3 ms·

Subsidize capability upkeep - as in if you need it, you still have trained machinists, specialists and retoolable machinery in storage, to copy and buildup a ca

Subsidize capability upkeep - as in if you need it, you still have trained machinists, specialists and retoolable machinery in storage, to copy and buildup a capability at scale.

XorNot 1y ago
The question is why do this though? This is basically a defense economics argument. If there's no adversarial conflict, then who cares where something is made?
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago
  > If there's no adversarial conflict, then who cares where something is made? I think you just answered your question by yourself without realizing: the signs are that an adversarial conflict might come up - so be prepared for it.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    That's presuming that such a conflict would be fought as the sort of industrial war that WW1 and WW2 were. But there's little evidence that's the case: the lead times on modern weapons systems are enormous, and the attrition rate of hardware is enormous too (i.e. consider that the Javelin can put a tank out of action permanently). It is an unproven criteria that it is reasonable or possible to expect to produce the munitions and equipment for a conflict during the conflict if it's the sort of near-peer thing people usually cite for this - i.e. rather you go to war with what you have, and you're unlikely to rebuild that advantage in time if you don't win then. Which is the point: localizing a bunch of industries on that basis may not make any sense, compared to simply stockpiling from the cheapest accreditable sources.
- galangalalgol 1y ago
  A tsunami once wiped out the entire world's production capacity for spinning hard drives. Efficiency is always the enemy of robustness, and war is only one kind of disaster. And the way the world is going, adversarial conflict seems to be the new normal.
  - franktankbank 1y ago
    I can't believe you mentioned the tsunami. It came right after the offshoring happened for unnamed company my father worked for, I'll never forget it, it couldn't have been worse timing. All the investment POOF.
- PicassoCTs 1y ago
  If the latest review of the "end of history" shows one thing- there is always adversarial minds at work. The whole "free world" mindset has collapsed in on itself the moment the us withdrew into isolationism. The world out there, is run by the old landempires gobbling up neighbors again. No progress has been made and to defend against barbaric adversaries, one must keep dependency on them low. There always is a bill - and business is helping the enemies of liberty to prepare. They are not interested in peaceful coexistence, quite contrary, the conflict is a carrying pillar to upkeep societal/tribal structural integrity. And war & peace is a defector game- only one needs to defect to put the others in the same position as the defector. So "business as usual" with non-free block aligned nations- will always be long-term collusion with the enemy.

Subsidize capability upkeep - as in if you need it, you still have trained machinists, specialists and retoolable machinery in storage, to copy and buildup a capability at scale.

XorNot 1y ago

The question is why do this though? This is basically a defense economics argument. If there's no adversarial conflict, then who cares where something is made?

aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> If there's no adversarial conflict, then who cares where something is made? I think you just answered your question by yourself without realizing: the signs are that an adversarial conflict might come up - so be prepared for it.
- XorNot 1y ago
  That's presuming that such a conflict would be fought as the sort of industrial war that WW1 and WW2 were. But there's little evidence that's the case: the lead times on modern weapons systems are enormous, and the attrition rate of hardware is enormous too (i.e. consider that the Javelin can put a tank out of action permanently). It is an unproven criteria that it is reasonable or possible to expect to produce the munitions and equipment for a conflict during the conflict if it's the sort of near-peer thing people usually cite for this - i.e. rather you go to war with what you have, and you're unlikely to rebuild that advantage in time if you don't win then. Which is the point: localizing a bunch of industries on that basis may not make any sense, compared to simply stockpiling from the cheapest accreditable sources.
galangalalgol 1y ago
A tsunami once wiped out the entire world's production capacity for spinning hard drives. Efficiency is always the enemy of robustness, and war is only one kind of disaster. And the way the world is going, adversarial conflict seems to be the new normal.
- franktankbank 1y ago
  I can't believe you mentioned the tsunami. It came right after the offshoring happened for unnamed company my father worked for, I'll never forget it, it couldn't have been worse timing. All the investment POOF.
PicassoCTs 1y ago
If the latest review of the "end of history" shows one thing- there is always adversarial minds at work. The whole "free world" mindset has collapsed in on itself the moment the us withdrew into isolationism. The world out there, is run by the old landempires gobbling up neighbors again. No progress has been made and to defend against barbaric adversaries, one must keep dependency on them low. There always is a bill - and business is helping the enemies of liberty to prepare. They are not interested in peaceful coexistence, quite contrary, the conflict is a carrying pillar to upkeep societal/tribal structural integrity. And war & peace is a defector game- only one needs to defect to put the others in the same position as the defector. So "business as usual" with non-free block aligned nations- will always be long-term collusion with the enemy.