9 ms·

Now imagine we went to war, and China was not on our side. We have the headstart, but if we needed to start manufacturing more equipment, we're at a disadvanta

by swalsh 8y ago

Now imagine we went to war, and China was not on our side. We have the headstart, but if we needed to start manufacturing more equipment, we're at a disadvantage. I think this kind of supply chain issue is a national security concern.

javagram 8y ago
Military equipment is manufactured in the US or allied countries to avoid this concern I think?
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  Equipment is. Components and parts may not be.
- atonse 8y ago
  This is one of the concerns with Huawei networking equipment. It’s used by many US gov agencies and they’re now waking up to the risks posed.
- PKop 8y ago
  Just as one example, China has massive dominance in "rare" earth elements which are components of many different military and communication devices. Check this out for full scope of current disparities [0] [0] https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASSESSING-AND-STRENGTHENING-THE-MANUFACTURING-AND-DEFENSE-INDUSTRIAL-BASE-AND-SUPPLY-CHAIN-RESILIENCY.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASS...
  - artificial 8y ago
    With regard to Batteries Rare Earth is anything but, it’s more messy than anything and China wins on price. The States has plenty of capacity in that regard and a mine just recently reopened in California. Borderline Slave labor, lax environmental laws and state subsidized shipping make for a much lower price.
deogeo 8y ago
'Imagine' you went to trade war instead. No shots would be fired, you'd just see a slow withering and take-over of your economy.
- DeonPenny 8y ago
  To late been that way for 20 years now
carlmr 8y ago
It's like any vicious cycle. All manufacturing is in China because all manufacturing is in China. A few years ago when they moved manufacturing in China I'm sure the supply chain wasn't there either. But they had the low manufacturing prices that enticed them to move anyway. If you want manufacturing to move back to the US (or Europe) you need to have tariffs that are so high that it's more profitable to move to the US even with supply chains that need to be built back up. It's not easy to move manufacturing, that's why there's a lot of incentive to stay where you are.
- Retric 8y ago
  The US still does a lot of manufacturing, from wooden furniture to CPU’s and aircraft. In a large scale war consumer electronics and massive quantities of consumer goods would not be a priority. Thing s like food, bullets, clothing, fuel, tanks etc would be and all of that can easily be manufactured in the US.
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    But who made the screws in the wooden furniture?
    - lykr0n 8y ago
      The point of this article is that Apple likes to use non-standard screws. It's not hard at all to buy standard screws made in the US.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      I know of a few companies in the US that make screws. The machines are automated and energy in the US is cheap so China can't compete. (I don't know business details, but I suspect they make screws to sell in the US, shipping to China probably is too expensive) The machines also ensure consistent high quality, which is something China is only starting to figure out.
      - wlesieutre 8y ago
PKop 8y ago
It is exactly that [0], and has been at the forefront of minds for DoD for (unfortunately) a few years (but should have been longer, all the way back to entrance into WTO in 2001). [0] https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASSESSING-AND-STRENGTHENING-THE-MANUFACTURING-AND-DEFENSE-INDUSTRIAL-BASE-AND-SUPPLY-CHAIN-RESILIENCY.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASS... This is a great read on the disparity of supply chain / manufacturing capabilities of China vs US and makes this new "cold war" era much different than previous between Soviet Union where we had not outsourced a large quorum of our productive capacity.
NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Everyone thinks it's a national security concern. From 1980 to now, wealthy people have sold out the well-being of the US for slight increases in their personal wealth. Historically, the solution is to kill wealthy people until they start acting better.
- adrianN 8y ago
  I'd assume that moving manufacturing to a country where it can be done cheaper also makes the manufactured goods cheaper and thus increases the well-being of the people buying them.
  - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
    That line of thinking is why phrases such as "penny wise, pound foolish" exist. Setting your house on fire is also an "efficient" way to generate heat, unless you account for the full future reckoning, which was similarly ignored in the move of manufacturing to China.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      It's pretty hard to know what the "future reckoning" will be with the move of manufacturing to China. The situation is different from setting your house on fire to keep warm. I don't think a war between the China and the rest of the world is terribly likely and I believe globalization is overall more good than bad for humanity. Other people may of course disagree, but the issue is definitely not as clear cut as you claim.
      - tivert 8y ago
        > I don't think a war between the China and the rest of the world is terribly likely and I believe globalization is overall more good than bad for humanity. A war doesn't have to be likely for the location of supply chains to have a negative geopolitical effect. For instance: China could use the knowledge that globalization has become the US military's achilles heel to confidently take aggressive action elsewhere, knowing the US can't respond because it can't sustain a response without Chinese cooperation. In a similar vein, economic dependence limits the pressure the US and other western countries can put on China in the name of Chinese human rights.
tdb7893 8y ago
With the current armament of the US it really isn't a concern to me. Would a war between major powers now last long enough to have the supply chain make a large difference?
- swalsh 8y ago
  I'm just an armchair general, so take this for what it's worth. I view US vs China in the same way I view Japan vs US in WW2. At the start of the war, we're going to start with the maximum amount of resources. We have more "Kinetic" energy. But I personally think China has more "Potential" energy. Unless we win in the first volleys of the war, I think China could very reasonably extend the length of the war, and ultimately win.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > China has more "Potential" energy America mines its own minerals and pumps its own oil. China cannot. This was the same weakness Japan had. In an American-Chinese conventional or proxy war, among the first Chinese targets would be its ports, pipelines and oil tankers.
    - tivert 8y ago
      > America mines its own minerals and pumps its own oil. China cannot. This was the same weakness Japan had. In an American-Chinese conventional or proxy war, among the first Chinese targets would be its ports, pipelines and oil tankers. Russia also pumps oil for export and shares a land border with China. It's also relatively friendly to China and relatively antagonistic to the US.
  - tossaccount123 8y ago
    China has no blue water Navy and can't feed it's own population without importing billions in food. US would blockade Brazil and stop exports of soy and corn to China. China would starve within months if not weeks China has zero force projection ability
- RhodesianHunter 8y ago
entity345 8y ago
The success of the military industrial complex is that it convinced everyone that it makes sense to plough hundreds of billions on a war that will never come and that would destroy us all anyway if it did.
- swebs 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
  - entity345 8y ago
    This is not the same as deterrence theory. Deterrence is achieved. No-one is going to try to invade the USA or start an all out war against them. This is FUD for power and money.
- zeveb 8y ago
  Nuclear war could come (and honestly probably will, someday), and it wouldn't destroy everyone, just many, many people. And of course, if we weren't prepared for it, then anyone who did prepare for it could do as he pleased: someone with a conventional army and nukes will make short work of someone with a conventional army and no nukes.
jdsudo 8y ago
That seems far fetched to me in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
MarkMc 8y ago
On top of that, imagine that China has a larger economy and military budget. That is to say, in about 2 generations the US will lose its military dominance.

by swalsh 8y ago

javagram 8y ago

Military equipment is manufactured in the US or allied countries to avoid this concern I think?

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Equipment is. Components and parts may not be.
atonse 8y ago
This is one of the concerns with Huawei networking equipment. It’s used by many US gov agencies and they’re now waking up to the risks posed.
PKop 8y ago
Just as one example, China has massive dominance in "rare" earth elements which are components of many different military and communication devices. Check this out for full scope of current disparities [0] [0] https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASSESSING-AND-STRENGTHENING-THE-MANUFACTURING-AND-DEFENSE-INDUSTRIAL-BASE-AND-SUPPLY-CHAIN-RESILIENCY.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASS...
- artificial 8y ago
  With regard to Batteries Rare Earth is anything but, it’s more messy than anything and China wins on price. The States has plenty of capacity in that regard and a mine just recently reopened in California. Borderline Slave labor, lax environmental laws and state subsidized shipping make for a much lower price.

deogeo 8y ago

'Imagine' you went to trade war instead. No shots would be fired, you'd just see a slow withering and take-over of your economy.

DeonPenny 8y ago
To late been that way for 20 years now

carlmr 8y ago

It's like any vicious cycle. All manufacturing is in China because all manufacturing is in China. A few years ago when they moved manufacturing in China I'm sure the supply chain wasn't there either. But they had the low manufacturing prices that enticed them to move anyway. If you want manufacturing to move back to the US (or Europe) you need to have tariffs that are so high that it's more profitable to move to the US even with supply chains that need to be built back up. It's not easy to move manufacturing, that's why there's a lot of incentive to stay where you are.

