automotive platforms are a key military asset it's not like the pokemon dildo industry, if you stop building jeeps your abolity to bully third parties is diminished

▲

Scoundreller 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pokémon dildo factory should retool easily into a track-and-destroy-jeeps drone factory

▲

ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> automotive platforms are a key military asset

All the more reason not to save companies that can't compete in the global space. What good is a jeep that the Chinese laugh at?

▲

CPLX 11 hours ago | parent [-]

You think people laughing is an important metric versus having an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities?

Maybe start at the beginning. Where do you think power comes from in the world? I'll give you a hint. It's not the ability to construct narratives.

▲

ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You think people laughing is an important metric…

I think if you're gonna argue "preserving the auto industry is a national security issue" you have to address the fact that an auto industry that relies on protectionism to avoid being competitive with the rest of the world will probably not be very effective at national security.

Otherwise, you wind up like Russia in Ukraine - people laugh at your failed efforts.

> an integrated industrial facility capable of producing vehicles in large quantities

Large quantities of vehicles don't do much good if those vehicles are shitty compared to the opposition's. Iraq's army under Hussein was one of the largest on the planet at one time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

"The nine M1A1 tanks of Eagle Troop destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 personnel carriers and 30 trucks in 23 minutes with no American losses."

"In doing that the scout platoon encountered another Iraqi tank position of thirteen T-72s. The lightly armored Bradleys, each equipped only with a 25-mm cannon and two TOW missiles, are intended for reconnaissance, not direct engagement with armored tanks. Despite a misfire, and having to reload the launchers in the face of the enemy, the two Bradleys destroyed 5 tanks before help arrived."

▲

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

If you don't think industrial capacity is relevant to geopolitical power then I don't think we're really having a serious conversation here.

▲

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you don't think industrial capacity is relevant to geopolitical power…

Of course it is!

But so does the quality of what that capacity puts out.

Again, the Russians found that out in Ukraine.

▲

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

What does the Russian economy have to do with anything? First off, they're run by a kleptocratic oligarchy, and second of all they're still one of the top 5 most militarily powerful countries in the world. I don't even know what point you're making? Did they bail out Chrysler? Which side of the analogy are they even on?

▲

ceejayoz 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What does the Russian economy have to do with anything?

They had more of that industrial capacity you're talking about than Ukraine, more tanks, more armaments, more weaponry.

It still didn't let them win. Because the quality matters too.

> First off, they're run by a kleptocratic oligarchy…

I have some awkward news about the US in recent years.

▲

CPLX 10 hours ago | parent [-]

This is just an example of the fundamental nature of asymmetric insurgent warfare and the nature of proxy conflicts. It's not like Vietnam was more powerful than the US economy either. You seem confused.

In an all-out existential battle Ukraine would have been wiped off the map in the first 20 minutes by nuclear weapons. This isn't an actual contest of industrial might versus industrial might.

	▲	philipkglass 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"In an all-out existential battle" involving nuclear weapons, the United States won't be affected by the presence or absence of domestic car factories either. World War II could soak up years of total warfare effort from the belligerents, and still have factories and governments intact to send more soldiers and bombs toward the enemy. I don't think that can happen now that countries as poor as North Korea can make nuclear weapons.
	▲	ceejayoz 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> This is just an example of the fundamental nature of asymmetric insurgent warfare. Plus overconfidence, and outdated Russian tactics and equipment. The US would be wise not to fall in the "our army bigger" trap too.

▲

drcongo 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What does the Russian economy have to do with anything? First off, they're run by a kleptocratic oligarchy

Kinda answered your own question there.

▲

axus 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Donald Trump demonstrated very well the power of constructing narratives. It's served him more than the technological terrors he has at his disposal.

▲

bijowo1676 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

it is not anymore, because US doctrine has changed after losing war in Vietnam.

US can no longer sustain massive motorized and armored forces, because it implies heavy casualty rate.

The doctrine changed to shock&awe and lobbing standoff munitions from far away, which we all saw in Iran (and how it turned out).

US strictly protects boomers at Big Three and their regional dealerships and the entire supply chain that makes money off of financing, extended warranty, selling overpriced parts, overpriced heavy vehicles, etc