Posted on 05/05/2008 6:22:05 PM PDT by Kaslin
History dictates that protecting and maintaining a nation's industrial base is critical to its national security and to winning wars. This is why taking out an enemy's manufacturing infrastructure, as America did to Germany and Japan during World War II, is the first step in rendering it defenseless.
Yet today in America, despite the menace of terrorism and threats from assorted despots around the globe, we are neglecting — and in some cases damaging — our own military industrial base.
America has shed 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, many in our military supply chain. The average age of today's factory worker is 54, and 58% of all U.S. aerospace workers are over 45.
Nationwide, officials in defense companies are expressing concern that they will not be able to replace current workers as they retire.
As we lose infrastructure and skilled labor necessary to supply our military swiftly with U.S.-made equipment, we are becoming increasingly reliant on military components and materials from foreign countries.
Chinese Bullets
Although several congressional acts require the Pentagon to purchase equipment and supplies from domestic sources, the Government Accountability Office repeatedly reports "systemic supply system deficiencies" in nearly all military supply categories.
Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne says, "I worry about the industrial base of the future," and the Pentagon has developed a Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materials Shortages system to identify domestic material and manufacturing scarcities.
When ammunition procurement budgets were cut dramatically in the 1990s, many domestic suppliers were forced out of business. Defense officials began looking to foreign sources — including China — for bullets and missile propellant.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
C’mon, more spending than next 5 powers combined.....not gonna shed tears over military spending. Same ratio of budget as it was at the height of Cold War. Only difference is that budget is now many times bigger.
Wasn’t this a major theme of Duncan Hunter’s campaign?
It was a piece of it, and he was right.
Spending and industrial base are two different things.
Duncan Hunter was right again PING
Bullet orders reveal much about the plans of a military.
Do we trust the Chinese with all this ``ìnside information.``
That in itself is creating sole source problems that is forcing us to accept foreign competitors. Boeing's woes on the KCX program stem from their own arrogance yet there were no domestic competitors to fall back on.
We looked for a "peace dividend" that wasn't there in the 1980's and returned ourselves to a military manufacturing defecit paralleling post WWI and WWII.
I'm betting the next war won't give us the leisure of tooling up for two years to become the arsenal of democracy. At the same time we are betting that quality will overcome quantity. In a large part that worked against Iraq. But all conflicts will not be against poorly trained and poorly motivated armies. We have always underestimated the Chinese.
Another factor is that the defense contractors have populated their employees with people that have degrees from prestigious universities, that don’t believe in defense.
An appreciating dollar was very popular among the citizens but it destroyed our manufacturing base.
Now we have a cheap dollar, thank God, and we can begin to rebuild.
There will be many disruptions in the short term but it is neccesary to our survival.
War is big business and the esential cause of all wars is economic strife.
Tooling up to fight back may not be an option if the US economy suffers catastrophic failure.
Considering that the main product of the US economy is debt, and those who pay those debts are getting slammed with $200 a barrel oil, a cascade into quasi-socialism, outsourcing offshore and a Tsunami of economic refugees breeding like cats.
what does it all mean ?
Good post. We got stuff for all those expensive dollars. Now the rest of the world can either cut their own throats or work with us :).
Building military weapons in foreign countries is nothing more than outsourcing national security.
Yep.
But this just cannot be. Milton Friedman said that the market is always right. We should always go to the cheapest source. It’s good for us. Protectionism is always bad. Even if there was no manufacturing base left in the United States, it would be good. (Sarcasm)
LOL—A Milton Friedman expert chimes in. Be reminded that you are on a conservative website. I’m wondering, should I play with you a while, or prove you know nothing about Milton Friedman right away?
I was curious what you know about manufacturing?
Worked in the sector for six years. Distribution for a great deal longer. Why do you ask?
Actually, now that I think about it, if you count the manufacturing firms where I worked in an entry-level capacity, closer to ten years. But the six years was serious.
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.