Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: harpseal
Adam Smith said there were certain sectors that should be immune from free trade, most notably defense. One cannot be dependent for critical weapons systems on another country due to lag time---in WW II, we built a tank in about four hours from scratch, a carrier in about 18 months from scratch, but today, a carrier is a 10-year building process.

Parts that you can easily start up quickly are fine to be outsourced, and indeed, to pay higher costs here at home to make a simple part that can be outsourced is, to use your term, "traitorous."

But it would be equally dangerous to allow the U.S. commercial aircraft or shipbuilding industry deteriorate because when we need those planes---possibly to fight the Chinese---we need them. Now, that raises real-world questions, and not just polemic sound bites. For example, how MANY commercial air manufacturers should we subsidize/support? Any? All? How many shipbuilders? Our solution to the present has been to have one layer of competition (i.e., at least two in each category), so we have EB and Newport News. If there are more, fine, but we don't want to be stuck with one, nor do we want to subsidize 50.

This has resulted in some mergers that I think are pretty sensible, because they allow the U.S. to subsidize one company on the basis of its major product (say, rockets) while nevertheless keeping its minor products (say, airframes, or jet engines) "in play" enough that it can be competitive.

It is, however, impossible to be totally self-sufficient, particularly in some national defense items, because the U.S. simply has NO natural resources of chrome, titanium, or even large resources of bauxite, lead, tungsten, diamonds, and so on. So one must embrace free trade if one wants an army or navy, unless you want an army or navy of the 1700s.

35 posted on 08/12/2003 6:49:07 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: LS
While we disagree on many issues on this at least we agree.

Thank you.

37 posted on 08/12/2003 6:55:06 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: LS
Well, I followed your reasoning right up to your last sentence:
"So one must embrace free trade if one wants an army or navy, unless you want an army or navy of the 1700s."

Trade with other nations does not necessarily mean it must be "free trade". A fair exchange between nations has always been a good idea. What is going on today is not fair, although it has been described as free by some.
Trade with China in particular, has not been fair. So, unless you want to continue to give them advantages in trade and technology I would not recommend embracing the current trade policies.
38 posted on 08/12/2003 7:00:51 AM PDT by LibertyAndJusticeForAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: LS
So one must embrace free trade if one wants an army or navy, unless you want an army or navy of the 1700s.

Clearly the US as a nation must import some raw materials if it is to maintain its defense industries. The need to import some things is a whole lot different than a need to import everything. when I was stating my agreement I was referring to the specific instance of this company and this exporting of technology. Further i woudl point absolutely no one has ever suggested tariffs on items that can not be produced in teh USA due to climate and or natural resources. So stating the need for certain raw materials or saying those who want some tariffs for protection want a complete shutdown of international trade is a straw man argument.

40 posted on 08/12/2003 7:09:31 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: LS
I agree with your post for the most part. I think the US should keep defense manufacturing in the Continental US where possible.

As for raw materials, the US should attempt to source them from friendly nations wherever possible. For example, a key American ally, Australia, does have Titanium and Chrome resources ( http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:XcfiPhrXb1AJ:www.bemax.com.au/AusIMMArticleMarApr02.pdf+mining+chrome+titanium+exports&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 ); I'm not sure what US - South African relations are like post-Mandella, but that country, too, is very resource rich...
46 posted on 08/12/2003 7:59:05 AM PDT by ThinkFreedom (Well, that's my 2c, take or leave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: LS
You are apparently equipped to lead on this issue. We need more like you.
62 posted on 08/13/2003 9:17:05 AM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Un-PC even to "Conservatives!" - Right makes right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson