US wartime shit in the 40s was relatively planned but that’s probably too low-tech for what you’re trying to think about

Depends on the funding available, which depends on state income, their willingness to raise more money, and their willingness to redirect existing budget lines to whatever they’re planning.

Of course, if whatever planning can be profitable to private investors, you can count on them to “pitch” in. In this case, defense and armament can be very profitable to the capitalist class. Especially since this militarization will probably just be the state(s) upping their defence budget, including spending towards private armament companies.

As all ice in chains said, it really depends. The big lesson the soviets learned in the early five year plans (a lesson which they forgot under khrushchev) is that a plan without coercion, without penalties if the plan isnt fulfilled, is no plan at all, its merely a suggestion.

So the question is does the EU as a whole, or any of its member states, have the ability to make economic plans that are more than suggestions? Idk enough about euroland to say, but over here it very much seems like the government of the US and Canada lack the ability or will to use such coercive powers against the large corporations

That said, the lack of crucial resources for the war industry means even if the could plan, their rearmament will probably hit a brick wall

This feels like the kind of question that necessitates a flowchart to answer. How much money can be raised by the state, is there limitation imposed by people, groups, or companies, if funds can’t be raised how does the state act? Does it sacrifice people to reach goals (slavery, torture, murder) or elevate them (investment, education)? How big is the military, how is it funded, is it more offensive than defensive, etc. etc.