Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Nova Cyberia]

It's too essential of an industry to be left in the hands of private contractors who themselves as you said have different competing interests - interests which do not always align with national interests.

The Russians are able to get their military equipment far more cheaply than we do. Why? Because they have a large, domestic arms industry controlled by the state. It costs of us millions (sometimes even billions) just to get a single tank or fighter.

Theyre also behind on everything barring missile technology so what's your point?

And it doesn't cost "billions" to build a tank or plane outside a few exceptions, mainly the B-2.

Well, you can blame communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union for that.

But besides, quality is not everything. Sometimes ROFLspamming your enemy with cheaper and simpler tanks is better. Ask the Sherman or the T-34.

[Novus America]

I have to disagree, I do not think the government could run it effectively at all.
It needs reform, but outright nationalization of all is it would be a disaster.

Some things should be brought back under government control, we rely to much on private contractors to provide personnel and services the military can do itself, but manufacturing is not the government’s strong suite.

It's too essential of an industry to be left in the hands of private contractors who themselves as you said have different competing interests - interests which do not always align with national interests.

The Russians are able to get their military equipment far more cheaply than we do. Why? Because they have a large, domestic arms industry controlled by the state. It costs of us millions (sometimes even billions) just to get a single tank or fighter.

The Russian defense industry is a mess.
Transferring it to state owned monopolies has not improved its performance.
And leaves them with no alternatives.
The main reason the have lower costs is they pay their workers very little.

Our wages are much higher.
Sure the defense industry should not be ENTIRELY in private hands. Nor entirely in government hands either.
Compare NASA to Space X for example.

If we relied just on NASA we would be screwed.

[Grand Britannia]

Theyre also behind on everything barring missile technology so what's your point?

And it doesn't cost "billions" to build a tank or plane outside a few exceptions, mainly the B-2.

Well, you can blame communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union for that.

But besides, quality is not everything. Sometimes ROFLspamming your enemy with cheaper and simpler tanks is better. Ask the Sherman or the T-34.

In the era of beyond visual range engagement more tanks just means I need to make more missiles. Something the Russians have understood and reason why its their only serious threat.

[Novus America]

Theyre also behind on everything barring missile technology so what's your point?

And it doesn't cost "billions" to build a tank or plane outside a few exceptions, mainly the B-2.

Sometimes quantity is better than quality.

Sometimes. Sometimes it is not.
The best is quantity and quality. But that is not cheap.

[Nea Byzantia]

Theyre also behind on everything barring missile technology so what's your point?

And it doesn't cost "billions" to build a tank or plane outside a few exceptions, mainly the B-2.

Well, you can blame communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union for that.

But besides, quality is not everything. Sometimes ROFLspamming your enemy with cheaper and simpler tanks is better.

Exactly. Nazi Germany had quality; better quality than anything the Allies could plate up, that's for sure. But they lacked quantity.

[Nea Byzantia]

Sometimes quantity is better than quality.

Sometimes. Sometimes it is not.
The best is quantity and quality. But that is not cheap.

You can't always have both. Usually its one or the other.

[Grand Britannia]

Well, you can blame communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union for that.

But besides, quality is not everything. Sometimes ROFLspamming your enemy with cheaper and simpler tanks is better.

Exactly. Nazi Germany had quality; better quality than anything the Allies could plate up, that's for sure. But they lacked quantity.

The uh

No, they didnt. Have you heard of the Panther tank? How tank operators preferred not to traverse the hull of the Tiger I fearing it would break the threads? The mess that was German industrial practices?

On the other hand the U.S had the Sherman tank; a reliable tank from a streamlined production line that performed well in both anti tank and anti infantry roles, on top of being able to fulfill other roles with modifications. The whole "the sherman was crap" came from the poor performance of the Sherman's 75mm gun against Tiger Is, a heavy tank. Something the gun wasn't made to engage. This change once the 76mm was introduced and they could reliably engage them.

[Genivaria]

Well, you can blame communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union for that.

But besides, quality is not everything. Sometimes ROFLspamming your enemy with cheaper and simpler tanks is better.

Exactly. Nazi Germany had quality; better quality than anything the Allies could plate up, that's for sure. But they lacked quantity.

The Nazis also had over-engineered messes.

[Nea Byzantia]

Exactly. Nazi Germany had quality; better quality than anything the Allies could plate up, that's for sure. But they lacked quantity.

