5 ms·

Isn't buying things for the military out of concern for industrial needs rather than strategic need the definition of the military-industrial complex? The soon

by a_c_s 13y ago

Isn't buying things for the military out of concern for industrial needs rather than strategic need the definition of the military-industrial complex? The sooner this 'post-Cold-War day of reckoning for military aircraft' happens, the better.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
The industrial capacity is strategic. A large, well integrated fleet of F-22s with highly trained operators and support can ensure a war with a technologically advanced adversary doesn't start in the first place. Peace through superior firepower. The cancellation of the F-22 program goes along with the strange idea that bombing brown people in far off places will continue to be the problem going forward.
- Theodores 13y ago
  True. When you have bribed politicians the world over to spend their taxpayers money on F15's and F16's (instead of schools and hospitals) you do need the F22 to have that peace through superior bombing ability.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Does this mean more f 35s? Even a worse decision ! The NSA has compromised communication and political speech in the Domestic USA, and unchecked its a far worse threat to freedom around the world. The US military is thankfully strong enough that it does not act out of small d!@k syndrome, which is why it is the most respected branch of the us government. Its approval ratings are >70%, while congress is ~10s and the media is ~20's. Insecure beuracracies are typically the most evil entities on the planet. Just like insecure b-team middle managers at work.
    - Theodores 13y ago
      Eyes roll! http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-congress-falls-lowest-record.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-congr... 76% of Americans really do 'approve' of the military. What next? Turkeys approving of Christmas!
      - 001sky 13y ago
        You need to seperate people that use gear from people that handl the money to buy it, and the politicians that pursue their own agends, for selfish reasons. The US military is surprisingly competent at a managerial level in many ways. I wouldn't knee jerk react to a statement like that unless you have actuall experience with the matter, tho. I know it's not the first thought that comes to mind, and its certainly not the view taught to kids or promulgated in the media. YMMv.
- lmm 13y ago
  > The cancellation of the F-22 program goes along with the strange idea that bombing brown people in far off places will continue to be the problem going forward. Meanwhile the F-22 was the perfect weapon to fight the Soviet Union. I think that "strange idea" is accurate.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    It's a weapon for penetrating and destroying theater air defense systems. Such systems aren't particularly Soviet, so I don't follow.
    - cmdkeen 13y ago
      The Soviets and then Russians did a very good series of deals flogging their air defence systems to all sorts of countries. Syria for instance is a prime example - though get involved there was avoided, rightly or wrongly. If Syria and North Korea have proved anything to the world it is the messier you make any potential intervention the safer you are from intervention, and thus can do what you like to your populace.
ars 13y ago
Having the ability to produce heavy machinery IS a strategic need. The military will not let all those factories go under because it wants to ensure the domestic ability to produce military equipment. It's expensive though, you either pay factories to exist but not do anything, or you build unneeded machines, or you figure out how to make a "modular" factory that can be converted in a time of need.
- lmm 13y ago
  If the military needs some factories, why don't they buy some factories, and run them as profitably as they can? Buying stuff they don't need from contractors is a strange, inefficient way to keep industrial capacity if that's what they really want.
  - ars 13y ago
    It's not strange at all. First the military is a military, it's not a contractor. It's just not what they do. Additionally privatization is usually pretty efficient. Among other things it also lets the factory owners do other things with the factory which can bring cost savings. And finally one of the unwritten goals of the military is the economy.
    - Jtsummers 13y ago
      > Additionally privatization is usually pretty efficient. By some measures of efficiency. It also means that the military can't do in-theater activities they used to do. They can barely cook their own meals anymore. That said, they have no real role in the manufacture of systems other than as customers and future maintainers, that's where the private industry belongs. State-side, many bases are guarded by private contractors who had (for a time, this changed) the physical fitness requirement of having a pulse. Aircraft maintenance is a combination of public (military run depots, mostly staffed by a combination of civil servants and contractors) and private (NG or Boeing or whoever run facilities). Both have issues, but the latter is quite effective at lobbying to continue to get their incentive pay even after destroying an aircraft [1]. I'll note, FOD damage occurs at military run depots as well. But they don't get their incentive pay for destroying an aircraft, they risk being put at the top of the next BRAC list. [1] http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-trashed-a-jstars/ http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-trash...
wtbob 13y ago
Concern for industrial capacity is strategic...
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  Industrial capacity is strategic, yes. But industrial capacity churning out something that's unneeded or overly expensive is not. Aircraft, I could be convinced to concede that that's sufficiently specialized and low demand. But our tank production, we're making tanks that the army doesn't need or want. Those facilities (if they weren't tied to military work) could have been turned over to producing large industrial vehicles instead of military vehicles. They'd still be operating, people would still be employed, and should a war break out and a need for more tanks exist they could switch production just like what happened leading up to WW2 (for the US). It is not strategic to waste billions on weapons systems that get grounded for years at a time (F-22, F-15, probably others). It is not strategic to waste a nations economic resources on military capabilities rather than education (future workforce), scientific (future capabilities), agriculture (resource independence and export) and energy (resource independence and export) activities.
  - kenrikm 13y ago
    I would like to point out that early in WW2 we were getting our asses kicked as we waited for the factories to come online things did not really start to turn until 42/43. Where to draw the line on what is production is needed to keep that from happening in future conflicts is beyond me.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I think you exaggerate the WWII experience a bit. The turning point in the Pacific was roughly the battle of Midway, which was fought with pre-war equipment. The turning point in Europe was really up to the Soviets, but American involvement really didn't come down to "asses kicked" since we had no real presence to get kicked until Operation Torch, and the Americans had decent success from then on.
    - Jtsummers 13y ago

by a_c_s 13y ago

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

The industrial capacity is strategic. A large, well integrated fleet of F-22s with highly trained operators and support can ensure a war with a technologically advanced adversary doesn't start in the first place. Peace through superior firepower. The cancellation of the F-22 program goes along with the strange idea that bombing brown people in far off places will continue to be the problem going forward.

