13 ms·

> but their only customer is the military Not true. Their only customers may be militaries, plural, but that's not the same as the military, singular. Defense

> but their only customer is the military Not true. Their only customers may be militaries, plural, but that's not the same as the military, singular. Defense contractors routinely sell to allied countries, with complex financing arrangements whereby the costs are distributed between the foreign customer and the US (which agrees to pay partial costs for strategic reasons). The distinction is important because US financing is done by a civilian, not military, branch of the American government. Production is not a pure function of physical capability; it still requires financing. If the military is capable of producing its own weapons, lacks civilian financing to do so, but can sell excess production to foreign allies, then you've handed the military the keys to self-financing. This undermines civilian control of the military.

ramblenode 4y ago
> If the military is capable of producing its own weapons, lacks civilian financing to do so, but can sell excess production to foreign allies, then you've handed the military the keys to self-financing. This undermines civilian control of the military. Interesting point. I would say that handing production to profit-maximizing corporations also undermines civilian control of the military through corporate capture of decision making.
- solatic 4y ago
  Of course. The author points to a real problem whereby civilian control of the military is undermined because the underlying capabilities have eroded. But this is due to the DoD procurement moat that the Big Five persist; if it were easier to procure DoD contracts, then we'd see more smaller contractors pop up to compete for them. That those smaller contractors are still profit-maximizing civilian corporations wouldn't matter; having a large, diverse industrial base was key to 20th century military victories, as the author concedes. But said industrial base does need to be both large and diverse.

ramblenode 4y ago

> If the military is capable of producing its own weapons, lacks civilian financing to do so, but can sell excess production to foreign allies, then you've handed the military the keys to self-financing. This undermines civilian control of the military. Interesting point. I would say that handing production to profit-maximizing corporations also undermines civilian control of the military through corporate capture of decision making.

solatic 4y ago
Of course. The author points to a real problem whereby civilian control of the military is undermined because the underlying capabilities have eroded. But this is due to the DoD procurement moat that the Big Five persist; if it were easier to procure DoD contracts, then we'd see more smaller contractors pop up to compete for them. That those smaller contractors are still profit-maximizing civilian corporations wouldn't matter; having a large, diverse industrial base was key to 20th century military victories, as the author concedes. But said industrial base does need to be both large and diverse.