The uh

No, they didnt. Have you heard of the Panther tank? How tank operators preferred not to traverse the hull of the Tiger I fearing it would break the threads? The mess that was German industrial practices?

Yes, yes, and Churchill won the War too all by his lonesome - it wasn't like America and Soviet Russia saved his ass.

Sarcasm aside, my point is, the Allies beat the Germans with quantity, not quality. That and Hitler was fighting a two front war.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Wouldn't be much of a free market if you ban the market from doing something though, is it?

Completely free markets do not exist. Only ancaps believe in them. Liber might be more free market than you or me but they are not an ancap.

Economic freedom is relative.
And in fact most Post Soviet States have poor economic freedom. The government rigging the market in favor of government officials, transferring government property to them via corrupt deals and the like is not a very free market.

This ^^

[Novus America]

Sometimes. Sometimes it is not.
The best is quantity and quality. But that is not cheap.

You can't always have both. Usually its one or the other.

True, but it really depends on how much you can afford.

We really need to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP.

Also the US cannot compete with Russia and the PRC on cheap labor, not with the PRC on total men, our much higher wages require we focus more on higher end products, and better equipped forces. Labor costs keep us from spamming mass numbers of men and cheap crap.

[Novus America]

The uh

No, they didnt. Have you heard of the Panther tank? How tank operators preferred not to traverse the hull of the Tiger I fearing it would break the threads? The mess that was German industrial practices?

Yes, yes, and Churchill won the War too all by his lonesome - it wasn't like America and Soviet Russia saved his ass.

Sarcasm aside, my point is, the Allies beat the Germans with quantity, not quality. That and Hitler was fighting a two front war.

Although the US hit the right combination of quantity AND quality.
With Japan the Hellcat was better in quality than anything they had, we trained our pilots better and we still built a crap ton of them.

[Grand Britannia]

The uh

No, they didnt. Have you heard of the Panther tank? How tank operators preferred not to traverse the hull of the Tiger I fearing it would break the threads? The mess that was German industrial practices?

Yes, yes, and Churchill won the War too all by his lonesome - it wasn't like America and Soviet Russia saved his ass.

Sarcasm aside, my point is, the Allies beat the Germans with quantity, not quality. That and Hitler was fighting a two front war.

The allies beat them on quality and quantity, lol. Germans started using huge guns just so they could deal with Soviet armor, and the Sherman outperformed the Pz IV, which was the workhorse tank of the Wehrmacht.

[Grand Britannia]

Yes, yes, and Churchill won the War too all by his lonesome - it wasn't like America and Soviet Russia saved his ass.

Sarcasm aside, my point is, the Allies beat the Germans with quantity, not quality. That and Hitler was fighting a two front war.

Although the US hit the right combination of quantity AND quality.
With Japan the Hellcat was better in quality than anything they had, we trained our pilots better and we still built a crap ton of them.

Not to mention US naval aircraft were tougher, better armed, and had superior engines to Japanese aircraft. On top of that we built them by the hundreds.

[Nea Byzantia]

You can't always have both. Usually its one or the other.

True, but it really depends on how much you can afford.

We really need to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP.

You're ignoring the looming Sword of Damocles swinging over Washington's head: the National Debt. By 2025, the Federal Government will be spending a quarter of its budget servicing the national debt (making the interest payments). Long term, America may be able to continue picking on small little countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran; but it won't be able to keep up with Russia and China; whilst balancing its other internal expenses; not with the retired population rising and the working population shrinking. Of course, these problems won't really begin to fully manifest for another 10-15 years. But eventually, it'll catch up to Uncle Sam. America may have all the watches, but Her Enemies have all the Time.

[Nea Byzantia]

Yes, yes, and Churchill won the War too all by his lonesome - it wasn't like America and Soviet Russia saved his ass.

Sarcasm aside, my point is, the Allies beat the Germans with quantity, not quality. That and Hitler was fighting a two front war.

The allies beat them on quality and quantity, lol. Germans started using huge guns just so they could deal with Soviet armor, and the Sherman outperformed the Pz IV, which was the workhorse tank of the Wehrmacht.

When? In 1944-45? I'm talking about before Nazi Germany was getting curb-stomped at the end of the War.

