Advantages and disadvantages of a theoretical nationalization of defense contractors in the US

[Byeman]

See https://www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/space-shuttle-program-history/. DoD wanted a massive payload interest and enough cross-range to land back in the US after one orbit.

The post was SLS and not STS

 

[yeetmahboi]

In aviation for example, China is at the forefront of drone technology, missile technology and they produce rather innovative aircraft as of late.

They're also very much into everything computer and AI related, with all the industries associated with these umbrella terms. IIRC they also lead in battery technology, at least with regards to the automotive sector.

I think pretending the Chinese aren't innovating and at the forefront of scientific discourse and development is teeny tiny bit disingenuous

I think you're confusing "we have the money to build this idea that Bush 1/2 funneled money into X-stuff" with actual innovation. Building *isn't* innovation, making something new is.

But just to address a single point, last end of April, 30/4, for the mega national prestige day here in Vietnam, our gov hired a prime Chinese contractor to operate 10k drone mesh. End result? While the exact performance isn't exactly impressive, the damn whole formation fell apart, crashed down no willy hilly, people stole like hundreds of copies. Now yes, it's an outlier, personally I quite like the drone show in IShowSpeed's China stream, but not exactly inspiring.

The difference between the US and China is that the former is *slightly ahead* and the latter *can build anything*. But China, innovate? We sure the same conclusion hasn't been reached by a couple of 30yrs old in *insert*-lab-address: murica that got turned down and archived?

 

[scautomoton]

Yes I am. And yet we're lightyears ahead of such dystopian dictatorships as Britain and China and Russia... at least for now.

I don't know where you get your news, but the USA comes considerably further down than Britain does on many rankings of how democratic a country is.

 

[Sferrin]

I don't know where you get your news, but the USA comes considerably further down than Britain does on many rankings of how democratic a country is.

We don't have to worry about being imprisoned for 31 months for a tweet.

 

[BAROBA]

We don't have to worry about being imprisoned for 31 months for a tweet.

Yet...

 

[Sferrin]

Yet...

Evidence?

 

[Orionblamblam]

I don't know where you get your news, but the USA comes considerably further down than Britain does on many rankings of how democratic a country is.

I can't get arrested n the USA for "malicious communications," i.e. a mean tweet. I can't get arrested in the USA for offending someone. Or for having blueprints of a 3D printable firearm. Or for waving my own flag. Or for complaining about a rapist.

And of course "how democratic Nation X is" is hardly the sole metric of how dystopian it is. If foreigners who actively hate that nation/culture/people are increasingly being democratically elected by an increasing population of hostile foreigners into your government, hey, that's all kinds of democratic, and it's all kinds of awful.

 

[scautomoton]

I can't get arrested n the USA for "malicious communications," i.e. a mean tweet. I can't get arrested in the USA for offending someone. Or for having blueprints of a 3D printable firearm. Or for waving my own flag. Or for complaining about a rapist.

And of course "how democratic Nation X is" is hardly the sole metric of how dystopian it is. If foreigners who actively hate that nation/culture/people are increasingly being democratically elected by an increasing population of hostile foreigners into your government, hey, that's all kinds of democratic, and it's all kinds of awful.

If any of this was actually true then yes it would be awful. Luckily it's not. Apart from the firearms thing, luckily that is true in the UK.

 

[Sferrin]

If any of this was actually true then yes it would be awful. Luckily it's not. Apart from the firearms thing, luckily that is true in the UK.

Wow.

 

[galgot]

So tiresome how it is an urge for some to wave their ideology at any occasions like exhibitionists feels de urge to wave their di.. in public... And call it "freedom".

 

[Dilandu]

If any of this was actually true then yes it would be awful. Luckily it's not. Apart from the firearms thing, luckily that is true in the UK.

