> Except there's no point I can recall in the history of strategic policymaking where anyone has concluded "yes, having our manufacturing base be outsourced to

> Except there's no point I can recall in the history of strategic policymaking where anyone has concluded "yes, having our manufacturing base be outsourced to foreign powers is a sensible decision with no serious impacts on the actual or expected availability of defense capability". Right. Including in the United States over the past 40+ years. The United States does manufacture its weapons domestically, it does stockpile reserves of key components, and it does require domestic manufacturing for key inputs. The linked report doesn't even contest any of this. It's to a "renaissance" in arms manufacturing. The question is less "is this a real problem in the abstract" and much more "is this a real problem that the US actually has?" This is really a bit like saying "if a country can't grow its own food then its people will starve". The problem is not with explicit argument, which is of course common sense. The problem is with the implicit implication ("give us more money for farm subsidies or you will starve"... well, wait, does the US have a food security problem? Do we already have funds in place to help mitigate that risk? Are those risk reduction programs effective? Is more risk reduction necessary? And is the specific spending that's being requested to nominally reduce risk actually going to do so?). Which is to say, all of this comes before asking the even more important question: even if we do are out-sourcing our arms manufacturing (we aren't, but even if we were...), will following DoD's recommendations make us less reliant on other nations? Or are we just just pissing money away into some DoD beaurocrat's useless jobs program?