Self Production...Good or Bad?
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
Missileer said:
I never claimed that he wasn't president when he said it. I did however type his name the way his ancestors used to spell it.
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
Sherman Edit: You are testing the very nerrow and fragile borders of my patience. When they rupture you will be gone.
making weapon sure creates a lot of jobs,
and many military techs end up serving civilians well
like nuclear energy, radar tech
many civilian sectors are closely connected with military sectors, and they improve together
ppl in ancient world probably won't think hard to create iron tools if they have not thought of finding another more efficient mineral to create a better killing tool
and many military techs end up serving civilians well
like nuclear energy, radar tech
many civilian sectors are closely connected with military sectors, and they improve together
ppl in ancient world probably won't think hard to create iron tools if they have not thought of finding another more efficient mineral to create a better killing tool
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
I believe, and I may be wrong about this correct me if I am, President Eisenhower's statement that MD referred to was connected with his warning to the American people to be wary of the growing Military-Industrial complex. President Johnson's social programmes were IMHO a very definite step in the right direction and something that modern histories have woefully overlooked or not given him enough credit for. And it does pertain to this post in that self-production may or may not free up more capital for domestic programmes depending on the cost-effectiveness of producing as opposed to buying.
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
Sherman: No, I do not think Ike and Hitler deserve the same ammount of respect. If you wish to, PM me, do onot ansawer me here.
Was his social program the development of the welfare state? What did his reforms have to do with the military industrial complex? Did they curb its growth?
bulldogg said:
Was his social program the development of the welfare state? What did his reforms have to do with the military industrial complex? Did they curb its growth?
basic knowledge,
money spending on military will not go to welfare for sure
over-spending in military causes serious problems, like in USSR, the soviet empire collapse is partly caused by its over-spending in military (up to 20% of its GDP)
and in Reagen and Bush Senior's terms as president, the country's economy was pretty bad because of programs like "star war", thank to Clinton's cutting, U.S economy recovers pretty good after 1992
money spending on military will not go to welfare for sure
over-spending in military causes serious problems, like in USSR, the soviet empire collapse is partly caused by its over-spending in military (up to 20% of its GDP)
and in Reagen and Bush Senior's terms as president, the country's economy was pretty bad because of programs like "star war", thank to Clinton's cutting, U.S economy recovers pretty good after 1992
Missileer
Active member
I think that President Eisenhower's mistrust of the Defense Industry came from when he worked with contractors as General Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of Operation Overlord or D-Day. The ability of industry to siphon off money for better and better weapons could and did spin out of control and he had seen it first hand. He also knew that Congress would never allow the US to be caught up in another Pearl Harbor and would fund every nifty idea that came from the Defense Department and the Defense Industry. He did not want see the graft and corruption that could occur as soon as contacts were made within the Pentagon by Industrial giants.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I think self production is a good idea for the simple reasons that it reduces the reliance on foreign imports which during times when you need the military hardware is a good thing and stimulates the local economy.
Probably the only negative is the high cost of research in order to make the best gear although a lot of this can be offset by reverse engineering especially when starting from nothing.
Probably the only negative is the high cost of research in order to make the best gear although a lot of this can be offset by reverse engineering especially when starting from nothing.
MarineGtoACommo
Active member
I would tend to disagree with this, citing one example in particular. The Argentines proved the effectiveness of the French's Exocet missile during the Faulkland Islands dispute when they sunk a British ship. It certainly bolstered the US production of the Phalanx system.
But back to on topic, any country's military needs should generally be equal or greater than the enemy's threat. Simply because of where technology has evolved to, it's not possible for a start-up country to meet the threat with home-grown technology, of an enemy who has been equipped with superior technology obtained from out-sourcing. So it becomes a race by both countries to purchase competing but equally effective weapons from foreign suppliers.
Eventually, when these countries want to become less dependant on their foreign suppliers, they seek to buy the technology so that they can self-produce them. Unfortunately, they are usually still locked into buying parts and putting them together themselves. Also, in most cases, these weapons are the hand-me-downs of the foreign supplier anyway. This allows the foreign suppliers (governments) to not only maintain their technological advantage but to control the capabilities of the purchasing country.
It's only when these countries become truly industrious that they begin to acually produce their own (competing) weapons and even then, they will be bastardized or modified versions of existing weapons (AK-47s, SCUDs, etc.). True research and development, is mimmiced with trial and error until they develop their skills enough to truly join the ranks of the big boys.
Good or bad? That depends on if a country places national pride over winning battles. In either case, there is a natural progression and evolution to owning superior technology.