[New haven america]

I love how you said I was wrong about the US having a war based economy and are now arguing about the economic and strategic benefits of military contract work, with a lot of you supporting contract work. Gee, it's almost as if I had a point or something.

Now I'll just sit back and enjoy the delicious irony.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I love how you said I was wrong about the US having a war based economy and are now arguing about the economic and strategic benefits of military contract work, with a lot of you supporting contract work. Gee, it's almost as if I had a point or something.

Now I'll just sit back and enjoy the delicious irony.

I don't think you understand the discussion at hand if you think it relates to your point.

[Grand Britannia]

The allies beat them on quality and quantity, lol. Germans started using huge guns just so they could deal with Soviet armor, and the Sherman outperformed the Pz IV, which was the workhorse tank of the Wehrmacht.

When? In 1944-45? I'm talking about before Nazi Germany was getting curb-stomped at the end of the War.

As early as when the war started. The workhorse tank of Germany were panzers I and II, which were outclassed by literally everything the Soviets, British and French had and only getting away with it by allied incompetence (im looking at you France). The Matilda in north Africa was unkillable to German forces to the point they considered falling back from being unable to figure out how to deal with it. The Panzer III in the eastern front could barely cope with Soviet tanks as it was considered infantry support.

Again, Germany was winning at the start due to allied incompetence and the Soviets just not being ready for a major war.

[Nova Cyberia]

It's too essential of an industry to be left in the hands of private contractors who themselves as you said have different competing interests - interests which do not always align with national interests.

The Russians are able to get their military equipment far more cheaply than we do. Why? Because they have a large, domestic arms industry controlled by the state. It costs of us millions (sometimes even billions) just to get a single tank or fighter.

The Russian defense industry is a mess.
Transferring it to state owned monopolies has not improved its performance.
And leaves them with no alternatives.
The main reason the have lower costs is they pay their workers very little.

Our wages are much higher.
Sure the defense industry should not be ENTIRELY in private hands. Nor entirely in government hands either.
Compare NASA to Space X for example.

If we relied just on NASA we would be screwed.

Some of it might be because of lower wages and it might also be because its relatively easy for the government to charge itself cheap prices.

And of course it's going to be a mess. Russia's a corrupt oligarchy. We can do it better than them.

[Nova Cyberia]

I love how you said I was wrong about the US having a war based economy and are now arguing about the economic and strategic benefits of military contract work, with a lot of you supporting contract work. Gee, it's almost as if I had a point or something.

Now I'll just sit back and enjoy the delicious irony.

I don't think you understand the discussion at hand if you think it relates to your point.

How shocking. /s

[New haven america]

I don't think you understand the discussion at hand if you think it relates to your point.

How shocking. /s

If that's the excuse that you want to use, then that's cool, as I have neither the power nor care to actually stop you from thinking so.

[Nova Cyberia]

How shocking. /s

If that's the excuse that you want to use, then that's cool, as I have neither the power nor care to actually stop you from thinking so.

Thank you. I appreciate your respect for my low opinion of you.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

If that's the excuse that you want to use, then that's cool, as I have neither the power nor care to actually stop you from thinking so.

Thank you. I appreciate your respect for my low opinion of you.

That is sig worthy.

[Novus America]

True, but it really depends on how much you can afford.

We really need to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP.

You're ignoring the looming Sword of Damocles swinging over Washington's head: the National Debt. By 2025, the Federal Government will be spending a quarter of its budget servicing the national debt (making the interest payments). Long term, America may be able to continue picking on small little countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran; but it won't be able to keep up with Russia and China; whilst balancing its other internal expenses; not with the retired population rising and the working population shrinking. Of course, these problems won't really begin to fully manifest for another 10-15 years. But eventually, it'll catch up to Uncle Sam. America may have all the watches, but Her Enemies have all the Time.

The PRC and Russia have worse demographics than we do.
So there time is on our side. The PRC has a much worse aging crisis than we do.

Also the US debt is denominated in USD.
We can play lots of games with it as a result.

Sure we need to raise revenue, and cut waste.
It is something we can and should address. Cutting the military would do little though, high healthcare costs are the biggest problem that can be fixed.

Also we can expand our working population at will via immigration.

We can and should give PRC and Russian electronic, steel, aluminum, shipbuilding, defense and aerospace workers green cards if they want to defect. We can steal their laborers.

They cannot compete with our wages.
That alone can give us victory.