I don’t know if it belongs to GD, but I was wondering, what would happen to the massive arms industry in the US if there was no war(s). I have no figures but I am assuming that both the federal and the private sector have substantial stake in the arms industry. The sector must also be employing a large workforce. To remain profitable and survive, like any other industry, it too needs to be able to sell its product on a continuous basis. Who are the customers of this industry? The first, and the biggest I guess, is the defence sector of the US itself. Next would be the other countries and their governments perhaps. However, selling too much of this product to people outside the country could be counterproductive in a way, because it is like you are arming someone who could someday turn and use the weapons against you. Given this premise, there is a limit on how much ammunition and weaponry can, or should, be sold outside.
Consumption of the product of this industry requires war. Weird but true nonetheless. Like any other product, if not consumed, the market for it would get saturated pretty soon. Regular demand requires regular consumption. I may agree, some of it is consumed in exercises etc. but I am sure that is not enough to keep the industry financially viable. In terms of quanity, the US already has the largest amount of arms and ammunition. Assuming there is no war, and therefore no consumption, there is no way more of it can really be justified. The US government is also responsible to ensure that its arms industry remains in good health, because allowing it to be regulated by the market forces will lead to it becoming virtually defunct. The industry itself would also like to remain profitable and grow. Both these forces therfore need to ensure that on an average, a regular and healthy demand for the product is maintained. The only way that is possible is if there are wars at all times, or at least if the “no-war” or periods of peace are not too long.
Does it fits with what we see happening? So is it economics that is in some way actually responsible for wars and the resulting deaths of people?
I’m too lazy to search for a cite, but I’m pretty sure that the private use of guns (plus law enforcement) and ammunition would dwarf that of the U.S. military. I could be wrong, though. Even without war the military would use it for testing and whatnot.
Do you mean if the US was involved in no wars? Or anyone in the world? If the former, the US arms industry has done good business for decades selling arms to others. Especially if they are fighting wars amongst themselves.
You do realize that munitions have a shelf life, vehicles and machines wear out, uniforms get dirty, and a new crop of 18 year old privates needs to be trained every year?
Exactly how many vehicles and munitions do you imagine get destroyed in war every year, compared to how many are produced? The vast majority of american war materiel is decommissioned and/or sold for scrap rather than being destroyed or consumed in war.
This idea has been around a while. As far back as World War I, people were saying that the munitions industry was promoting war because it would be good for their business. Personally, I don’t think the tail’s big enough to wag the dog. There were plently of reasons people found to fight wars before there was any businessmen around selling weapons. The desire to fight wars creates the armaments industry, not vice versa.
I’d be happy to do something else for a living, but only if all of my country’s enemies made nice tomorrow.
Things being what they are, I don’t expect this. I’ll be working on the Tomahawk cruise missile system tomorrow, if you need me.
They get employed as accountants or construction workers etc. in all the new jobs created because the govt isn’t spending as much on defense and can pass the savings onto the citizens through reduced taxes.
One major criticism of the UN I see oft repeated is the “Oil for Food” scandal and how the U.N. is corrupt… and now:
US condoned Iraq oil smuggling
This naturally doesn’t change the fact that its sad that people in the UN made money of out it… but it certainly seems that the grandstanding and Bushite claims of UN corruption seem a bit weaker now. In a way the US was “collaborating”.
darn… screwed up… and posted it here wrongly. So sorry.
As for the OP: Tension and mistrust lead to more weapons sales than wars. Wars sometimes means spending on other stuff like gas and ammo. Rivarly and mistrust means an arms race. So “peace” can be profitable.
I mean both. What if there was no war anywhere in the world for the next 20 years or so. Would the US arms and ammunition industry survive? I cannot seem to accept that the consumption of weapons and ammunition during peacetime is so high as to keep the industry financially buoyant and viable. I mean, there are companies making those cruise missiles or whatever. I have no data but I don’t think they fire so many cruise missiles in the air, only to maintain a state of readiness, that the company that makes them would remain financially sound. Plus there is quite a bit of weaponry and ammunition out there that is not even for sale to anyone else.
Why not? Corruption exists everywhere. Companies have fooled shareholders. Why can’t industry not fool the people of the country? People are gullible and they are willing to fight for whatever reasons. The current Iraq war is a glaring example. The people of America were lied to and fooled into going to war. Why is it not possible that there is a nexus between the decision makers in the government and the bigwigs of the arms industry.
I agree that the desire to fight creates the arms industry, but my point is, once created, it also becomes necessary to fkeep fighting to keep that industry afloat.
It’s not that they are firing tomahawk missiles in the air. OK, let’s think about the Navy. The navy is building new ships, new submarines, new helicopters, new airplanes, every year. How many ships and submarines are sunk every year? How many helicopters and airplanes are shot down every year?
Think about the military as a very large corporation. Corporations invest large amounts of money on new equipment, and very little of that equipment is destroyed in war. Why do corporations buy new trucks, new computers, new buildings, new machinery every year, when they could just keep the equipment they have already?
The vast majority of armaments purchased aren’t things like bullets and missiles. They are things like trucks, tanks, ships, and aircraft. Sure, we could keep using 40 year old airplanes…we are still using B52s for instance. But if you want the fighters using modern technology you have to build new fighters, if you want the latest night-vision goggles you have to buy new night-vision goggles. And a large portion of the military budget isn’t equipment at all, but salaries, housing, medical care, training, chow, uniforms, and transportation for servicepeople.
