Posted on 02/08/2006 8:15:08 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
The United States of America has historically enjoyed self-sufficiency in times of both war and peace but in order to better assess its present place in the world as concerns its military and economic strength, it is important to reflect on its foundation. There is daily talk from Wall Street to Capitol Hill with respect to spread sheets and global policy, but it perhaps falls short when it comes down to addressing the average U.S. wage earner, and how both will ultimately affect jobs and the country’s national security and defense. It is important to note, that as our forefathers were fighting for independence from England during the Revolutionary War, seldom do we hear about the underlying and overwhelming task they endured in order to supply an army without an industrial base. In order for success, the Colonies depended upon France and the Netherlands for everything from blankets and clothing to gunpowder, muskets, munitions, and food. Benjamin Franklin bartered a deal with France to ship across the Atlantic Ocean by way of the Netherlands’ St. Eustatius Island, in order for George Washington and his troops to have the means to defend themselves.
In light of the French Revolution at the turn of the 18th century, when the Netherlands were seized by Napoleon and President John Adams came close to war with France, a primary U.S. ally just years earlier, self –sufficiency was the order of the day. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was asked by President George Washington and the U.S. Congress to officially document U.S. policy on industrial and military self-sufficiency. It read, “Not only have the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavour to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense. The possession of these is necessary to the perfection of the body politic: to the safety as well as to the welfare of the society.”
The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century secured the U.S.policy of self-sufficiency, transforming it into a global power. Due to the strength of its industrialization the U.S. was able to defeat its enemies in World War I. With the advent of the automobile, which Henry Ford learned to mass-produce, weaponry and machinery produced for World War II benefited from the automobile factory. Production of Sherman tanks, Army jeeps, airplanes and PT boats evolved from such civilian U.S. factories. And in the 1950’s the industrial base was modernized for the Korean War effort.
The industrial base and manufacturing for the U.S. military were necessarily intertwined. But following the end of the Cold War there has been a deliberate decomposition of U.S. industry, unprecedented in American history. There are a number of factors which have contributed to U.S. dependence on foreign trade, primarily with India and China, which has not only led to millions of U.S. manufacturing and engineering jobs permanently lost, but paints a grim picture for the long term stability of the U.S. military supply line.
The dependence on foreign oil and the subsequent OPEC oil embargo in the 1970’s, the U.S. policy of deregulation of corporations of the 1980’s, the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 allowing China to become a member, collectively accelerated U.S. dependence on cheap labor offshore. Thus, dependency and reliance on suppliers from all over the world for military equipment and machinery components and parts, required for their manufacture, leaves the U.S. vulnerable.
The Defense Department runs a program called the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materials Shortage (DMSMS) at the Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM). Its purpose is to identify shortages of parts, processes and materials necessary to procure for military buyers. A problem for military acquisitions has been procuring weapon system metal castings as a direct result of plant closings. The majority of castings now come from China and other third-world countries. Along with the foreign dependence on metal castings manufacture its research and development also followed the foundry industry offshore.
DMSMS program managers are aware that there are problems in finding sub-parts and components. Not only have replacement parts started to rapidly diminish, but the chemicals needed in their manufacture have as well. Without specific chemicals certain processes cannot be done. For example, there is only one company left in the U.S. that produces a roller cutter for armored plate or heavy steel which was an indirect consequence of supplying armor kits for U.S. Humvees in the War in Iraq. When the Pentagon learned there was an immediate need at the end of 2004, it called for expediency in their manufacture. Sadly, it took almost a year due to the limited facilities producing such.
Another issue arose when a foreign corporation purchased the only U.S. company which produced a chemical used for a common binder which secures windows and aluminum panels in aircraft. The company eventually folded when it could not meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Now the U.S. must depend on the company’s offshore subsidiaries.
Similarly, the bearing industry which produces ball-bearings, roller-bearings and anti-friction bearings is an endangered U.S. industry, key to the production of military gear and plays a part in homeland security. They are components necessary to produce electric motors for conveyor belts such as in factories, steel mills, in airports, in mining, and with the equipment used to manufacture automobiles. And bearings are critical to the mechanical components of major weapons systems. Losing bearings manufacturing to foreign shores directly impacts the capabilities of weapons manufacturing should there be a change in the geopolitical landscape and a cut-off from U.S. suppliers, whether through war, terrorism, or Mother Nature.
With the military build-up of China over the past decade by benefit of applying commercial technologies to military weaponry and its having become the largest offshore manufacturing base for U.S. corporations, the U.S. continues a delicate balancing act with a Communist nation as its biggest trade partner. With a U.S. trade deficit with China reaching over $200 billion in 2005, multi-national corporations, once U.S. companies operating in the U.S., are now just based in the U.S.