Retric 8y ago
The US still does a lot of manufacturing, from wooden furniture to CPU’s and aircraft. In a large scale war consumer electronics and massive quantities of consumer goods would not be a priority. Thing s like food, bullets, clothing, fuel, tanks etc would be and all of that can easily be manufactured in the US.
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  But who made the screws in the wooden furniture?
  - lykr0n 8y ago
    The point of this article is that Apple likes to use non-standard screws. It's not hard at all to buy standard screws made in the US.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    I know of a few companies in the US that make screws. The machines are automated and energy in the US is cheap so China can't compete. (I don't know business details, but I suspect they make screws to sell in the US, shipping to China probably is too expensive) The machines also ensure consistent high quality, which is something China is only starting to figure out.
    - wlesieutre 8y ago

PKop 8y ago

It is exactly that [0], and has been at the forefront of minds for DoD for (unfortunately) a few years (but should have been longer, all the way back to entrance into WTO in 2001). [0] https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASSESSING-AND-STRENGTHENING-THE-MANUFACTURING-AND-DEFENSE-INDUSTRIAL-BASE-AND-SUPPLY-CHAIN-RESILIENCY.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASS... This is a great read on the disparity of supply chain / manufacturing capabilities of China vs US and makes this new "cold war" era much different than previous between Soviet Union where we had not outsourced a large quorum of our productive capacity.

NotAnEconomist 8y ago

Everyone thinks it's a national security concern. From 1980 to now, wealthy people have sold out the well-being of the US for slight increases in their personal wealth. Historically, the solution is to kill wealthy people until they start acting better.

adrianN 8y ago
I'd assume that moving manufacturing to a country where it can be done cheaper also makes the manufactured goods cheaper and thus increases the well-being of the people buying them.
- NotAnEconomist 8y ago
  That line of thinking is why phrases such as "penny wise, pound foolish" exist. Setting your house on fire is also an "efficient" way to generate heat, unless you account for the full future reckoning, which was similarly ignored in the move of manufacturing to China.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    It's pretty hard to know what the "future reckoning" will be with the move of manufacturing to China. The situation is different from setting your house on fire to keep warm. I don't think a war between the China and the rest of the world is terribly likely and I believe globalization is overall more good than bad for humanity. Other people may of course disagree, but the issue is definitely not as clear cut as you claim.
    - tivert 8y ago
      > I don't think a war between the China and the rest of the world is terribly likely and I believe globalization is overall more good than bad for humanity. A war doesn't have to be likely for the location of supply chains to have a negative geopolitical effect. For instance: China could use the knowledge that globalization has become the US military's achilles heel to confidently take aggressive action elsewhere, knowing the US can't respond because it can't sustain a response without Chinese cooperation. In a similar vein, economic dependence limits the pressure the US and other western countries can put on China in the name of Chinese human rights.

tdb7893 8y ago

With the current armament of the US it really isn't a concern to me. Would a war between major powers now last long enough to have the supply chain make a large difference?

swalsh 8y ago
I'm just an armchair general, so take this for what it's worth. I view US vs China in the same way I view Japan vs US in WW2. At the start of the war, we're going to start with the maximum amount of resources. We have more "Kinetic" energy. But I personally think China has more "Potential" energy. Unless we win in the first volleys of the war, I think China could very reasonably extend the length of the war, and ultimately win.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > China has more "Potential" energy America mines its own minerals and pumps its own oil. China cannot. This was the same weakness Japan had. In an American-Chinese conventional or proxy war, among the first Chinese targets would be its ports, pipelines and oil tankers.
  - tivert 8y ago
    > America mines its own minerals and pumps its own oil. China cannot. This was the same weakness Japan had. In an American-Chinese conventional or proxy war, among the first Chinese targets would be its ports, pipelines and oil tankers. Russia also pumps oil for export and shares a land border with China. It's also relatively friendly to China and relatively antagonistic to the US.
- tossaccount123 8y ago
  China has no blue water Navy and can't feed it's own population without importing billions in food. US would blockade Brazil and stop exports of soy and corn to China. China would starve within months if not weeks China has zero force projection ability
RhodesianHunter 8y ago

entity345 8y ago

The success of the military industrial complex is that it convinced everyone that it makes sense to plough hundreds of billions on a war that will never come and that would destroy us all anyway if it did.

swebs 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
- entity345 8y ago
  This is not the same as deterrence theory. Deterrence is achieved. No-one is going to try to invade the USA or start an all out war against them. This is FUD for power and money.
zeveb 8y ago
Nuclear war could come (and honestly probably will, someday), and it wouldn't destroy everyone, just many, many people. And of course, if we weren't prepared for it, then anyone who did prepare for it could do as he pleased: someone with a conventional army and nukes will make short work of someone with a conventional army and no nukes.

jdsudo 8y ago

That seems far fetched to me in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

MarkMc 8y ago

On top of that, imagine that China has a larger economy and military budget. That is to say, in about 2 generations the US will lose its military dominance.