Certainly from a utopian/socially progressive standpoint, it would appear good. From a geopolitical standpoint with the current aggressive politics from China and Russia... I'm not sure it's so good.
Only in the minds of children. Utopias never work because corruption, greed and ignorance bring tyranny, fear and misery.
Progress is also a populist myth to wish away human nature, and the forces of nature, like some flu that will subside. Technology, communication and economics can make it seem plausible by increasing accountability when people maybe watching,
however technological, technique and social “progress” are destroyed often, not just the Dark Ages: pyramid building, Antikythera device, Nepenthe, Silphium (extinct). Also, sometimes people forget about how good were features of something which came before but are now missing because the “new is supposed to always progres over the old,” even when it doesn’t. Finally, socialization and education cannot miracle away the possibility of one human murdering another for no discernible reason. People are mostly irrational,
unpredictable animals still stuck in antropocentric delusions of superiority.
If you want peace, prepare for war. is explainable because life is about gaining,
controlling and defending the most resources for the least risk. If one could invade a pacifist country containing a quadrillion dollars of value, every country would. Actually, almost all humans on planet would gladly rationalize or cognitively dissonance away committing every conceivable “evil” in order to secure enormous wealth and power for themselves and their future genetic dynasty.
Sorry what am I supposed to be afraid of taking all our shit? Canada? China? ISIS? Not exactly scared...
It's not exactly utopian to think a large part of US military expenditure and military activity currently performed is a complete waste, especially if the concern is defending the Homeland (from what, car bombers? It's questionable if foreign adventurism helps or hurts, and most of that is domestic anyways. Or maybe Canada will invade).
Thanks to the geographical position and size of the US, there really isn't any threat like that that couldn't be seen from years to decades ahead, unless the Russians have a secret and gigantic Navy we don't know about. We purposefully barely even had a military for much of our history compared to many other world powers and it didn't matter because they were over there and we are big enough and wealthy enough to ramp up when they do.
We kill an incredible amount of civilians as well.
Supposedly this article is well researched with sources but it is trivial to search for 'civilian deaths in x' and get results in the 100k to million range.
It's United States bombs that are killing terrorists. If the United States stopped dropping bombs on bad people, those bad people would murder your neighbors, friends and family.
So if not the United States, who should be in charge of dropping bombs on bad people?
This is why emotional reactions are not part of defense planning.
Not being able to supply one's own arms doesn't mean one doesn't buy them, just that they cost more and that one's leverage in alliances is greatly reduced. This is the situation many countries have been in, vis-a-vis the US -- Germany and Britain and Egypt and so many others -- for decades.
There are other countries out there who've thought through this problem. It's unlikely Russia depends on anyone for arms. I'm sure Israel is able to supply much its own munitions -- perhaps the US will end up buying from them.
Wouldn't you say there is a literal material difference between a politically motivated rhetorical position and the real lack of resources and expertise that this article points to? Seems like that wiki article describes something of an accounting trick if anything although I'm happy to be proven wrong :)
Awesome! Say, what happens if your family gets blown up by Russian missiles while they’re vacationing in Ukraine? Would a strong reprimand be your preferred answer?
Can we please shortcut this discussion ? Yes, if EVERY state, including Russia, China, Japan, France, UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea ... verifiably killed it's nuke program, then we can talk. Until then:
If you don't participate in the Nash equilibrium, ie. you get out, the results are not pretty. If the US stops making bombs, the result is that it has to give in to any demand by any party with a credible nuclear threat, and so will European countries under the "US umbrella".
We know for Russia what those demands will be, because they've made that very clear. Full and total political control of all of Europe. The entire European population living under oppression, paying unreasonable taxes to Moscow. Or war, of course, with Nuclear bombs falling on European capitals.
We know what China's demands will be, because again they've made that perfectly clear. No more Korea, no more Taiwan, and brutal oppression to make that a reality. Same with half of South Asia, and Australia.
And just in case you're pulling the "We are in America and not responsible" line, remember that this will of course cause an end to the post-WWII environment. No more non-American cars. No more iPads or iPhones.
That's what your "oh let's just not build missiles" does.
You might as well object that the fact that nature's demand that we eat food is immoral (I would even say that it is) and stop eating. The only result of that protest will be your death.
Jane's Research implies that we're actually getting really good value for money from BAE. That and the fact that the UK has far less custom armaments implies that they could swap with far more ease than the US.
Eagle-Picher of Joplin, MO is the primary DoD supplier of thermal batteries, comprising 80% of the market, as mentioned. ATB and ASB also make them, but not necessarily in the US.
Setting aside the geopolitics and looking purely at the economics, there are several mentions in the article of the sole supplier of some vitally important widget or chemical announcing that it will be exiting the business.
WTF? That makes no sense whatsoever! A company should only exit a business if it is unprofitable. Profit is price minus cost. The cost of just continuing to produce something you are already producing should be small. The price a monopoly supplier can charge the richest and least price sensitive customer in the world for something supposedly vital should be huge. These should be among the most lucrative businesses ever invented.
I've seen companies cancel profitable lines because they can better use the resources involved on other, more profitable lines. Big profits over small profits.
But generally speaking, you could do better still by continuing with both product lines - that's pretty much what 'profitable' means. Situations I know of where this is not the case:
1. The product line is not actually profitable, the measurement was wrong, and the CEO isn't comfortable with nitpicky details so prefers to ignore the measurement than fix it.
2. Interest rates are very high, so the working capital for the more profitable product is better obtained by cannibalizing the less profitable product than by borrowing. Or put another way, interest rates are so high that the bank will give you a better return than a profitable product will.
