but each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. good judgment seeks balance and progress. lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. the record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.
but threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. of these, i mention two only.
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 alone more than the net income of all united states corporations.
now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in th