Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins
I agree with Patrick and with Duncan Hunter that national security demands that we have our own heavy truck/auto, heavy shipbuilding, heavy aircraft, and heavy military industries.

Assuming the USA gets in a shooting war, what can the auto makers contribute toward it? Tanks? Tanks are obsolete. Aircraft? How are they tooled to produce F-35's?

Success in warfare these days does not depend on heavy armor - it depends upon acquisition of information and precise and stealthy delivery of destructive power. It depends upon microprocessors and carbon fiber, not heavy industry.

This is why entry into the present Iraq war did nothing for the market value, i.e. stock price, for our heavy industries like the big 3. The national security argument is a false one. Not according to me - according to the market, which is much smarter that any one of us.

19 posted on 11/21/2008 6:47:32 AM PST by frithguild (Can I drill your head now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: frithguild

We took down Iraq in about two weeks with an air-land force of armor and aviation. Not bad for an obsolete weapon. Tanks are not obsolete. Nor are air forces.

WWII proved that alternative usage of industry is a benefit that can be realized in a matter of months and a little retooling. That principle is just as valid today.

Information is itself not combat force; it is a force multiplier. There’s a difference. The only way your computer can itself kill me is if you pick it up and hit me in the head with it.


27 posted on 11/21/2008 7:03:16 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson