[Dave]

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/0 ... etals.html

The health and well being of the U.S. specialty metals industry is not important to the Department of Defense, according to DOD’s Strategic Materials Protection Board. Specialty metals are no different to DOD than materials such as plastic, rubber and glass, says the board in a report that is raising the ire of U.S. specialty metals industries. If the U.S. industry is not competitive, then there are plenty of reliable producers in Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Mexico, Brazil and Canada that can supply the U.S. military with most everything it needs, according to the Strategic Materials Protection Board.

The specialty metals industry has falsely made the claim that it is critical to national security, says the DOD board. “Reliable access does not always necessitate a domestic source,” says the Materials Board in the second sentence of its assessment of DOD’s relationship with the industry. “In fact, the Department wants to take full advantage of the competitive benefits offered by access to the best global suppliers; and to promote consistency and fairness in dealing with its allies, all the while assuring that an adequate industrial base is maintained to support defense needs.” As a result, DOD “sometimes may be dependent on reliable non-U.S. suppliers,” which is just as good as being dependent on reliable U.S. suppliers.

The Strategic Materials Board sounds like it holds great disdain for the U.S. steel and specialty metals industries. It says in its report from the meeting it held on December 12, 2008, that its “key finding” is that specialty metals “are not ‘materials critical to national security’ for which only a U.S. source should be used; and there is no national security reason for the Department to take action to ensure a long-term domestic supply of these specialty metals.”

In a January 2007 report prepared by the American Iron and Steel Institute, the Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA), the Steel Manufacturers Association and the United Steelworkers union, the groups argued that the United States government has long recognized the importance of a strong metals industry to America’s national security. The U.S. industry is responsible for supplying high-tech metals and alloys used in nuclear submarines, Patriot and Stinger missiles, aircraft carriers, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and virtually every military aircraft in production. “If we continue to lose our manufacturing base due to market-distorting foreign competition or U.S. economic policies that are hostile to domestic investment and U.S.-based manufacturing, it could become impossible to produce here; the U.S. military would lose its principal source of strategic metals; and we as a nation would become dangerously dependent upon unreliable foreign sources of supply,” said the study.

DOD doesn’t buy it. In an assessment of that report, the Strategic Materials Board said that while many U.S. military platforms use these metals “incorporation into a DOD system does not, by itself, make a material ‘critical to national security.’ If incorporation alone was sufficient, every type of material from plastic to rubber and glass would be a critical material. More discriminating criteria are needed to distinguish critical materials from the larger set of strategic materials.”

Specialty metals might be “strategic” and “may” require monitoring, but they do not require “a domestic source restriction,” says the DOD Materials Protection Board. If there are problems of supply during a “projected conflict, other risk mitigation options, like stockpiling, could represent an effective alternative” to assuring supply.

The specialty steel industry should stop claiming that its products are “critical” to national security, says the DOD board. The only way they could be considered “critical” is if the military was the primary market for their products, which it is not, and if there were problems associated with the security of supply, be they domestic or international.

“The Department of Defense does not dominate the market for specialty metals,” it points out. “Its active and full involvement and support is not necessary to sustain and shape the strategic direction of the market; and the risk of supply disruption is not significant. According to the SSINA, ‘defense applications account for less than 10 percent of revenues in specialty metals companies.’ Recent Defense Contract Management Agency analysis of certain metals found that DOD consumes less than 1 percent of total U.S. steel production; about 6 percent of U.S. aluminium production and between 8 and 19 percent of domestic titanium production….The health of the domestic specialty metals industry is, and will continue to be, determined by its ability to sell core commercial products to commercial customers.”

DOD seems to have forgotten who pays its bills. It says that there are plenty of reliable foreign suppliers of specialty metals and metal alloys, listing Japan, South Korea, Germany, India, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Australia and the UK as places where there are reliable suppliers. It says there are plenty of reliable suppliers of titanium alloys in Japan, Italy and Germany. Few of these companies pay taxes to the federal government.

“We are in strong opposition to the findings of the report,” says Laurence Lasoff, an attorney with Kelley Drye, which is in charge of the Washington legal and lobbying activities of SSINA and a number of other metals trade associations. “We believe there is no legal basis for the conclusion that strategic materials are not critical because DOD is not the pre-eminent customer. There is no legal basis whatsoever for a definition of ‘critical’ based upon the fact that DOD has to be the principal customer.”

The Strategic Materials Board’s conclusions have those who were responsible for creating the board scratching their heads. Jeff Green, former staff director of the House Armed Services Committee who crafted the legislation that created the board with recently retired Committee Chairman Rep. Duncan Hunter, says that its conclusions represent a “fundamental failure to comply with congressional intent.” Green, now in charge of the J.A. Green & Co. consulting firm in Washington, D.C., notes that the board did not consider the importance of a variety of materials, such as rare earth magnets, and was misleading about the global supply of titanium. The only viable supplier of titanium outside the United States is the Russian firm VSMPO, a company that has been associated with Russian arms suppliers that have been sanctioned by the Department of State for supplying military equipment to the Iranians. “For not even examining the VSMPO titanium issue is appalling,” says Green. “Not identifying the issue of rare earths in high performance magnets [coming from China] totally misses the mark. The technical inaccuracies in the report are astounding.”