3. The profitability of the product is so marginal that the management time spent thinking about it is worth more than the pennies of profit.
4. The two product lines require diametrically opposed corporate cultures. (But then you should sell off the other product rather than scrapping it.)
I don't think any of those apply here. What am I missing?
I disagree. Generally speaking, given a line that makes big profit, and a line that makes small profit, all effort to the big profit line gives the greatest overall profit.
What you have presented is not general; you've presented a series of special cases where it might be a good idea to keep the less profitable line running too. There are many such special cases, but in general, if your options are a line that makes big profits and a line that makes small profits, you'll be most profitable by picking the former.
Part of the reason countries just keep making weapons beyond what they need is in order to maintain their manufacturing base. It takes a lot of special tooling, materials, and training to make a particular weapon. If you let it lapse, getting it started back up might be less worth it than just designing a new one.
Just adding an additional product when it looks to be more profitable might mean having to buy more land, building a new building, starting with all new workers, etc.
Unless the previous product is really profitable and stable, it's likely they'll just retool and retrain for the new product.
The new CEO at my company is doing exactly the same thing. Trimming all of our product lines, except for the absolute most profitable. Just not worth it.
From the article, it sounded like their is no continuous demand [1], so business might not survive until the next large order.
Of course it could also be a threat to gain subsidies, new orders or higher prices.
[1]
"[..] start-and-stop nature of munitions procurement over the last 20 years [...]"
28 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 68.1 ms ] threadProgress is also a populist myth to wish away human nature, and the forces of nature, like some flu that will subside. Technology, communication and economics can make it seem plausible by increasing accountability when people maybe watching, however technological, technique and social “progress” are destroyed often, not just the Dark Ages: pyramid building, Antikythera device, Nepenthe, Silphium (extinct). Also, sometimes people forget about how good were features of something which came before but are now missing because the “new is supposed to always progres over the old,” even when it doesn’t. Finally, socialization and education cannot miracle away the possibility of one human murdering another for no discernible reason. People are mostly irrational, unpredictable animals still stuck in antropocentric delusions of superiority.
If you want peace, prepare for war. is explainable because life is about gaining, controlling and defending the most resources for the least risk. If one could invade a pacifist country containing a quadrillion dollars of value, every country would. Actually, almost all humans on planet would gladly rationalize or cognitively dissonance away committing every conceivable “evil” in order to secure enormous wealth and power for themselves and their future genetic dynasty.
It's not exactly utopian to think a large part of US military expenditure and military activity currently performed is a complete waste, especially if the concern is defending the Homeland (from what, car bombers? It's questionable if foreign adventurism helps or hurts, and most of that is domestic anyways. Or maybe Canada will invade).
Thanks to the geographical position and size of the US, there really isn't any threat like that that couldn't be seen from years to decades ahead, unless the Russians have a secret and gigantic Navy we don't know about. We purposefully barely even had a military for much of our history compared to many other world powers and it didn't matter because they were over there and we are big enough and wealthy enough to ramp up when they do.
Supposedly this article is well researched with sources but it is trivial to search for 'civilian deaths in x' and get results in the 100k to million range.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-mil...
So if not the United States, who should be in charge of dropping bombs on bad people?
This is why emotional reactions are not part of defense planning.
There are other countries out there who've thought through this problem. It's unlikely Russia depends on anyone for arms. I'm sure Israel is able to supply much its own munitions -- perhaps the US will end up buying from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
If you don't participate in the Nash equilibrium, ie. you get out, the results are not pretty. If the US stops making bombs, the result is that it has to give in to any demand by any party with a credible nuclear threat, and so will European countries under the "US umbrella".
We know for Russia what those demands will be, because they've made that very clear. Full and total political control of all of Europe. The entire European population living under oppression, paying unreasonable taxes to Moscow. Or war, of course, with Nuclear bombs falling on European capitals.
We know what China's demands will be, because again they've made that perfectly clear. No more Korea, no more Taiwan, and brutal oppression to make that a reality. Same with half of South Asia, and Australia.
And just in case you're pulling the "We are in America and not responsible" line, remember that this will of course cause an end to the post-WWII environment. No more non-American cars. No more iPads or iPhones.
That's what your "oh let's just not build missiles" does.
You might as well object that the fact that nature's demand that we eat food is immoral (I would even say that it is) and stop eating. The only result of that protest will be your death.
WTF? That makes no sense whatsoever! A company should only exit a business if it is unprofitable. Profit is price minus cost. The cost of just continuing to produce something you are already producing should be small. The price a monopoly supplier can charge the richest and least price sensitive customer in the world for something supposedly vital should be huge. These should be among the most lucrative businesses ever invented.
So what's going on?
1. The product line is not actually profitable, the measurement was wrong, and the CEO isn't comfortable with nitpicky details so prefers to ignore the measurement than fix it.
2. Interest rates are very high, so the working capital for the more profitable product is better obtained by cannibalizing the less profitable product than by borrowing. Or put another way, interest rates are so high that the bank will give you a better return than a profitable product will.
3. The profitability of the product is so marginal that the management time spent thinking about it is worth more than the pennies of profit.
4. The two product lines require diametrically opposed corporate cultures. (But then you should sell off the other product rather than scrapping it.)
I don't think any of those apply here. What am I missing?
I disagree. Generally speaking, given a line that makes big profit, and a line that makes small profit, all effort to the big profit line gives the greatest overall profit.
What you have presented is not general; you've presented a series of special cases where it might be a good idea to keep the less profitable line running too. There are many such special cases, but in general, if your options are a line that makes big profits and a line that makes small profits, you'll be most profitable by picking the former.
[1] "[..] start-and-stop nature of munitions procurement over the last 20 years [...]"