Quote:
|
On a related note, I also believe that we no longer have the capacity to win any major wars because most of the industriy that won WW2, is now in China and elsewhere, with more jobs on the chopping block. We are well on our way to becoming a poor nation. The philoslphy of "America First", and "Made in the USA" need to return and are a long time over due.
|
I disagree with this on a ridiculous amount of fronts.
First, industry isn't something that just "is". It is created by demand. Wars create demand. As such, industry is created. In a nation with a burgeoning unemployment rate, should industry need to be created in response to a war, it would be quite simple considering that the infrastructure of doing so exists.
In fact, a similar scenario occurred during WWII - industry was created (one of the oft-overlooked side-effects of the war was it's positive effect on the US economy, and how that economic strength led to America's world dominance in currency and credit).
The concept comes down to ability: could we create factories, possess the materials, etc. needed to fuel war industry?
Absolutely.
In fact, your Chinese outsourcing example fails for the mere fact that doing so does not in any way reduce the building blocks of capacity - in fact, it INCREASES their availability (which, in turn, is why outsourcing has a negative impact on the US economy).
In other, simpler words: a major industrial war would be just the ticket to jumpstarting the US economy. Just like it did regarding WWII.
That leads into something else: what makes you think that any war the US would plausibly be involved in would be an industrial conflict? The only nation on the planet capable of realistically causing such a conflict would be China, and THAT would only feesibly occur should the US have aggressive intentions towards the nation - a nation that, I might add, would be completely broke without US consumerism (why do you think China never presses the outstanding US debt?).
The evolution of weapons have made them stronger and smarter meaning less of them need be used. We can pinpoint cruise missiles on any target in the world from a thousand safe miles away, bombing targets into submission. In the case of that failing, we have the ability to project airpower to ANY nation on the 6 fully inhabited continental landmasses.
The bottom line is that, what once took 1000s of artillary shells assembled by hand now takes 4 or 5 missiles. Sure, there still is a need for those shells, but machines are a far more effecient assembly line worker, and we have plenty of those.
The industry needed to sustain a modern conflict is a mere fraction of what was needed 80 years ago, and there is no doubt that we have the infrastructure and ability to do so.
PS: I do agree that the America First philosophies should return.