3 ms·

Maybe we shouldn’t outsource tasks that are strategically important to the nation’s defense (assuming for the sake of argument that they are.)

• CydeWeys 7y ago
  No assumptions necessary; being able to manufacture cutting-edge aircraft is clearly strategically important to a country's national defense.
  • bradleyjg 7y ago
    Oh? Which country would be able to successfully invade the US if we didn’t have cutting edge aircraft?
    • CydeWeys 7y ago
      Air supremacy is of paramount importance in modern warfare. Look at how thoroughly we were able to dominate the conventional land battles in Iraq and Afghanistan because of it. You can't have an effective national defense (or offense) these days without a good air force. And we're fortunate that ours is home-grown, not bought. Just go ask Iran what it's like having a non-home-grown air force; they have a bunch of F-14s they can't even fly because the necessary replacement parts have been sanctioned for a long time.
      • bradleyjg 7y ago
        I note that you didn’t answer the question. It may (or may not) be reasonable to want a Big Swinging Dick military that goes around devastating third world nations, but it isn’t defense.
        • CydeWeys 7y ago
          Air supremacy is necessary for defense as well, especially so.
• iguy 7y ago
  Outsource implies that it was once an in-house operation, but I don't think this was ever true. However, allowing mergers until there are only one or two companies which can make strategically important things means you have painted yourself into a corner. You can bet that these companies will be well aware that they are immortal, and behave in ways which exploit this. You will not get the efficiencies often ascribed to private enterprise.