Okay. But the super-specialized defense industry is really completely different from the rest of the manufacturing sector. There are valid complaints about how the gov't is handling defense procurement, but that really has nothing to do with the rest of our manufacturing.
"There are valid complaints about how the gov't is handling defense procurement, but that really has nothing to do with the rest of our manufacturing."
Ok, we're closer to common ground. I agree that non defense related manufacturing is different.
I think we'd disagree on what extent our non defense manufacturing is a problem, but that's just flavor for the soup that is America.
But I think a valid case can be made for a fair degree of interconnectivity. For example, to build a tank, you need a steel industry, a bearings industry, an automotive industry (engines), an electronics industry (communications and control), a munitions industry. To have a viable steel industry, you need mining capability. For mining, you need automotive capability (trucks and mining equipment). You need infrastructure (energy and transportation). I think the bottom line is that if you want to be a world-class military and industrial power, you need a broad-based and robust economy, which includes both low-tech and high-tech components. Being primarily a service industry isn't going to cut it. Being an assembler of parts manufactured elsewhere isn't going to do you any good if the supply of those parts is cut off.
History tells us that countries heavily dependent on outside sources for raw materials, component parts, and finished goods eventually finds itself in a position where it is vulnerable to conquest by siege (in all it's forms). I'd rather us not be there.