4 ms·

Um...anyone ever heard of the term "military-industrial complex"[1]? I would opine that the decline of this is a good thing. You might be able to trace a bunch

Um...anyone ever heard of the term "military-industrial complex"[1]? I would opine that the decline of this is a good thing. You might be able to trace a bunch of evil things to it. For example, NSA spying and the invasion of Iraq. I assure you that the chances of the defense industry running out of things to produce in the USA are wildly exaggerated. The article sounds like a shill piece for the defense industry. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_com...

brazzy 13y ago
If I understood it correctly, the concern raised by the article are not about overall reduced military production, but about the reduction being managed badly with the possible result that at some point specific stuff that is still needed cannot be produced anymore while lots of money is spent on programs that don't meet current requirements and end up getting cancelled.
javert 13y ago
> You might be able to trace a bunch of evil things to it. For example, NSA spying and the invasion of Iraq. That is hand-waving. You might be able to. You also might be able to trace JFK's assasination to a jilted lover. The problems you speak of are more likely ideological, although the NSA issue might just be pure careerism (as there is no modern ideology that claims that 1984 is a utopian book).
- ryanackley 13y ago
  I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the political pressure to go to war or fund overreaching government programs is based on the corporate interests of government contractors. I didn't think I needed to connect the dots between corporate interests, federally funded jobs in legislators home districts, and American policy. It should be obvious but that is just my opinion.
  - javert 13y ago
    So you are saying that a majority of the legislators and the executive are all pursuing foreign wars... because some voters in their districts work for defense companies? I don't think that argument holds water because it's not true that defense employs an overwhelming number of people in the average legislative (Senate or Congress) district. Or are you saying they are directly being bribed large sums of money to do it? If so, please provide evidence. That doesn't seem plausible in the US where direct bribes are rare and can be caught. > It should be obvious but that is just my opinion. Oh, right. The reason your argument is not specific and empirical is because you are appealing to the "obvious" i.e. "your opinion." And I must be stupid to not see that your opinion is just obvious.
    - ryanackley 13y ago
      That isn't what I'm saying but I'm not going to argue with you. It's my opinion. I don't understand why you seem so angry about it.
antimagic 13y ago
Yes, I had the same thought. Frankly I would consider throwing away huge amounts of money into unneeded defence production lines to be a greater threat to the US than the loss of said unneeded production lines. The article rattles off a long list of aircraft production lines that will be shut, but it doesn't talk at all about the future of military aviation - drones and cruise missiles. These are already capable of performing many of the tasks that once were performed by piloted aircraft, and the delta between their capability and current aircraft should be fill-able by the F-35 (well, the F-35 is shaping up to be a bit of a mess, but that's another discussion).
mathattack 13y ago
My impression is that if we lose some capacity to make our own planes, and have to rely on some of our allies, it's not the end of the world. We're already spending more on defense than most of the rest of the world put together. The one negative is that defense is a rare winner-take-all industry with lots of spillover effects. If we lose the big companies, we lose a lot of other jobs with it.
Spooky23 13y ago
You're right and wrong. The issue here is that one of the core competencies of the US war machine is our air superiority, which has reigned completely since around 1943. Naval superiority is really a variant of this, as the surface Navy doesn't exist without a dominant air arm. Just the notion that we are approaching a level of corruption and decline where we're shutting down our ability to dominate the military manned aircraft space in the next decade is just plain disturbing.

brazzy 13y ago

If I understood it correctly, the concern raised by the article are not about overall reduced military production, but about the reduction being managed badly with the possible result that at some point specific stuff that is still needed cannot be produced anymore while lots of money is spent on programs that don't meet current requirements and end up getting cancelled.

javert 13y ago

> You might be able to trace a bunch of evil things to it. For example, NSA spying and the invasion of Iraq. That is hand-waving. You might be able to. You also might be able to trace JFK's assasination to a jilted lover. The problems you speak of are more likely ideological, although the NSA issue might just be pure careerism (as there is no modern ideology that claims that 1984 is a utopian book).

ryanackley 13y ago
I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the political pressure to go to war or fund overreaching government programs is based on the corporate interests of government contractors. I didn't think I needed to connect the dots between corporate interests, federally funded jobs in legislators home districts, and American policy. It should be obvious but that is just my opinion.
- javert 13y ago
  So you are saying that a majority of the legislators and the executive are all pursuing foreign wars... because some voters in their districts work for defense companies? I don't think that argument holds water because it's not true that defense employs an overwhelming number of people in the average legislative (Senate or Congress) district. Or are you saying they are directly being bribed large sums of money to do it? If so, please provide evidence. That doesn't seem plausible in the US where direct bribes are rare and can be caught. > It should be obvious but that is just my opinion. Oh, right. The reason your argument is not specific and empirical is because you are appealing to the "obvious" i.e. "your opinion." And I must be stupid to not see that your opinion is just obvious.
  - ryanackley 13y ago
    That isn't what I'm saying but I'm not going to argue with you. It's my opinion. I don't understand why you seem so angry about it.

antimagic 13y ago

Yes, I had the same thought. Frankly I would consider throwing away huge amounts of money into unneeded defence production lines to be a greater threat to the US than the loss of said unneeded production lines. The article rattles off a long list of aircraft production lines that will be shut, but it doesn't talk at all about the future of military aviation - drones and cruise missiles. These are already capable of performing many of the tasks that once were performed by piloted aircraft, and the delta between their capability and current aircraft should be fill-able by the F-35 (well, the F-35 is shaping up to be a bit of a mess, but that's another discussion).

mathattack 13y ago

My impression is that if we lose some capacity to make our own planes, and have to rely on some of our allies, it's not the end of the world. We're already spending more on defense than most of the rest of the world put together. The one negative is that defense is a rare winner-take-all industry with lots of spillover effects. If we lose the big companies, we lose a lot of other jobs with it.

Spooky23 13y ago

You're right and wrong. The issue here is that one of the core competencies of the US war machine is our air superiority, which has reigned completely since around 1943. Naval superiority is really a variant of this, as the surface Navy doesn't exist without a dominant air arm. Just the notion that we are approaching a level of corruption and decline where we're shutting down our ability to dominate the military manned aircraft space in the next decade is just plain disturbing.