You have trouble staying with the discussion. This was about trade protectionism, remember. Iraq didn't get the way it was because of trade protectionism or a lack thereof.
WWII style military production is not required to deal with car bombers, and it is not required to deal with nation states (because of my earlier point that modern warfare of that type is too rapid to ramp up production).
You have not provided any argument contrary to my points. Smart remarks about me "wanting to wind up like Iraq" are not an argument in favor of trade restrictions.
Yes, it is, because of the lack of an adequate technological base to keep ahead of the "engineers" amongst the Iranian/Syrian-backed remote-detonation device-builders. That has been the conclusion of more than one commentator proficient in electronics.
... and it is not required to deal with nation states (because of my earlier point that modern warfare of that type is too rapid to ramp up production).
This point was especially egregious, and was replied to directly. I would say conclusively. Iraq and Afghanistan were wars against nation states. They required massive buildups and replacements of arsenals before the actions could commence. Clinton had drained away most of our cruise missiles and a lot of our JDAMS. Which unfortunately needed components which had been allowed to be outsourced, although formerly invented and produced here. The Swiss example destroyed your claims. The continued erosions we are witnessing make this even more forceful as a future issue.
And I would add that you fail to acknowledge the elements of politics short of war in having capacity. I.e., if you have a reasonable capacity, that will also add to the deterrence factor. Because the enemy will know we actually can respond to an arms race with a prompt "ramp-up"...which if the industrial infrastructure is lost due to neglect such as you advocate it will not be reconstitutable in any reasonable way. The Defense industry is now alleging it would take ten years to reconstitute the U.S. machine tool industry to even get back to 65% of U.S. content. You are on a slippery slope and falling fast...approaching supersonic as you are about to plow into the ground on this one.
Your failure to reply to the substance, except to be annoyed by the occasional smart remarks, is not persuasive. Real deterrence requires capacity in depth, across the board, and without smug over-confidence, and narrow reliance on a slim technical advantages which are thinly-deployed can be easily countered by being either politically-checkmated or asymmetrically neutralized, or overwhelmed the old-fashioned way: Surprise and numbers.
Not a single real defense expert believes in your notion that the retention of a real U.S. "hot assembly" capability is irrelevant in warfare. The Mideast wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved not to be a "knockout" but merely a "first round", and a major reason they have dragged on is because of the permitted survival of the other terror-sponsor states such as Iran and Syria being allowed to wage a proxy war against the U.S. Draining us of treasure, manpower, and existing military capital which is being seriously eroded in harsh conditions.
Meanwhile the US military is being retooled for guerilla warfare..short-shrifting its ability to handle a major conventional attack (just as was South Vietnam's ARVN who were then overwhelmed by North Vietnam's direct tank invasion) while the Chinese and Russians are gearing up for Great Power War. The Reds are coming. It's easily seen. The Pentagon analysts have more or less said so, but are politically muzzled. But you think outsourcing to China is just dandy.