upvote
No, the problem is that nobody actually gives a fuck about this war.

The reason we don't have industrial capacity dedicated to this war is because everyone knows we're fighting it for no reason, there's no plan, it stops and starts every 4 days, so on.

Simple consequences of having actual stupid people leading our government.

If the US got into a war that anyone actually cared about, it would almost certainly snap into action at incredible speed.

reply
Looking back at COVID crisis, the rate China vs US snapped to action when it come to PPE production is probably good glimpse into the disparity. I'm not sure we have done anything to improve this situation.
reply
That is, again, a great example of the same administration being utterly incompetent at directing production.

Every single manufacturer in the US stated plainly that they did not feel safe scaling up production, because the demand was always going to be temporary, and they didn't want to be left with unusable factories.

A competent admin could have worked with them to arrange for financial help to temporarily expand and not leave them hanging.

That's what happens when "The free market is the only one allowed to make resource distribution choices" hits reality. Sometimes all rational actors making rational choices will leave you fucked.

Ethanol did not have that fear, as the infrastructure for it shares a lot with other industries, and we scaled that production quickly.

It's just more examples of, again, the way the free market will respond to changes in demand is not always a good thing, and sometimes you do have to nudge the market or buoy producers to keep things running well and quickly respond.

The admin could also have, you know, not stolen the critical stockpile of PPE, given it to a business spun up by his family, and let them sell it for personal profit.

reply
> If the US got into a war that anyone actually cared about, it would almost certainly snap into action at incredible speed.

I'm gonna push back on "nobody cares." The United States is somewhat unique in that our doctrine calls for wars to be fought on distant shores, and that the main role of our military is to ensure that our ideology (liberal democracy) is protected across the world.

That's why we entered WWII, it's why we keep carrier groups around the world, and it's why Iran/Ukraine/Taiwan are so critical. The threat of an American response and the visible follow-through is a significant factor in deterring anyone who's even considering a war.

Yes, Trump is unspeakably stupid, he's managed to make the worst possible decision at every step of this nightmare, but the truth is that a conflict like this has only been getting more likely since the GOP killed the nuclear deal.

We need weapons for Ukraine. We need weapons for Iran. And, God forbid, but we need weapons for Taiwan.

reply
> and that the main role of our military is to ensure that our ideology (liberal democracy) is protected across the world.

This is why the US military is partnered with all the Middle East democracies, like the one in Bahrain, or the one in UAE, or the one in Qatar…

reply
>our ideology (liberal democracy) is protected across the world

this is pure propaganda and is completely false statement, not grounded in reality. US has no problem protecting despotic autocracies like the Pinochet's junta in Chile or Saudi Arabian theocratic monarchy (a birthplace of islamic wahhabism).

The actual goal of military is to protect the status of USD as a global reserve currency and ensure all important nations are its vassals, fully subordinate to the US government.

The underlying reason is America is printing trillions of dollars out of thin air, not backed by anything, other than the threat from US military, so vassal states keep recycling their earned surplus currency into USD bonds and treasuries

reply
> That's why we entered WWII

The US entered World War II in the pacific after Pearl Harbor and in Europe after Germany declared war.

Before those 2 events, there was still a strong isolationist contingent in the US.

reply
For years leading up to that point Congress was passing "neutral" bills that allowed the country to sell weapons to the Allies but not the Axis. Since we're discussing weapons production, yes, the US joined the war effort on the side of the Allies well before formally declaring war.

Yes, there were isolationists, but there weren't enough to change the fact that fascist/communist victories in Europe would be bad for America. The neoliberal thing where we support liberal democracies is an evolution of the Monroe doctrine, because we've recognized for a long time that the best path forward for America is free trade and interdependency with other like-minded countries.

reply
> the main role of our military is to ensure that our ideology (liberal democracy) is protected across the world.

How is US defending liberal democracy?

So far they've killed 3,000+ Iranians. 110k+ causalities in IRAQ and Afghanistan.. don't even get me started on Vietnam.

reply
Nobody cares about the war in Iran.
reply
Ship production is in much worse shape.
reply
And we still manage to spend more than the next six countries combined on our military!
reply
This argument usually depends on how you quantify defense spending, no? [0] In terms of PPP, the U.S. is falling behind. To be perfectly clear, that doesn't somehow absolve the size of U.S. defense spending. If anything, it's damning of all these wunderwaffe projects defense contractors take on and the taxpayer funds.

[0] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2026/05/11/by-one-m... (no paywall: https://archive.ph/X9zzc)

reply
That's because the primary goal of the spending is not to produce a capable military. It's an expensive, inefficient jobs program, but one that you can get conservatives to support
reply