NationStates Jolt Archive

Or the defense industry or whatever it is that they're calling it. The people who make big and beautiful weapons.

Warning! Devil's Advocate arguement!

Should the arms industry be nationalized? That way, the government could control the production of it's own weaponry, reduce national debt, and prevent weapons being sold to countries they'd rather not have them.

Theoretically the arms trade makes war less likely, as it's generally not worth going to war with a country whose weaponry is roughly equal in strength to your own.

Theoretically the arms trade makes war less likely, as it's generally not worth going to war with a country whose weaponry is roughly equal in strength to your own.

Yes. I am familiar with MAD. That's why I'm not advocating the abolishment of the arms industry, only the nationalization.

VERY bad idea, all western nations use quite a lot of military kit that comes from their allies, nationalising it only means that there would be large setbacks as everone needed to make their own versions of said gear rather than continuing to manufacture the current ones under license.

Yes. I am familiar with MAD. That's why I'm not advocating the abolishment of the arms industry, only the nationalization.
If it was nationalised then governments would only trade weapons with friendly governments. The most advanced country would have its power multiplied through its allies - the complete opposite of MAD. Of course in reality regulation of the arms industry is doing exactly this.

$2 billion for a B-2, approx. $8 billion to rebuild the major transportation infrastructure of a major american city.
$1 million for a Tomahawk cruise missile. enough to fund some major medical laboratories, and untold numbers of other scientists.

nationalise the arms industry, but preferably get rid of it. the current wars prove that no matter how much money you pump into defence, you are going to incur massive debt anyways.

Nope, if they nationalize theyre weaponry, selling it to terrorists and third-world nations would look bad in PR.

If it was nationalised then governments would only trade weapons with friendly governments. The most advanced country would have its power multiplied through its allies - the complete opposite of MAD. Of course in reality regulation of the arms industry is doing exactly this.
So America gave the SU nukes? :p

$2 billion for a B-2, approx. $8 billion to rebuild the major transportation infrastructure of a major american city.
$1 million for a Tomahawk cruise missile. enough to fund some major medical laboratories, and untold numbers of other scientists.

nationalise the arms industry, but preferably get rid of it. the current wars prove that no matter how much money you pump into defence, you are going to incur massive debt anyways.
Time for an appropriate quote:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
[...]
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

-- Dwight Eisenhower, 1953

It would never get the needed investment as a nationalised industry. Governments would use the fact that it's easy to slash money from R&D budgets when you need to cut costs, and before you know it the world has moved on and you're obsolete.

So America gave the SU nukes? :p
You're livin' in the past, man! Seriously, I was talking about the current world situation.

You're livin' in the past, man! Seriously, I was talking about the current world situation.
I know, I meant to say that the enemy will design similar weapons etc.

No. Those arm industries tend to build a lot of other things, such as satellites, commercial airplanes, etc. The better thing to do is subsidize them so as to maintain your own weapons production in your own country while letting those companies compete against one another concerning civilian goods.

Nationalizing ANY industry = Communism.
Communism = Evil
Therfore, Nationalizing any inndustry = evil.
And that includes the arms industry.

Nationalisation would make the problem far worse, simply because there would be no competition. Even within a no-bid system, there is still competition because the companies selected tend to be the best in their industry.

Furthermore, government would not have the impetus to implement productivity upgrades and would not be able to get the technological advancement that private industry can supply; in addition, the wastefulness of government would ensure that there would be more cost, lower quality, and less efficency within the arms industry than currently exists.

The best example of a nationalized arms industry is the USSR, and the way their equipment functioned in the field and the overall quality of many of its products (not to mention its size and cost) show the problem with nationalization.

From a security perspective it would be equally as ; the terrible security at many government research facilities and the overall weakness of our security infrastructure following 9/11 clearly show the incapability of government to adequately secure their institutions. The government can develop excellent security laws, but is terrible at enforcing them.

Lastly, from an economic perspective there would be no benefit. The US government is one of the largest outsourcers in the world.