And with a demand by China for foreign direct investment as their incentive to buy U.S. products, companies like Boeing are acquiescing by not only building major portions of airplanes in China, but also creating Research and Development opportunities for Chinese engineers, in order to show its commitment. Intel and Microsoft have also followed suit with major investment in directly hiring engineers in China.
Endless conflicts of interest abound when it comes to foreign dependence in order for the U.S. to maintain its infrastructure, electrical grid, military weaponry and supplies, air travel and homeland security, to name a few. When smaller U.S. specialty industries vital to the industrial base become extinct on our shores, they now appear huge in a world where alliances are tenuous at best. A global economy at the expense of U.S. sovereignty, security and standard of living is something that the Colonists would not have stood for. They would have found another way. Maybe America still has time to do the same.
Russia is a terrible example for you to use, since it makes my point. Our ability to mass-produce weapons was meaningless during the Cold War, since the overarching nuclear threat reduced the probability of a conventional war with Russia to almost ZERO.
IF nuclear wepoans are the best alternative for us the fight wars why don't we just get rid of all our military and personal and say to the world if you mess with us you will get nuked? Look at how much money we will save.
That's basically what we've done -- which is why our biggest threat these days comes not from traditional nation-states or empires, but from "fourth generation warfare" involving enemies who aren't necessarily acting on behalf of specific nations.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" .... Plato
Cow chips. You miss the forest for the trees. "Military superiority" is precisely what the "short war" advocates, some right here on FR, are shoveling. The (bullcrap) mantra goes, gee, it's okay to sell out our manufacturing, even if it is military related, because we have enough of the good, smart stuff now to win any kind of war. And even if we don't, we don't need to make it or know how because it is easier and more profitable to buy it from someone else.
The "planners" of WWI made the same crucial mistake, assumption, the mother of all f-ups. The WWI strategists assumed that modern weapons, superior tactics, better quality, better planning, better troops, etc. would carry the day and make the war a short one. They assumed that their opponent would behave in the manner they expected. Same crap, different day, today. "The next war will be short because we have fewer but better (weapons, troops, plans, tactics, etc.). And even if we don't, we'll be wiped out after the first wave so it won't matter anyway."
Well, those who would sell us out and gamble that they can know for sure what the future will bring are playing a very, very dangerous game. History shows time and again that those who assume too much generally end up losing their gamble. Those who are prepared for either a quick, sudden war, or a long, hard slog, generally come out on the winning side. I know where I'd prefer to be, and selling out isn't going to get us there.
America might have had trouble winning WW2 if we had to depend on the German made Mauser and Ruger weapons for our military. What if our tanks were made by Mercedes-Benz instead of GM? Our Jeeps by Volkswagon?
Our Air force might have had problems launching bombing raids on Japan if our fighters and bombers were made in part by Mitsubishi or Stukka.
The cold war might have ended differently if we had to depend on Russia's Barisnikov 7.62x39 rifle instead of the M-1 and M-16.
What if the Hummer was made by Hyundi, or Honda and shipments were intercepted by a Chinese Navy blockade of Korea or Japan???
What happens if all US Steel is replaced by China Steel. Without foundarys and smelters, where would the steel come to make tanks and gun barrels, ships and aircraft, let alone cars and trucks? No raw material means manufacturing capacity would be shut down at a time of dire need for producing those needed goods viable to national defense and security? Unemployed workers pay no taxes that help to pay for the essential goods for national defense.
If a country decided it was going to deny America those needed parts and materials, could we guarantee finding a replacement source?? Call the UN for help!! Yeah sure.....
We are on our own when it comes to national defense, and our economy. Nobody has to help us, and nobody is guaranteed to come to our rescue.
So you are willing to make the sacrifice of 50% of your personal income for more jobs and increased profits, to compete with who???
3rd world mentality
That's easy -- just build your industrial capacity inside the borders of a potential enemy nation.
Chinese Military Strategist #1: "We will utterly destroy the ability of the U.S. to build weapons!"
Chinese Military Strategist #2: "Great -- now when do we start bombing Shanghai, Beijing, etc. to the ground?"
Very impressive. And argument or example can be dismissed by saying that it "is downright silly.". Case closed.
It is so nice to see that you support the UN Charter over the US Constitution. Are you considered a World Patriot?
"Little Iraq" isn't keeping our military stretched for reasons related to military operations. It's keeping our military stretched because political decisions on the U.S. have resulted in a situation where the U.S. military can't possibly achieve the objectives in place (of course, I'm assuming that there actually IS an objective over there -- which is an entirely different matter).
Go back to my other comment about Vietnam and think of it again in the context of Iraq. If the U.S. had the industrial capacity and the financial means to produce an infinite supply of every weapon system in our arsenal, would our military campaign in Iraq be any different today?
In ten years or so China will be able to sink our ships in about an hour.
How would you protect those that are building the industries?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.