Actually most of this works for Russia too) There is no laws against possessing the blueprints for 3D printed weapons, you can wave your own flag (with the exception of "forbidden" and "extremists" symbolic, but I strongly suspect that no flag Orionblamblam could possibly wave would be considered such in Russia), and complaining about rapist definitedly would not get you in trouble. The offense thing is basically the only difference - we have a law that forbade "offending the religious feeling" (and it's used pretty much haphazardly, albeit the punishment is fines mostly). So... hooray, we are basically one step from American democracy

 

[tychosis]

As a defense professional who was passively watching this thread just because some interesting points were brought up, I think you guys should stop with the silly political bickering. I see it in a lot of threads around here... it's unbecoming and it's going to drive away people genuinely interested in reading about these topics.

 

[Dilandu]

As a defense professional who was passively watching this thread just because some interesting points were brought up, I think you guys should stop with the silly political bickering. I see it in a lot of threads around here... it's unbecoming and it's going to drive away people genuinely interested in reading about these topics.

Okay, sorry. I'm finished with offtop there.

 

[Sferrin]

So tiresome how it is an urge for some to wave their ideology at any occasions like exhibitionist feels de urge to wave their di.. in public... And call it "freedom".

With a thread discussing the pros and cons of government confiscating private business, there was zero chance politics wouldn't enter the equation at some point.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If any of this was actually true then yes it would be awful. Luckily it's not. Apart from the firearms thing, luckily that is true in the UK.

When i find myself arguing with someone who denies reality, I find it's time to walk away. So I do that now.

 

[scautomoton]

Same, apologies to all for the thread drift.

 

[SspewixzzZ]

Can we stop these personal/national attacks and get back to the discussion of the thread?

Let me be clear: donnot link state-owned enterprises with forced planning and commands—that's outdated Cold War thinking, which has been proven wrong with many people (and nation)'s death, both then and now.

Think about it : if a country actually had a weapon that could blow up the Pentagon instantly, would anyone let private companies waste time arguing over saving a penny in countless meetings? Just examine how the Manhattan Project achieved breakneck-speed implementation. That's one important reason for why state-owned enterprises exist—private firms can't handle that pressure. They don't care about if the money they get is 'capitalism' or 'socialism', and aren't obligated to protect taxpayers but only institution which actually pay the money.

Now let's get to the real matter: What is nationalization? National support isn't just about direct funding or control. Policy perks count too – like Ukraine's drone makers getting huge tax breaks and so it developed rapidly and has had a significant impact in the war. Actually if we follow the money, aren't all major defense contractors effectively state-owned enterprises? When DoD contracts constitute 78% of Lockheed's revenue (I'm not very sure about latest number), shouldn't their IP rights face public domain restrictions similar to actual SOEs?

Look at some sucessful examples: TSMC, NASA, AT&T, they have all received various forms of support from the national level to varying degrees. Even SpaceX took off only after getting military contracts. None of these huge modern programs could succeed without government backing, just see how they struggle when that support disappears.

The debate shouldn't be 'state vs private', but how to calibrate state steering in strategic sectors without stifling innovation. Ultimately, what defines a modern SOE isn't ownership papers, but its capacity to internalize national strategic costs no spreadsheet-driven corporation can bear.

Jeez, I just spent a solid hour or two tweaking this reply even with AI assistance. I should've spent more time buried in books.

 

[publiusr]

I think that the growth of the management class since the 1990s has crippled all Western economic enterprises. Management that thinks everything is just a "management science" topic to be dealt with by employing jargon and textbook reactions. You can't even call them technocrats because they seem oblivious to the technical issues of their profession, a factory making 155mm shells or bars of soap is just the same to them.

Mike Rowe also laments this situation.
Once, he talked about a billboard that showed the same actor, but wearing two outfits:

In one, he wore a hard hat and utility belt--in the other, he had a suit and a briefcase.

The caption read "Work smarter, not harder."
I forget which issue of AvWeek it was, but there was a letter that talked about engineers that had been with a company for decades were still in cubicles where kids half his age in the legal department had rooms with views.

 

[GTX]

Locking thread to do a clean up of the usual garbage from the usual culprits.

Actually just leaving the entire thread locked as it is just useless to try to clean up something like this topic which will just go rancid quickly again with the usual garbage from the usual culprits. Was tempted to just delete the entire thread.