
The US is running out of bombs – and it may soon struggle to make more - jonbaer
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/05/22/the-us-is-running-out-of-bombs-and-it-may-soon-struggle-to-make-more/
======
rwallace
Setting aside the geopolitics and looking purely at the economics, there are
several mentions in the article of the sole supplier of some vitally important
widget or chemical announcing that it will be exiting the business.

WTF? That makes no sense whatsoever! A company should only exit a business if
it is unprofitable. Profit is price minus cost. The cost of just continuing to
produce something you are already producing should be small. The price a
monopoly supplier can charge the richest and least price sensitive customer in
the world for something supposedly vital should be huge. These should be among
the most lucrative businesses ever invented.

So what's going on?

~~~
EliRivers
I've seen companies cancel profitable lines because they can better use the
resources involved on other, more profitable lines. Big profits over small
profits.

~~~
rwallace
But generally speaking, you could do better still by continuing with _both_
product lines - that's pretty much what 'profitable' means. Situations I know
of where this is not the case:

1\. The product line is not actually profitable, the measurement was wrong,
and the CEO isn't comfortable with nitpicky details so prefers to ignore the
measurement than fix it.

2\. Interest rates are very high, so the working capital for the more
profitable product is better obtained by cannibalizing the less profitable
product than by borrowing. Or put another way, interest rates are so high that
the bank will give you a better return than a profitable product will.

3\. The profitability of the product is so marginal that the management time
spent thinking about it is worth more than the pennies of profit.

4\. The two product lines require diametrically opposed corporate cultures.
(But then you should sell off the other product rather than scrapping it.)

I don't think any of those apply here. What am I missing?

~~~
Steel_Phoenix
Part of the reason countries just keep making weapons beyond what they need is
in order to maintain their manufacturing base. It takes a lot of special
tooling, materials, and training to make a particular weapon. If you let it
lapse, getting it started back up might be less worth it than just designing a
new one. Just adding an additional product when it looks to be more profitable
might mean having to buy more land, building a new building, starting with all
new workers, etc. Unless the previous product is really profitable and stable,
it's likely they'll just retool and retrain for the new product.

------
alex4096
Fantastic news- hopefully some day public opinion will limit bomb production,
till then, long may the raw material shortages continue.

~~~
tomcam
Awesome! Say, what happens if your family gets blown up by Russian missiles
while they’re vacationing in Ukraine? Would a strong reprimand be your
preferred answer?

~~~
thiagocsf
What happens if your family gets blown up by American missiles while
vacationing in X? Would a strong reprimand be your preferred answer?

~~~
candiodari
Can we please shortcut this discussion ? Yes, if EVERY state, including
Russia, China, Japan, France, UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea ... verifiably
killed it's nuke program, then we can talk. Until then:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium)

If you don't participate in the Nash equilibrium, ie. you get out, the results
are not pretty. If the US stops making bombs, the result is that it has to
give in to any demand by any party with a credible nuclear threat, and so will
European countries under the "US umbrella".

We know for Russia what those demands will be, because they've made that very
clear. Full and total political control of all of Europe. The entire European
population living under oppression, paying unreasonable taxes to Moscow. Or
war, of course, with Nuclear bombs falling on European capitals.

We know what China's demands will be, because again they've made that
perfectly clear. No more Korea, no more Taiwan, and brutal oppression to make
that a reality. Same with half of South Asia, and Australia.

And just in case you're pulling the "We are in America and not responsible"
line, remember that this will of course cause an end to the post-WWII
environment. No more non-American cars. No more iPads or iPhones.

That's what your "oh let's just not build missiles" does.

You might as well object that the fact that nature's demand that we eat food
is immoral (I would even say that it is) and stop eating. The only result of
that protest will be your death.

------
behm
History reminder:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap)

~~~
masteryupa__
Wouldn't you say there is a literal material difference between a politically
motivated rhetorical position and the real lack of resources and expertise
that this article points to? Seems like that wiki article describes something
of an accounting trick if anything although I'm happy to be proven wrong :)

------
vat
GOOD

~~~
King-Aaron
Certainly from a utopian/socially progressive standpoint, it would appear
good. From a geopolitical standpoint with the current aggressive politics from
China and Russia... I'm not sure it's so good.

~~~
himom
Only in the minds of children. Utopias never work because corruption, greed
and ignorance bring tyranny, fear and misery.

Progress is also a populist myth to wish away human nature, and the forces of
nature, like some flu that will subside. Technology, communication and
economics can make it seem plausible by increasing accountability when people
maybe watching, however technological, technique and social “progress” are
destroyed often, not just the Dark Ages: pyramid building, Antikythera device,
Nepenthe, Silphium (extinct). Also, sometimes people forget about how good
were features of something which came before but are now missing because the
“new is supposed to always progres over the old,” even when it doesn’t.
Finally, socialization and education cannot miracle away the possibility of
one human murdering another for no discernible reason. People are mostly
irrational, unpredictable animals still stuck in antropocentric delusions of
superiority.

 _If you want peace, prepare for war._ is explainable because life is about
gaining, controlling and defending the most resources for the least risk. If
one could invade a pacifist country containing a quadrillion dollars of value,
every country would. Actually, almost all humans on planet would gladly
rationalize or cognitively dissonance away committing every conceivable “evil”
in order to secure enormous wealth and power for themselves and their future
genetic dynasty.

~~~
mark_edward
Sorry what am I supposed to be afraid of taking all our shit? Canada? China?
ISIS? Not exactly scared...

It's not exactly utopian to think a large part of US military expenditure and
military activity currently performed is a complete waste, especially if the
concern is defending the Homeland (from what, car bombers? It's questionable
if foreign adventurism helps or hurts, and most of that is domestic anyways.
Or maybe Canada will invade).

Thanks to the geographical position and size of the US, there really isn't any
threat like that that couldn't be seen from years to decades ahead, unless the
Russians have a secret and gigantic Navy we don't know about. We purposefully
barely even had a military for much of our history compared to many other
world powers and it didn't matter because they were _over there_ and we are
big enough and wealthy enough to ramp up when they do.

------
gaius
It is 10x as bad in the UK since the beancounting buffoons at the MoD made BAe
their sole supplier

~~~
codefined
Jane's Research implies that we're actually getting really good value for
money from BAE. That and the fact that the UK has far less custom armaments
implies that they could swap with far more ease than the US.

------
himom
Eagle-Picher of Joplin, MO is the primary DoD supplier of thermal batteries,
comprising 80% of the market, as mentioned. ATB and ASB also make them, but
not necessarily in the US.

------
__m
Congratulations

------
keith_analog
Great news!

