What's new
What's new

offshored mfg is unable to supply US military?

Rob F.

Diamond
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Location
California, Central Coast
I just read this article and it seems to make sense but am not as up on this as some people here, Is there any truth in what is mentioned here or...?
I seems to me so many manufacturing companies have gone overseas this has to be the case WTF were they thinking.
Snipet from the article:
"Main conclusion of the report: “China represents a significant and growing risk to the supply of materials deemed strategic and critical to U.S. national security. <…> Areas of concern to America’s manufacturing and defense industrial base include a growing number of both widely used and specialized metals, alloys and other materials, including rare earths and permanent magnets”. In general everything is bad, starting with aluminium and ending with cybersecurity, from power switches for missiles to engineers and drill operators, and from computer numerical control machines to synthetic fabric for military tents. The greed of American business, the ideology of globalisation, and the iron belief that history, as Fukuyama predicted, is about to end collectively caused such damage to the defense capability of the US that the geopolitical opponents couldn’t even dream of. It is precisely by understanding this fact that explains Donald Trump’s attempts to carry out the reindustrialisation of America almost by force."

Link to entire article, it is short:
Ivan Danilov: The Pentagon Realised What It Has Done - the Chinese Put the US Army on Its Knees • СТАЛКЕР/ZONE
 
It's only of any significance if the US is planning to fight a six year long reenactment of WW2 with China. Other than that it's alarmist bullshit.
Thanks Mark but this overload of offshoring hits us yanks a little different than you guys. We are the dominant power in the world while all jobs are being outsourced overseas, when UK was the dominant power there was nowhere to offshore jobs/factories to, either that-(hard to say it)- or you brits knew better.
 
Reindustrialization as an existential mandate only makes sense if you are about to, or have just, begun an armed conflict that you believe may be existential. Doing it just in case is terribly costly, and can have the opposite effect. It can also bias toward creating conflict where no conflict existed -- "We need to do something with these weapons we just spent $100T making."

As for raw materials like rare earth elements, molybdenum, cobalt, chromium, etc., etc., that stuff is where it is. It's not like you can decide to invest in domestic bauxite mines because you might need a s-ton of bauxite down the road. You can go get it and stockpile it (strategic reserves), but that takes us back to the above.

Besides, I would posit that the next existential conflict will have little to do with bauxite, iron, etc., since it may very well be nuclear, and WWII-style industrial capacity will not avail you once the ICBM's start flying.

Regards.

Mike
 
It's imprudent to count on the deterrent property of thermonuclear weapons to justify neglecting your military capabilities for conventional warfare. Blowing each other up is a Götterdämmerung and not a practical war aim—which has historically been to exercise control over somebody else's territory and that territory's resources. For that you need a presence, as in, Boots on the Ground. Same for resisting. To support either capability you need domestic industrial capacity. If you can't make your own equipment without some kind of long-term ramp-up you're at a bit of a disadvantage.

However, the globalization blamed for driving US manufacturers out of business (ball bearings, to cite one example) is not the fault of other countries, it's the fault of those domestic manufacturers who had fat government purchase contracts and relentlessly and unapologetically screwed their private-sector customers for decades until people finally said Fuck it, I can get good enough bearings from Lower Slobovia for 1/20th the price. That can be extrapolated to include just about any industry currently blaming globalization for its ill fortune. As has been thoroughly dissected in previous threads, some US machine tool builders lived off government purchases long, long after their products had become obsolescent in the private sector market.

The defense supply chain prohibits certain items from being sourced from unallied countries, but to save money a lot of stuff is classed as COTS, or Commercial Off The Shelf, and that includes just about anything that has devolved into a commodity-level product. At some point, obviously, the DoD will have to assure the availability of commodity-level ball bearings (or commodity-level anything else) from domestic sources, but if nobody sees a profit in it, it won't happen. The only answer there is the same as it's always been, to subsidize production. I doubt that any solutions offered on PM will change that.
 
A lot of US material is indeed, manufactured in a "global supply chain" way- but the opposite of what you are talking about.

Its true that certain base components- IC chips, LED display screens, nylon webbing, plastic feed stock- come from china, korea, japan, taiwan, and even, these days, indonesia and vietnam and cambodia.

