3 ms·

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
      The industrial capacity of the US was not intended for the conversion needed in the lead up to our entry into WW2. Two things: 1) I pointed out aircraft as a potential special case, and I'd likely add seacraft to this as well. Some amount of capacity specifically for military craft will need to be maintained, and systems modernized periodically. 2) We now know the risk of not being prepared so we can plan our industrial sector partially around this potential capacity. Give a monetary award to companies that maintain some degree of readiness, for instance. Test it out periodically (just like a backup plan, if it's not tested it's worthless).
  • a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    Nobody sane is going to debate that US military spending is out of control and proportion. However, I think you're being naive about the role of military power in human affairs. A wealthy nation with great science and education but no geopolitical leverage will get shaken down or conquered. This is how human history works. Various small nations appear to sustain a wealthy existence without much military power because they are in fact vassals to larger empires. This can only really work for a small nation.
    • melling 13y ago
      Can you provide some numbers? According to Wikipedia, defense spending is much less today as a percentage of GDP than in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...
    • Jtsummers 13y ago
      Did I say we shouldn't have a military? Please, point that out to me. Or, you know, read what I wrote.