Trump Thread

**Montmorency** · 02-28-2017, 02:49

A few more in this list.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 03-01-2017, 02:56

Can't wait to see his speech to Congress. He could say "I own you all." and they would all clap for him

**Montmorency** · 03-01-2017, 03:25

They say Trump is calling for the remilitarization of the Rhineland.

**Hooahguy** · 03-01-2017, 03:39

The defense spending hike still wouldnt have as much an impact as cutting wasteful spending would do. Like for years we have been building more tanks despite the military saying they dont need any more tanks yet Congressman X from wherever doesnt want to close the tank factory in his district. That and arbitrary troop limits which forces commanders to make use of really expensive contractors instead of bringing in more soldiers who are on our dime anyways.

Plus diverting money away from our soft power apparatuses is a horrible idea.

**Montmorency** · 03-01-2017, 04:20

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

The defense spending hike still wouldnt have as much an impact as cutting wasteful spending would do. Like for years we have been building more tanks despite the military saying they dont need any more tanks yet Congressman X from wherever doesnt want to close the tank factory in his district. That and arbitrary troop limits which forces commanders to make use of really expensive contractors instead of bringing in more soldiers who are on our dime anyways.

Plus diverting money away from our soft power apparatuses is a horrible idea.

Argument for tanks and other items is that expertise of engineers and technicians must be maintained. Solution: directly pay them comparatively-little to tinker with related stuff on at least a part-time basis, keep them sharp. Not complete contracts or products, just anything related to the necessary skill set for our major platforms.

At some point remember, it is more straightforward and cost-effective for the government to disembody private military-industrial corporations and absorb their skilled workers as operators of internal (federal) agencies.

It's best-suited for a proper great-power war, but you really have to wonder at the opportunity scale of paying ever more to keep renters on your property in anticipation of a future boom.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 03-01-2017, 16:46

.

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Argument for tanks and other items is that expertise of engineers and technicians must be maintained. Solution: directly pay them comparatively-little to tinker with related stuff on at least a part-time basis, keep them sharp. Not complete contracts or products, just anything related to the necessary skill set for our major platforms.

Doesn't work that well. There are all sorts of "never written down anywhere" micro-behaviors etc. that those people working in the assembly process have to keep current in institutional memory in order to generate the best possible results. And that body of knowledge is often so specialized to the military product that the company cannot use it on "civvy street" effectively. I used to live near Newport News Shipbuilding -- the folks who make CVNs and will be making the CVNX's. They could not build an oil tanker to spec on time and under budget...but could make a supercarrier. Refueling jobs helped, but not enough; building a sub....did not work well as all the good sub builders work at a different place so it was slow and not as high quality, etc.

Originally Posted by Montmorency

At some point remember, it is more straightforward and cost-effective for the government to disembody private military-industrial corporations and absorb their skilled workers as operators of internal (federal) agencies....

Like our old "arsenal" system....which was never efficient enough. Or maybe the PLA's factory system....which is NOT the most effective center for manufacturing.

All in all, the stuff is too specialized; has periods of non-production that are simply too long to maintain staff through; and then gets wrecked/bent/broken/expended in job lots when in actual use mandating rapid full replacement.

Military manufacture is likely never to be fully rationalizable.

**Montmorency** · 03-01-2017, 17:39

In other words, it should depend on how much of a warmup-phase, and where, we are willing to tolerate for advanced production. The existing base wouldn't be sufficient for a real surge anyway and would be delayed in expansion for such a war footing (pretending that any sort of war now would depend on swamping a theater with many thousands of tanks or planes). It's not something to determine out of hand, but is worth looking into as a cost-saver while still maintaining adequate institutional and technical knowledge.