secure funding, acquire necessary equipment, hire qualified personnel, and obtain government certifications and licenses, similar to starting any other business, but with a specific focus on meeting government contracts. Success hinges on navigating the complex government procurement process, which involves establishing relationships and understanding strict regulations, as detailed by resources like acq.osd.mil. 

Building a company that is part of the “military-industrial complex” involves 

entering the specialized, highly regulated defense industrial base (DIB). This is distinct from a typical startup due to the need for substantial capital, government contracts, stringent licenses, and security clearances. 

Foundational Steps

1. Develop Expertise and Network: Gain experience in relevant elite military, law enforcement, or engineering career fields to build a strong network of contacts. An engineering degree combined with a business background (e.g., an MBA) is highly beneficial if your goal is to lead a tech-focused defense firm.
2. Secure Substantial Capital/Investment: Defense companies require significant initial funding for research and development (R&D), prototyping, and facilities. Venture capital and private equity firms are increasingly investing in defense tech startups.
3. Establish Legal and Regulatory Compliance:The defense industry is heavily regulated by government agencies. You will need to obtain specific licenses and clearances related to the manufacturing, import, and export of defense equipment and technologies.
4. Identify a Niche and Develop a Product: Instead of trying to compete directly with large prime contractors (like Lockheed Martin or Boeing), focus on a niche product, service, or specific component that a smaller business can provide more effectively. Innovation in areas like AI, cybersecurity, or advanced materials is in demand.
5. Compete for Government Contracts: The primary customer for defense companies is the government. Look for opportunities through programs like Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or by becoming a subcontractor to larger defense firms. Success often depends on securing these government contracts. 

Key Operational Areas

• Research & Development (R&D): The industry is driven by R&D to create new defense technologies. Governments often co-fund these efforts.
• Talent Acquisition: You will need a highly skilled and often security-cleared workforce, including engineers, manufacturers, and logistics experts.
• Supply Chain Management: Building a resilient supply chain for critical materials and components is crucial, often requiring collaboration with allies and domestic sourcing.
• Lobbying and Government Relations:Established defense companies heavily lobby government officials and contribute to political campaigns to influence defense spending and policy.