Now, back to your main point. Of course if all wars stopped forever, people would eventually stop buying military equipment. The pentagon would be converted to an office park, and we’d save a bunch of money. But most of the money we save wouldn’t be because we don’t buy armaments, but because soldiers, sailors and airmen would be employed in the private sector. And if we discovered immortality we wouldn’t have to support all those old people on social security and medicare. We’d save a lot of money there, too. Doctors have a pretty strong financial incentive to keep people old and sick, immortality would cost them a lot. Makes you think, dunnit?
At the very least, the need for technological innovation in armaments will continue. The F/A-37 Talon turned out to be a hoax, but I’ve no doubt plans for realistic gee-whiz planes are on somebody’s drawing board. It’d sure suck to still be tooling around in F-22 Raptors when the new Sino-European Hegemony decides to invade with zero-point hoverblaster platforms in 2045.
There is undeniably a defense industry lobby that is pushing for arms sales. And undoubtedly these lobbyists are not unhappy when a military crisis engourages sales. But every industry has lobbyists; the pharmaceutical industry was helped by AIDS, the nuclear energy industry benefits from high oil prices, the train industry gets a boost every time a plane crashs.
And these lobbyists and industries are in competition for both government money and private customers. So they are all trying to convince people that the crisis they address is the most important issue facing society. Any attempt by one lobby (such as defense industries) to create an artificial need for their product would quickly be balanced by other lobbies doing the same for their products. Ultimately the consumer buys what he thinks he wants the most.
That is what begets the question - So then how do the manufacturers of bombs and missiles manage to make profits?
I do not deny that new equipment is not bought and that the old is not scrapped. But, is the rate of replacement due to obsolesence only, so high as to allow for example, a tank manufacturer to remain profitable. I am talking of annual profit and loss statements for these companies year after year of their existence. In the example of corporations that you talk about, once a factory has been set up, then unless there is an expansion, not as much money is spent on buying new equipment as is spent on maintenance. When corporations expand they buy new equipment. When they run they buy only to replace and the latter is a much lower figure. Similarly, in the case of the military too, unless it is expanding all the time, the need to purchase new arms and ammunition is limited to maintaining the existing inventory which is unlikely to keep the manufacturers in profit.
I do not see the relevance of this statement to what I was asking. I am not asking how the military spends its money. My question is on how would the arms and ammunition manufacturers remain profitable if there was no war. And if they cannot, then it is obvious that they will work towards creating a situation that causes war because it is that environment that serves their purpose of remaining profitable.
It’s already been said: the military has to replace stuff that wears out. My unit is in the process of getting nearly brand new C-130s to replace the old ones. The old ones were not lost in war, but after 42 years they are worn out so they’re being retired. If we could find a better aircraft than the B-52 that wouldn’t break the bank I can assure you that the BUFFs would be replaced in the next ten years rather than sinking money into maintenance on what are essentially obsolete aircraft.
The “war machine” isn’t really rooting for war at all. Peace is much more expensive.
Easy. You, the government let an RFP for X number of missiles of type Y…or, more likely (if we are talking about a new product) you let a contract requesting A, B, C and D features and let companies bid on producing a trial prototype. The winning proposals get funding to produce the prototypes, and they they are evaluated and a winning design is chosen. Then you, the government ask for bids on what it will take to make X amount of these weapons. Me, the contractor, evaluates what it would cost me to make X weapons, calculate in my profit, and then submit to the government. You, the government then look over all the proposals, looking at technical expertise, features, other factor, and they you pick the cheapest 
. THATS how I make a profit though. Standard business 101 for government contracting.
Granted, its really a bit more complicated than this, but essentially the government requests for bids on what they want, and the contractors submit their bids, including their profit…and the government then chooses who they want to make whatever it is they need.
Most companies (like Grumman or LM or Northrop) that manufacture weapons for the government do other things for the government as well. For instance, one of those three companies I mentioned is teaming with my company in the future to provide IT and other support to DOE. In other words they do more than just make weapons. In addition, one large contract (to manufacture a new kind of air plane or tank say) can last for years (remember, they also contract to provide spare parts and technical expertese to USE the things, FIX the things, MAINTAIN the things, etc) can last a company for years…many of them are for multiple billions of dollars over long contract periods. So, you ‘burn’ that money at a specific rate. In other words you don’t need new contracts every year.
-XT
Guess I should say something about the OP while I’m at it. 
What if peace broke out world wide? If there was never again any threat of war? If cats and dogs lived together in bliss? Well, then I suppose the US would become VERY prosperous very quickly as all that money we are spending on a military (most of which, as has been pointed out, go to the PEOPLE in the military, not the weapons) and could spend it on something else. Maybe a bold new space program that would allow us to exploit the solar system resources. Maybe they would cut us all a huge break on taxes ( :dubious: ). Whatever happened though, it would be a tremendous boost to the US to not have to spend so much on a military.
What would the companies that make weapons do? Most of them would simply do something else. In fact, most of them already DO something else, usually related to the government. They would simply shift their business to some other profitable enterprise. Perhaps they would make commercial planes instead of fighters, for instance. Most likely they would simply get contracts with other government agencies (since DoD would be gone I suppose).
What would all those civil servants in DoD do? Who cares! Actually, most would be absorbed into either private business or back into other government agencies. What would all the soldiers, sailors, marines, etc do? They would have to be absorbed into private industry (though my guess is we’d still have a navy reguardless…if nothing else, a Coast Guard) as well.
It would be great if this happened, and I seriously doubt that even the most rabid arms manufacture would have a problem…after all, there would be a LOT more money out there that they could get their hands on potentially. Too bad its a pipe dream that will never happen…least not in our life times.
-XT