- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
Defense contractors are forced to ramp up production but want long-term government guarantees of sales.
Business fears that they may expand production, but there will be no demand in three to five years.
Also, the lack of semiconductors and other problems with logistics have led to the fact that the order is three times longer than before the start of the conflict.
I thought we were told that it was all about protecting democracy and a free world, turns out it’s all about money.
So, aggression (USA doesn’t defend) contractors want more war?
Specifically, they don’t want to spend a bunch of money creating factories if the war ends soon since they wouldn’t make a profit on that. So, either there’s going to be a long war or they’re not interested.
Shit. The people in charge are psychopathic enough to offer exactly that.
But paradoxically the means to ensure a long war don’t exist because a long war hasn’t been assured.
I think the business press breaking with the “slobber zucchini” crowd means institutional support will break before the arms manufacturers get contracts and assurances.
I think another aspect is that they don’t want to have an actual all out war because that wouldn’t serve the interests of oligarchs either. This is why NATO membership is being dangled in front of Ukraine like a carrot. They know perfectly well that if Ukraine was actually accepted into NATO then it would mean real war with Russia. What they want instead is a proxy war where weapons industry makes money while Russians and Ukrainians do the dying.
And related to that: these contractors have started to get used to selling weapons that aren’t supposed to be used. Millions/billions pumped into r&d with no end in sight. Selling ammunition is profitable but it comes with raw material problems.
Plus the people involved in making the political decision know that people need to get re-elected. The longer the war, the harder that becomes. Wars like Libya and Iraq are roughly short enough for them (far too long for the victims). Wars like Afghanistan can breed resentment in the supporter base. A war for that long against Russia? Risky. If Russia would go along with it for that long. Maybe this is the break that you describe? Is this already happening, do you think?
This is kinda funny actually because it mirrors the parasitic working of finance capitalism in the purely industrial one.
In what way?
Financial capital prevailed over industrial because of their high profit margins and the fluidity of their capital. Industrial can’t do that because naturally production require huge investment, time required and logistical effort. All the things in Capital (1st and 3rd volume iirc)
But they still try, as the Redtea mentioned, that’s why in USA for the colossal amount of money spent you get insufferably bloated research projects like the Zumwalt or F35 that often also end in failure, and comparably to expectations and general bugdet, not much actual production of mundane things like munitions.
In a way, US MIC is operating like in the old mercenary philosophy “God, give us 100 years of war but no battles”
Ah, I see. Misunderstood you originally. Thanks!
So are they basically threatening them with peace? By saying if they don’t have a long war they won’t produce enough weapons to continue said war they want, thus ensuring the war ends?
I absolutely love how western media is at the level of rhetoric where peaceful end of the war as now portrayed as the worst possible thing that can happen.