[snowwrestler]

The U.S. already manufactures warships, though, and we’re already by far the best at it. Not only do we already protect our economy, we protect pretty much all shipping on the high seas by all economies on the globe.

The John F Kennedy—built in the U.S.!—is in sea trials this year to become the 12th nuclear aircraft carrier in the U.S. fleet. No other nation has more than two carriers. The U.S. has more aircraft carriers operating as museums than other nations have in military service.

What about subs? Again, the U.S. has more than anyone else and Australia just cancelled a deal with France in order to buy subs built in the U.S. We build the best in the world.

I belabor this to make a point: a lot of what people think we need to do… we already have. Our nation and our economy is already the most secure on Earth. We are already the best in the world at making weapons. That never got outsourced, so we don’t need to dramatically reconfigure our economy to bring it back.

[klooney]

> The U.S. already manufactures warships, though, and we’re already by far the best at it.

We very slowly build a small number of incredibly expensive ships. For any other value of "manufacturers warships", Korea or Italy are better and more reliable.

Also, it's not clear if aircraft carriers are survivable in a vaguely peer context. Missiles and drones have come a long way.

> Australia just cancelled a deal with France in order to buy subs built in the U.S. We build the best in the world

We won't be sending them because we can't build them because our defense shipbuilding industry is moribund, and there is no civilian shipbuilding industry to do double duty.

[pyrale]

> Also, it's not clear if aircraft carriers are survivable in a vaguely peer context.

It's not clear if the planet is survivable in a vaguely peer context. What do you want, build a second planet and make Mexico pay for it?

[jopsen]

Wouldn't you be better off buying ships from allies?

Nobody does everything.

[kashunstva]

> buying ships from allies

In 2025, is the word “ally” even a legitimate term in the U.S. political lexicon?

[mrguyorama]

We were literally buying Frigates from Italy, because they build really good frigates and we can't build a mid-size ship worth a damn it seems.

LMAO does the Navy pay tariffs?

[michaelt]

Practically speaking, I agree.

But theoretically speaking, the time when a strong manufacturing industry is needed is if you get into a lengthy WW2 style conflict, where both sides burn through their stockpiles of tanks/shells/missiles/whatever.

Then whoever can deliver tanks to the battlefield fastest has the numerical advantage. In 1942 the allies had retooled their car/locomotive/tractor manufacturing plants to make tanks and they were literally producing 9x as many tanks as the axis powers. Which is obviously a very good thing, militarily.

So there is historical precedent for the idea that a strong domestic car/locomotive/tractor industry being very helpful in wartime.

Of course, the question you've got to ask is: Will we ever see another WW2 style conflict? Because in a nuclear conflict there's no time to retool and manufacturing plants, and in lower-intensity conflicts like Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan there was no desire to.

[kashunstva]

> we already protect our economy…aircraft carriers…subs…weapons

Except when the threat to your economy and security isn’t something against which those weapons will ever be effective. Even the USS John F. Kennedy, as wonderful as I’m sure it is, won’t fix the giant foot gun that is presently threatening your economy and security.