But the big sexy pieces of iron most military fans like the most are all still made here- the twist is, many are made by non-american companies who have established factories in the USA to make US military equipment.

FN, for example, the Belgian arms company, owns the North Carolina factory where the majority of M4's and M16s for the military. They also make some SAW small machine guns there. Global, foreign company, but US factory.

The old British Aerospace, now called BAE Systems, has multiple factories in the USA making weapons. Its the second biggest defense contractor, with 30,000 US employees. They are building military electronics, armored vehicles, artillery, and missile launchers, among other things.
Again, Global, foreign company, US factories with US employees.

Leonardo, an Italian company, owns Agusta Westland, which will be building the replacement for the Huey helicopter. Something like 84 MH-139's are on order. Built largely in Philly.

So- the real question is--
Why is it that foreign companies can find it possible to build factories, buy subsidiaries and employ US workers in the US to build american military weapons, but fewer and fewer American companies are even trying?

admittedly, Boeing and Lockheed and several others do bid on these contracts- but often, even with their home court advantage, they come in the high bidders.

I would add that the original link is to a site that is about as unreliable as it is possible to get. It appears to be named after a great, albeit slow and somewhat boring, russian science fiction movie in which the point is basically that nobody knows anything, and nothing is real. Kind of appropriate. The article is a "translation" of a supposed russian security consultant who has been reading Reuters stories. And is named after a dead russian movie star. In other words, bullshit.

It reminds me bit of the guy who invented the internet meme Ong's Hat. Look it up...
 
Last edited:
Thanks Mark but this overload of offshoring hits us yanks a little different than you guys. We are the dominant power in the world while all jobs are being outsourced overseas, when UK was the dominant power there was nowhere to offshore jobs/factories to, either that-(hard to say it)- or you brits knew better.

I think if you use some time on British history you'll find that trade (and offshoring wasn't called that then), plus the industrial revolution, was what made Britain great.
 
It's only of any significance if the US is planning to fight a six year long reenactment of WW2 with China. Other than that it's alarmist bullshit.

But we already have. Chinese style. Soft power and economics. The danger point has been passed.

China would no more bomb America now than the Bank of England would bomb Kornhill or Threadneedle Street. Call that an "own goal", would we?

Trump hasn't been saying "KEEP America great!"

He's been saying "Make America great AGAIN"

The difference is not a subtle one.

And Britain didn't "offshore"? Sez whom?

Guess who was the largest single investor in the US economy up until AT LEAST the First World War?
Built-out their own replacement as a manufacturing powerhouse, yah?

Sound familiar?

Oy! The habits we pick up from our parents...
 
I think if you use some time on British history you'll find that trade (and offshoring wasn't called that then), plus the industrial revolution, was what made Britain great.

And it was the United States industrial capacity that saved the day in WWII. In another global conflict, the same requirements will apply, perhaps for different materials, but never-the-less strategic supply will be critical. To further this thread, the industrial, military capability in Europe, including GB, is grossly insufficient to sustain any military conflict. The infrastructure to do this only exists in the US and it's going away just as these articles report. This is not new. It has been known for some time. Yet our leadership insists on keeping their heads in the sand.
 
And it was the United States industrial capacity that saved the day in WWII. In another global conflict, the same requirements will apply, perhaps for different materials, but never-the-less strategic supply will be critical. To further this thread, the industrial, military capability in Europe, including GB, is grossly insufficient to sustain any military conflict. The infrastructure to do this only exists in the US and it's going away just as these articles report. This is not new. It has been known for some time. Yet our leadership insists on keeping their heads in the sand.

Living in Germany you should know when and why the USA got involved in WW2. Their help was invaluable when they (USA) got involved but WW2 did start in 1939.

No country in this century can sustain a military conflict if nuclear weapons get involved. Russia could remove the USA from the face of Earth before the USA could do the same. Europe is certainly too small for anything but conventional warfare.

A WW3 would be unlike anything ever known.
 
Thanks Mark but this overload of offshoring hits us yanks a little different than you guys. We are the dominant power in the world while all jobs are being outsourced overseas, when UK was the dominant power there was nowhere to offshore jobs/factories to, either that-(hard to say it)- or you brits knew better.
How is “Lucas, Prince of Darkness” said in Mandirin?
 
IMHO i think you guys are pissing in the wind, making bullets in this century and certainly the next 2 decades is not what will win you any more wars. Those wars have been and gone. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, look how relatively few bullet injuries compared to IED or advanced weaponry caused. Now consider how 2 modern near equal tech fighters will find much use in a M16 when there opponents as armored as they are? How many times were bayonets and hand grenades really effective? How many times do you think they will achieve much next time. Especially against a relatively equally equipped force.

The Taliban kicked ass not by trying to use projectile weaponry but by IED's. They largely concurred the american millatery might by going low tech and ultra destructive devices, its as near to pressing the nuke button they had as most modern states do.

The Chinese or Russians or anyone else is not going to attack you were were conventional projectile weaponry achieves shit all. Trench war fair has been and gone, look at north Korea and your other conflicts, you guys have never won anything with high velocity lead since your revolution, WW2 was won by Superior air power backing up ground troops, same with us winning the Falklands, once you have control of the air space there time is up in a modern state on state war, that does not work with extremists though.

If you think ball bearing supply is going to win a modern war your seriously delusional. Its going to be superior air power and possibly space access and the air power is highly unlikely to be manned any more. Fighting is not going to last years in a state on state war between any of the big players, it will either go nuke or hit stale mate.

Oh and Britain largely became great through or-castrating world trade not through outright warfare or trying to protect home grown industry. As we expanded we industrialized to great effect. We brought jobs and improved living stds to most of what was to become our empire. You don't need to make ball bearings when you have tech to sell to those that do, its basic trade.

The reason trump and the others are so afraid of trade is there just simply largely not competitive. Resist the trade and you eliminate the competition that lets you make more money!
 
IMHO i think you guys are pissing in the wind, making bullets in this century and certainly the next 2 decades is not what will win you any more wars. Those wars have been and gone. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, look how relatively few bullet injuries compared to IED or advanced weaponry caused. Now consider how 2 modern near equal tech fighters will find much use in a M16 when there opponents as armored as they are? How many times were bayonets and hand grenades really effective? How many times do you think they will achieve much next time. Especially against a relatively equally equipped force.

The Taliban kicked ass not by trying to use projectile weaponry but by IED's. They largely concurred the american millatery might by going low tech and ultra destructive devices, its as near to pressing the nuke button they had as most modern states do.

The Chinese or Russians or anyone else is not going to attack you were were conventional projectile weaponry achieves shit all. Trench war fair has been and gone, look at north Korea and your other conflicts, you guys have never won anything with high velocity lead since your revolution, WW2 was won by Superior air power backing up ground troops, same with us winning the Falklands, once you have control of the air space there time is up in a modern state on state war, that does not work with extremists though.

If you think ball bearing supply is going to win a modern war your seriously delusional. Its going to be superior air power and possibly space access and the air power is highly unlikely to be manned any more. Fighting is not going to last years in a state on state war between any of the big players, it will either go nuke or hit stale mate.

Oh and Britain largely became great through or-castrating world trade not through outright warfare or trying to protect home grown industry. As we expanded we industrialized to great effect. We brought jobs and improved living stds to most of what was to become our empire. You don't need to make ball bearings when you have tech to sell to those that do, its basic trade.

The reason trump and the others are so afraid of trade is there just simply largely not competitive. Resist the trade and you eliminate the competition that lets you make more money!

Oh my. If I had written that a lynch mob would be on its way to Denmark :cheers:
 
Seems regarding a county’s military the best anyone can count on or wish to count on is to be self reliant on supplies. Unsupplied any war could not continue. That is not all bad. As the reality is that war causes more troubles than it causes yet conflicts even when a combatant has supplies for a little while. Heck the use of unmanned is a strange development which lessens human sacrifice. That is a solid concept which begs the issue of why we wast lives and treasure so much while war has become something that simply is a great waste.

Nuclear Standoff. We talk about WW III as the end and what a total scanario of total insanity and loss. Regime change does occur where a country has Nuclear weapons and the fact someone has them only extends limited insulation.

