A strong manufacturing base and national security

[werepossum]

I understand your bolded point, but relating it to the OP, I don't see that increasing the manufacturing base is needed for deterrent purposes. Heck, our nuclear arsenal alone is more than enough for that. The nukes are the main reason I don't see another WW happening again. The bigger threat is probably a terrorist group getting its hands on one.

I'm not sure nukes are really that much of a deterrent. Does anyone really think we would use nukes? I don't, except maybe in defense of our own national soil. Not for South Korea, Japan, Europe. Maybe not even for Hawaii. If a major belligerent who also had nukes started a conventional war, I can't imagine us using nukes even if not doing so meant losing.

 

[Infohawk]

I can't see how we need a large manufacturing base to keep up on those kinds of tech advances. The OP's point was that in an emergency, we couldn't produce enough tanks/planes/ships/ordinance. Yet I seriously doubt we'll see a globe wide conventional conflict ever again. The threat of nukes is too dangerous.

In the end don't you need all segments of the industrial base to make advanced weapons? They still use steel or plastic or silicon. You also need advanced R&D and manufacturing. That hasn't happened yet but at the rate things are going

Your statement that nukes are dangerous assumes nobody's ever going to be able to defend against missiles which seems unlikely given continuous engineering and scientific advances.

 

[woolfe9999]

In the end don't you need all segments of the industrial base to make advanced weapons? They still use steel or plastic or silicon. You also need advanced R&D and manufacturing. That hasn't happened yet but at the rate things are going

Your statement that nukes are dangerous assumes nobody's ever going to be able to defend against missiles which seems unlikely given continuous engineering and scientific advances.

ICBM's and ABM's are not things you manufacture in an emergency during warfare, which is what the OP was talking about. If we need to overall our ICBM's and/or adopt new technologies, we can do that during peace time, and during peace time we can and do rely on manufacturing in other countries for portions of what we build. The OP's point is that things like ships/tanks/planes, i.e. war production, couldn't be done during a major and sustained conventional conflict. I just don't see that happening. Frankly, I don't know that we need that much more conventional military than is necessary to defend our borders.

 

[Howard]

The massive military buffer the USA currently has should be more than enough to tide them over until the factories switch over. As long as the know-how is there, and the money is there, it can be done.

 

[Infohawk]

ICBM's and ABM's are not things you manufacture in an emergency during warfare, which is what the OP was talking about. If we need to overall our ICBM's and/or adopt new technologies, we can do that during peace time, and during peace time we can and do rely on manufacturing in other countries for portions of what we build. The OP's point is that things like ships/tanks/planes, i.e. war production, couldn't be done during a major and sustained conventional conflict. I just don't see that happening. Frankly, I don't know that we need that much more conventional military than is necessary to defend our borders.

That may be the basis of his argument but the larger national security argument doesn't really depend on emergency production (although I don't completely discount it). A) You have to be able to produce everything yourself (or by allies) at some point. To do that you need to have a variety of industries here all along the supply chain. B) Probably more importantly, I don't see how you're going to have superior military technology without a solid industrial base making contributions from the civilian side. The idea that we'd be a full service economy with a little bubble of military manufacturing seems pretty unrealistic. The reality is that production of planes by Boeing informs its production of military aircraft.

 

[woolfe9999]

That may be the basis of his argument but the larger national security argument doesn't really depend on emergency production (although I don't completely discount it). A) You have to be able to produce everything yourself (or by allies) at some point. To do that you need to have a variety of industries here all along the supply chain. B) Probably more importantly, I don't see how you're going to have superior military technology without a solid industrial base making contributions from the civilian side. The idea that we'd be a full service economy with a little bubble of military manufacturing seems pretty unrealistic. The reality is that production of planes by Boeing informs its production of military aircraft.

Can't the government, who is the customer, just say they aren't going to buy the product if it isn't manufactured here? In fact, we have to be doing that already. You need security clearances to even be on the factory floor. We're certainly not going to be manufacturing military aircraft in China. So I don't see how that industry ever gets exported.

 

[Infohawk]

Can't the government, who is the customer, just say they aren't going to buy the product if it isn't manufactured here? In fact, we have to be doing that already. You need security clearances to even be on the factory floor. We're certainly not going to be manufacturing military aircraft in China. So I don't see how that industry ever gets exported.

I see a scenario where the Chinese manufacture airplanes and our industry suffers and isn't as advanced. Even if we still have a company that makes military jets only, I'm not that confident they'd produce better planes than a Chinese company that also makes private jets.

 

[woolfe9999]

I see a scenario where the Chinese manufacture airplanes and our industry suffers and isn't as advanced. Even if we still have a company that makes military jets only, I'm not that confident they'd produce better planes than a Chinese company that also makes private jets.

Doubtful. Chinese manufacturing is way far behind us technologically. They are nowhere near competing with us for the ability to make quality aircraft, and by the time their tech is up to snuff it's likely their wages will be higher by then. I don't see a scenario where our aircraft industry (including for civilian purposes) gets moved over to China.

 

[SammyJr]

It benefits the wealthy of industrialized countries just fine. The rest of you nonwealthy people just dont like the consequence of having to compete within a global labor market.

Fixed for you.

 

[Texashiker]

Doubtful. Chinese manufacturing is way far behind us technologically. They are nowhere near competing with us for the ability to make quality aircraft,,,,

Have you read where china is starting to invest money into weapons technology? China even bought a ship from russia and turned it into an aircraft carrier.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/03/us-china-defence-idUSTRE7221J220110303

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/us-usa-china-military-idUSTRE7990S620111010