Rebuilding America’s Defense
Overlaying Yesteryear’s Blueprint on Today’s Challenges
Last week, we kicked off a June series focused on rebuilding America’s defense industrial base.
Last week’s edition looked at how America had to rebuild the base in the 1930s and 40s, and mobilize it for World War II.
Just as we mobilized in World War II to face down the Axis powers determined to bend the world to their fascist, expansionist worldview, we are now challenged to do the same in the face of an Axis of Autocracy. To be successful in deterring this new Axis—and potentially to defeat them if needed—we must once more mobilize our economy and industrial base.
This week, I want to pull the lessons that we explored last week forward to today and explore how they apply to today.
History Repeats Itself
As I sip my coffee from my School of Advanced Military Studies mug, I’m reminded of reading John Lewis Gaddis’ The Landscape of History, wherein he discussed ‘continuities and contingencies’ in history.
Essentially, history is comprised of mostly continuities and similarities. Every once in a while, there’s a contingency—a key departure from the continuity. I began Building our Defense by exploring some recent contingencies that I believed served as a wake-up call to many of us that the world remains a dangerous place and that we must continue to build for our security, defense, and prosperity.
I believe it’s also worth exploring the continuities. For example, there exist today striking similarities to the 1930s.
Isolationism and Nationalism on the March: The early 20th century was largely defined by a clash of ideologies pitting classical liberal democracies against both communists and fascists. Fascism and Nazism took root in Europe. While the Second World War defeated fascism as an ideology and the Cold War essentially did the same to communism, both have seen a recent surge in popularity.
This week, the far right surged to gain a significant number of seats in the European Parliament. Right wing parties have also taken control of governments in a number of European countries including Hungary, Slovakia, and Italy; it’s increasingly likely that the Dutch far-right will also succeed in building a coalition to rule in Holland.
A comparison of the outgoing parliament and this week’s elections shows a continued shift towards the right In America, an isolationist movement has returned and gained significant momentum. This is perhaps most pronounced in a call for America to abandon support for Ukraine.
Antagonistic Axes: Just as the Tripartite Pact brought Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo together in 1940 to stand opposed to liberal democracies, so too today do we see a growing axis of autocracy opposed to liberalism and seeking to fulfill their expansionist ambitions. Beijing, Pyongyang, and Tehran all provide Moscow with weapons for their assault on Ukraine—trying to prevent Ukraine from further alignment with classical liberal democracies. Further, it’s clear that both Beijing and Moscow seek to expand their physical territory and their global influence. And, they’re willing to do so through the use of force.
Technological Advancement: The 1930s witnessed significant technological innovations, particularly in manufacturing and industrial processes, which were later applied to the war effort. Similarly, we’ve seen an explosion in technologies including digital technologies, artificial intelligence, automation, and more. These are revolutionizing industry and how we work.
Limited Mobilization: Just as the 1920s and 1930s hollowed out the defense industrial base, post Cold War peace dividends, defense industrial consolidation, and asymmetric warfare have left our defense industrial base rusting.
In short, we share many of similar challenges, risks, and opportunities as our forebears did prior to the Second World War.
Key Factors
Last week, I outlined eight key factors that allowed the industrial mobilization necessary for our success in World War II. We’re going to revisit those, updating them for today.
Government-Industry Collaboration: Strong alignment and coordination between the government and private industry will ensure efficient production of war materials. A Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International and Industry Engagement is an important liaison between government and industry. Regular outreach and pulling industry into conversations will be critical to the government’s success. Further, relooking government processes for requirements development and procurement will help better align incentives for industry.
Mass Production Techniques: The adoption and refinement of modern, tech-enabled mass production techniques will allow rapid scaling of output. Digital communications allow us to mass produce in a distributed and federated manner. Computer vision allows automated quality control. Now, for true success here, industry will have to change how they design and build for defense. First principles must include designs for mass production—not for exquisite capabilities. To be sure, there’s still a role to be played by expensive, exquisite capabilities, but for the mass production necessary for the next war, we must design for simplicity, scalability, and modularity.
A simplified example of using computer vision for quality control inspections Investment in Infrastructure: Significant investments are needed in our manufacturing and production capabilities. The government’s role is in unlocking Defense Production Act funds, while our venture capital and private equity investors have an opportunity to invest in novel manufacturing technologies and capabilities.
Skilled Workforce Development: Unfortunately, after years of off-shoring, we have degraded our manufacturing workforce. This will require heavy investment from both the government and industry. Development of no-code/low-code automated manufacturing processes will help alleviate that need to some degree. Perhaps most importantly, we have to find ways to make manufacturing cool again. Increased salaries and wages, better opportunities, and access to technology can all help—as will sending clear messages of the value of manufacturing to our younger generations as they matriculate.
Technological Innovation: Continuous innovation and the rapid development and deployment of new technologies will play a crucial role. We’ve seen such incredible advancements in additive manufacturing, distributed communications, nanomaterials, and other techs that play a role in our production capacity and capability. Quantum computing, advanced materials, and AI will all continue to advance our manufacturing.
Resource Management: Efficient management of resources, including raw materials, energy, and human resources, will ensure that production can meet the high demands of a war effort. Critically, developing domestic and allied sources and refinement centers for rare earth elements and chips will be essential. The CHIPS Act and Defense Production Act (DPA) are both enabling this effort. Using the DPA, the DoD has invested more than $439M into developing domestic supply chains for rare earth elements. It’s a great start.
Defense equipment relies heavily on REEs, most of which come from or are refined in China Supply Chain Coordination: Effective coordination of supply chains is necessary to ensure that materials and components are delivered where and when they are needed. This starts with an understanding of threat capabilities to interrupt our supply chains, the development of regional sustainment agreements, and forward manufacturing capabilities.
Flexibility and Adaptability: In the lead-up to and initial stages of World War II, industries demonstrated remarkable flexibility, quickly converting peacetime manufacturing operations to wartime production. Today, we’re already witnessing this same flexibility and adaptability. The recent surge of spending is evidence that industry is already pivoting towards revamping manufacturing. I believe that America maintains a vibrant industrial base capable of incredible output. We need to find ways of harnessing it for the purpose of national security.
Conclusion
As we face a new era of geopolitical tensions and technological advancements, the lessons from the 1930s and 1940s are more relevant than ever. The parallels between the challenges of that era and those we face today underscore the need for a robust and resilient defense industrial base. By embracing government-industry collaboration, modern mass production techniques, significant infrastructure investments, skilled workforce development, technological innovation, efficient resource management, supply chain coordination, and flexibility and adaptability, we can ensure our national security and economic prosperity.
The resurgence of isolationism, nationalism, and the formation of a modern “Axis of Autocracy” pose significant threats to liberal democracies worldwide. Just as the United States mobilized its industrial might to overcome the Axis powers in World War II, we must now leverage our technological capabilities and innovative spirit to meet these contemporary challenges.
The path forward requires a unified effort from both government and industry. Policymakers must create conducive environments for industrial growth and innovation, while private sector leaders must invest in the technologies and workforce that will drive our defense capabilities. Together, we can build a defense industrial base that not only deters war but also secures our future.
Keep building,
Andrew
Other editions of Building our Defense focused on our Industrial Base:
Until contracts require manufacturers as teaming partners, a disproportionate amount of investment and profit will go to contracting organizations not true industry.