Where we become rightfully concerned is where religious extremism or human denial or outright insanity come into play on the part of the leaders who are supposedly in charge of the option. War in general is a loser a big loser and if winnable maybe the only option. Nuclear War is the worst loser and waste of time. Then we can imagine other real things which threaten the human race such as starvation, disease, and overpopulation and add the poor distribution of wealth and the erosion of civilization by crime.
 
...Russia could remove the USA from the face of Earth before the USA could do the same. Europe is certainly too small for anything but conventional warfare.
I can't tell if this is just a troll or if you really are this ignorant.

I suppose it's a combination of both. :nutter:
 
...Russia could remove the USA from the face of Earth before the USA could do the same. Europe is certainly too small for anything but conventional warfare.

Gordon, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the US nuclear weapons were conceived and developed for use against Japan. Their initial use was against Japan only because Germany surrendered three months too early. The European peninsula is easily large enough to invite nuclear warfare. Had the Soviet Union's tanks ever rolled through the Fulda Gap I, along with every other infantryman there, would've been a speed bump—so your assertion that Russia could've wiped us out might well have been the case, at least in terms of conventional land warfare, circa 1967. OTOH, later analysis of the actual readiness level of Warsaw Pact forces of that period has thrown some doubt on that view. But I digress; first tactical, then strategic nukes would have been demonstrated within days. That is a perhaps unpalatable but absolute cast-iron truth.

On that subject, the belief that a universal prosperity and contentment created by the Euro will eliminate nationalistic antagonisms (not to mention the need to defend against a resurgent Russia) is a conceptual flaw of the European Union. France has nukes. In De Gaulle's words, they don't need to be able to destroy Russia, they only need to be able to "tear off an arm." NATO worked for half a century but it's not going to survive the growing ethnic and cultural clashes within greater Europe. France and Germany don't have much reason to support the would-be Ottoman Empire known as Turkey against Russia or anybody else, even though they're all NATO members. An insoluble problem, that. I suspect the next European war will be a do-it-yourself affair.

Ries, Ong's Hat isn't somebody's internet invention. It was in New Jersey down in the Pines, and about 60 years ago I was there. Wikipedia to the contrary, you had to take sand roads to get there. Ong's actual hat (the eponymous landmark) had rotted away and fallen off the tree about 150 years earlier—but it was a real place.
 
Last edited:
Gordon, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the US nuclear weapons were conceived and developed for use against Japan. Their initial use was against Japan only because Germany surrendered three months too early. The European peninsula is easily large enough to invite nuclear warfare. Had the Soviet Union's tanks ever rolled through the Fulda Gap I, along with every other infantryman there, would've been a speed bump—so your assertion that Russia could've wiped us out might well have been the case, at least in terms of conventional land warfare, circa 1967. OTOH, later analysis of the actual readiness level of Warsaw Pact forces of that period has thrown some doubt on that view. But I digress; first tactical, then strategic nukes would have been demonstrated within days. That is a perhaps unpalatable but absolute cast-iron truth.

On that subject, the belief that a universal prosperity and contentment created by the Euro will eliminate nationalistic antagonisms (not to mention the need to defend against a resurgent Russia) is a conceptual flaw of the European Union. France has nukes. In De Gaulle's words, they don't need to be able to destroy Russia, they only need to be able to "tear off an arm." NATO worked for half a century but it's not going to survive the growing ethnic and cultural clashes within greater Europe. France and Germany don't have much reason to support the would-be Ottoman Empire known as Turkey against Russia or anybody else, even though they're all NATO members. An insoluble problem, that. I suspect the next European war will be a do-it-yourself affair.

Ries, Ong's Hat isn't somebody's internet invention. It was in New Jersey down in the Pines, and about 60 years ago I was there. Wikipedia to the contrary, you had to take sand roads to get there. Ong's actual hat (the eponymous landmark) had rotted away and fallen off the tree about 150 years earlier—but it was a real place.

Are you just trying to be daft or ....? It's apparently impossible for me to write something you can understand.

With nuclear I'm writing about the present, not WW2. Read again what I've written with that thought in mind and not what you think happened or might have happened way back when.

Here are 8 countries with BIG bombs.
United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Nuclear Weapons in Russia | Russian Nuclear Sites & Weapons Program
| NTI


Euro? Not all EU countries have or want the Euro.
 








 
Back
Top