Theodores 13y ago
True. When you have bribed politicians the world over to spend their taxpayers money on F15's and F16's (instead of schools and hospitals) you do need the F22 to have that peace through superior bombing ability.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Does this mean more f 35s? Even a worse decision ! The NSA has compromised communication and political speech in the Domestic USA, and unchecked its a far worse threat to freedom around the world. The US military is thankfully strong enough that it does not act out of small d!@k syndrome, which is why it is the most respected branch of the us government. Its approval ratings are >70%, while congress is ~10s and the media is ~20's. Insecure beuracracies are typically the most evil entities on the planet. Just like insecure b-team middle managers at work.
  - Theodores 13y ago
    Eyes roll! http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-congress-falls-lowest-record.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-congr... 76% of Americans really do 'approve' of the military. What next? Turkeys approving of Christmas!
    - 001sky 13y ago
      You need to seperate people that use gear from people that handl the money to buy it, and the politicians that pursue their own agends, for selfish reasons. The US military is surprisingly competent at a managerial level in many ways. I wouldn't knee jerk react to a statement like that unless you have actuall experience with the matter, tho. I know it's not the first thought that comes to mind, and its certainly not the view taught to kids or promulgated in the media. YMMv.
lmm 13y ago
> The cancellation of the F-22 program goes along with the strange idea that bombing brown people in far off places will continue to be the problem going forward. Meanwhile the F-22 was the perfect weapon to fight the Soviet Union. I think that "strange idea" is accurate.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  It's a weapon for penetrating and destroying theater air defense systems. Such systems aren't particularly Soviet, so I don't follow.
  - cmdkeen 13y ago
    The Soviets and then Russians did a very good series of deals flogging their air defence systems to all sorts of countries. Syria for instance is a prime example - though get involved there was avoided, rightly or wrongly. If Syria and North Korea have proved anything to the world it is the messier you make any potential intervention the safer you are from intervention, and thus can do what you like to your populace.

ars 13y ago

Having the ability to produce heavy machinery IS a strategic need. The military will not let all those factories go under because it wants to ensure the domestic ability to produce military equipment. It's expensive though, you either pay factories to exist but not do anything, or you build unneeded machines, or you figure out how to make a "modular" factory that can be converted in a time of need.

lmm 13y ago
If the military needs some factories, why don't they buy some factories, and run them as profitably as they can? Buying stuff they don't need from contractors is a strange, inefficient way to keep industrial capacity if that's what they really want.
- ars 13y ago
  It's not strange at all. First the military is a military, it's not a contractor. It's just not what they do. Additionally privatization is usually pretty efficient. Among other things it also lets the factory owners do other things with the factory which can bring cost savings. And finally one of the unwritten goals of the military is the economy.
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    > Additionally privatization is usually pretty efficient. By some measures of efficiency. It also means that the military can't do in-theater activities they used to do. They can barely cook their own meals anymore. That said, they have no real role in the manufacture of systems other than as customers and future maintainers, that's where the private industry belongs. State-side, many bases are guarded by private contractors who had (for a time, this changed) the physical fitness requirement of having a pulse. Aircraft maintenance is a combination of public (military run depots, mostly staffed by a combination of civil servants and contractors) and private (NG or Boeing or whoever run facilities). Both have issues, but the latter is quite effective at lobbying to continue to get their incentive pay even after destroying an aircraft [1]. I'll note, FOD damage occurs at military run depots as well. But they don't get their incentive pay for destroying an aircraft, they risk being put at the top of the next BRAC list. [1] http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-trashed-a-jstars/ http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-trash...

wtbob 13y ago

Concern for industrial capacity is strategic...

Jtsummers 13y ago
Industrial capacity is strategic, yes. But industrial capacity churning out something that's unneeded or overly expensive is not. Aircraft, I could be convinced to concede that that's sufficiently specialized and low demand. But our tank production, we're making tanks that the army doesn't need or want. Those facilities (if they weren't tied to military work) could have been turned over to producing large industrial vehicles instead of military vehicles. They'd still be operating, people would still be employed, and should a war break out and a need for more tanks exist they could switch production just like what happened leading up to WW2 (for the US). It is not strategic to waste billions on weapons systems that get grounded for years at a time (F-22, F-15, probably others). It is not strategic to waste a nations economic resources on military capabilities rather than education (future workforce), scientific (future capabilities), agriculture (resource independence and export) and energy (resource independence and export) activities.
- kenrikm 13y ago
  I would like to point out that early in WW2 we were getting our asses kicked as we waited for the factories to come online things did not really start to turn until 42/43. Where to draw the line on what is production is needed to keep that from happening in future conflicts is beyond me.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I think you exaggerate the WWII experience a bit. The turning point in the Pacific was roughly the battle of Midway, which was fought with pre-war equipment. The turning point in Europe was really up to the Soviets, but American involvement really didn't come down to "asses kicked" since we had no real presence to get kicked until Operation Torch, and the Americans had decent success from then on.
  - Jtsummers 13y ago