4 ms·

In addition to using a word that is confusing many HN readers (and non-readers), the title is a bit hyperbolic. I have not seen anything that leads me to believ

In addition to using a word that is confusing many HN readers (and non-readers), the title is a bit hyperbolic. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe the U.S. has compromised its ability to fight two simultaneous wars, it's just we've deeply dipped into our reserves, and production has not ramped up yet. I have every confidence that America's industrial base will happily expand to fulfill any (funded) mandate—does Stoller seriously disagree? And in any case, it's not like these resources are going to waste, the war in Ukraine (we will elide the other conflicts) is very much worth the investment from NATO's perspective.

wmf 3y ago
He mentions that some contracts will take five years to deliver. This seems bad to me but maybe it's not.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Reimersholme 3y ago
[dead]
gumby 3y ago
Which word is confusing, "out"? It's a common word in both meanings that constitute the pun in the title. > I have every confidence that America's industrial base will happily expand to fulfill any (funded) mandate—does Stoller seriously disagree? I do not have that confidence and yes Stoller seriously disagrees with your belief (emphasis mine): > Surges due to wars aren’t new, and there’s always some time lag between the build-up and the delivery. But today, the lengths of time are weirdly long. For instance, the Army is awarding contracts to RTX and Lockheed Martin to build new Stinger missiles, which makes sense. But the process will take.. five years. Why? What is new is Wall Street’s role in weaponry. We used to have slack, and productive capacity, but then came private equity and mergers. And now we don’t. The government can’t actually solicit bids from multiple players for most major weapons systems, because there’s just one or two possible bidders. So that means there’s little incentive for firms to expand output, even if there’s more spending. Why not just raise price? > But don’t take my word for it, take that of the Pentagon. In 2022, the DOD reported that “that consolidation of the industrial base reduces competition for DOD contracts and leads DOD to rely on a more limited number of suppliers. This lack of competition may in turn increase the risk of supply chain gaps, price increases, reduced innovation, and other adverse effects.” And that’s why, more than a year into the Ukraine conflict, the ramp-up is still not where it needs to be. > ...it's not like these resources are going to waste, the war in Ukraine (we will elide the other conflicts) is very much worth the investment from NATO's perspective. This point is orthogonal to the article.
einpoklum 3y ago
> And in any case, it's not like these resources are going to waste, the war in Ukraine (we will elide the other conflicts) is very much worth the investment from NATO's perspective. The ammunition is not being "wasted" as it is splattering the bodies of men, young and old. A protracted war, which could well have been avoided, rages on, with Millions of refugees, a country's economy wrecked, and probably half a million people dead or wounded among Ukrainians, separatists and Russians. This talk of a "worthwhile investment" is abhorrent.
- tatersolid 3y ago
  > This talk of a "worthwhile investment" is abhorrent. Would appeasing an aggressive dictator be better “investment”? That worked out so well in the past…

wmf 3y ago

He mentions that some contracts will take five years to deliver. This seems bad to me but maybe it's not.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Reimersholme 3y ago

[dead]

gumby 3y ago

Which word is confusing, "out"? It's a common word in both meanings that constitute the pun in the title. > I have every confidence that America's industrial base will happily expand to fulfill any (funded) mandate—does Stoller seriously disagree? I do not have that confidence and yes Stoller seriously disagrees with your belief (emphasis mine): > Surges due to wars aren’t new, and there’s always some time lag between the build-up and the delivery. But today, the lengths of time are weirdly long. For instance, the Army is awarding contracts to RTX and Lockheed Martin to build new Stinger missiles, which makes sense. But the process will take.. five years. Why? What is new is Wall Street’s role in weaponry. We used to have slack, and productive capacity, but then came private equity and mergers. And now we don’t. The government can’t actually solicit bids from multiple players for most major weapons systems, because there’s just one or two possible bidders. So that means there’s little incentive for firms to expand output, even if there’s more spending. Why not just raise price? > But don’t take my word for it, take that of the Pentagon. In 2022, the DOD reported that “that consolidation of the industrial base reduces competition for DOD contracts and leads DOD to rely on a more limited number of suppliers. This lack of competition may in turn increase the risk of supply chain gaps, price increases, reduced innovation, and other adverse effects.” And that’s why, more than a year into the Ukraine conflict, the ramp-up is still not where it needs to be. > ...it's not like these resources are going to waste, the war in Ukraine (we will elide the other conflicts) is very much worth the investment from NATO's perspective. This point is orthogonal to the article.

einpoklum 3y ago

> And in any case, it's not like these resources are going to waste, the war in Ukraine (we will elide the other conflicts) is very much worth the investment from NATO's perspective. The ammunition is not being "wasted" as it is splattering the bodies of men, young and old. A protracted war, which could well have been avoided, rages on, with Millions of refugees, a country's economy wrecked, and probably half a million people dead or wounded among Ukrainians, separatists and Russians. This talk of a "worthwhile investment" is abhorrent.

tatersolid 3y ago
> This talk of a "worthwhile investment" is abhorrent. Would appeasing an aggressive dictator be better “investment”? That worked out so well in the past…