Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David Gaynon's avatar

I am writing this as someone who believes that we need to increase defense spending and also as someone who once worked for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (in an administrative rather than a scientific area).

There is a difference between efficiency and effectiveness. Lawrence Livermore was high effective but it was never very efficient. It could get amazing stuff done quickly but as one researcher once told me -- cost doesnt matter. This is something that is important for the country and we will spend whatever it takes.

Its well to remember that the government doesnt do science all that well but depends on contractors. And anyone who has been through the challenge of Federal acquisition regulations knows that this is not a place for the uninitiated. On many occasions the government cant do business with the top contractors when such firms lack experience with federal acquisition.

When I worked at Lawrence Livermore, one of the many National Labs regulated by the Dept of Energy it eventually occurred to me that the Dept of Energy was basically a procurement agency. During those days I heard a joke about the 3 nuclear weapons labs managed by the Dept of Energy. It goes like this

When DOE say jump, Sandia says how high sir; Los Alamos says up yours, and Livermore within a few months puts together a $500 million jump management program

Expand full comment
Refined Insights's avatar

Very reasonable proposals. A reasonable defence budget is an entirely different thing from the galling refusal to approve the CTC and renovate America's aging infrastructure. They should be considered separately as Noah has chosen to do here.

Having said that, there is a lovely piece by Matt Stoller on TransDigm and other defence monopolies who obtain exorbitant contracts for sometimes basic military gear or push for expensive white elephant projects like the F-35.

So, until America fixes its monopolization in the defence industry and much else, a lot of that money will be going to tax havens and shareholders, which is a fine thing, but you can't do battle with a Caribbean trust.

The other thing is parallels to China and Russia are not exactly accurate. We have already seen that Russia is losing the war bot out of mediocre equipment but due to mediocre training, inefficient supply lines, and chip shortages among others. These are not problems the American army has. And to the extent that they have them, they are not problems that will be fixed by billions of dollars in budgetary allocation.

Getting the traditional basics right is way more important in wars than fancy gadgets, although few like to admit it.

With regard to China, it has traditionally neglected its military for sensible reasons. It is now building up rapidly. Again, it is not the situation the American army is currently in. There is more need for maintenance, I'd dare say, than growth.

What America needs is investment in technology - all kinds of technology. A DARPA-like project that is not controlled by private institutions who would simply lock it all up behind a wall of patents and who are more interested, as they should, in steady revenues anyway.

The amount of insights and innovation that will unlock will transform the defence industry and much else, faster and better than big routine military budgets.

Defence is a critical aspect of any nation. Pacifism is a lovely ideal in theory. Unfortunately, that is the extent to which its loveliness applies. But the fact that defence is critical, and even more so now, is not a reason to not spend wisely and be long sighted. It's a reason, the reason, to do just exactly that.

Expand full comment
67 more comments...

No posts