Lasoff says the real intent of the report is to provide DOD with the rationale for eliminating the Specialty Metals law requiring it to buy from U.S. producers. “It means U.S. defense dollars will be used to support the expansion of the specialty metals industry in Russia and China at the expense of U.S. producers,” says Lasoff. “This is not about ‘Buy American.’ This is about our national security.” The Defense Production Act requires U.S. companies to switch commercial production to military applications if the need arises. Foreign suppliers are under no such obligation to do so.

The industry is also upset by DOD’s use of market data derived from only one year, 2007, the best year in the industry’s history. A lot has changed in a very short amount of time. “You have an analysis of a single year upon which to determine to what degree these companies are dependent on DOD work,” says Lasoff, “And then you have it leading to a conclusion that they don’t need domestic preferences, completely ignoring the cyclicality of the industry and the critical nature” of DOD demand during economic contractions.

The “Report of the Meeting of the Department of Defense Strategic Materials Protection Board Held on December 12, 2008” is located at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ip/docs/report_from_2nd_ mtg_of_smpb_12-2008.pdf.

For a copy of 2007 SSINA report titled “Steel and the National Defense,” go to http://www.ssina.com/news/releases/pdf_ ... l_defense_ 0107.pdf.

A study done for the DOD by the Institute for Defense Analysis, which bolsters the ideological case against the Specialty Metals requirement, (entitled “Assessment of Industry Investment in U.S. Domestic Production of Strategic Materials”) is located at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ip/docs/ida_paper_p-4377.pdf.

Do these clowns not realize that national defense is not possible without a domestic industrial base, and that an overseas supply source is inherently insecure no matter how loyal the ally in question?

The DoD's argument that it is not the primary customer is completely irrelevant. Alfred Thayer Mahan noted that a strong naval building sector served as the apex of a vigorous commercial shipbuilding pyramid. The same is true with all defense industries, and without a strong underlying civilian-industrial base the military-industrial base does not have the economies of scale or market pressures to manufacture efficiently.

[War Angel]

Do these clowns not realize that national defense is not possible without a domestic industrial base, and that an overseas supply source is inherently insecure no matter how loyal the ally in question?

True, and also, the shit you make for yourself is better than the shit other people make for themselves and then sell to you.

Self-reliance is a virtue that has to be kept. In my small country, it's more important but also much harder to maintain, and I think a large, powerful country like the USA can be even more self-reliant.

I think that even if manufacturing doesn't take place in the homeland (for various reasons, mostly that it's cheaper to produce things elsewhere), the development must always take place within.

However, I can't help but think, in this age of globalisation, isn't this isolation a bit.. off? Who cares where the weapons come from, as long as they're good for their intended cause?

Another concern is strengthening the country's economy - whether by buying cheap from other countries, or producing it yourself and enriching your own economy using your own funds ('from one pocket to another'). This is perhaps the most important concern, for most countries and in most projects.

[Potemkin]

America is fucking doomed. Enjoy your hegemony while it lasts, assholes.

[Huntster]

Do these clowns not realize that national defense is not possible without a domestic industrial base, and that an overseas supply source is inherently insecure no matter how loyal the ally in question?

They've known it for years, but are constitutionally subservient to the treasonous civil leadership that destroyed our most basic manufacturing bases years ago (steel manufacture, timber, mining, etc) and who are currently hell-bent to destroy our vehicle manufacturing capabilities.

[Dave]

Self-reliance is a virtue that has to be kept. In my small country, it's more important but also much harder to maintain, and I think a large, powerful country like the USA can be even more self-reliant.

Note that some of the alternate suppliers are fully industrialized nations with smaller populations than us, making our inability to maintain the specialty metals industry pathetic. We should be the best at most forms of industrial production, yet we're slipping into second-rate status.

However, I can't help but think, in this age of globalisation, isn't this isolation a bit.. off? Who cares where the weapons come from, as long as they're good for their intended cause?

Globalization ends pretty quickly when you're at war with a major power. 1914 was an age of globalization. Suddenly, Germany found that it would be out of raw materials for explosives due to being cut off for world trade, and only a herculean effort by Frtiz Haber and Carl Bosch saved Germany (Haber-Bosch Process). Britain and France found that they didn't have the industrial base needed to manufacture high explosives, and had to depend on imports from the United States which were targeted by German u-boats. The last thing you want is to be dependent on maritime trade (sea lines of communication, or SLOC, in pentagon lingo) for your national security if it can be avoided.

The United States is truly a blessed land in that all of the natural resources needed for an advanced industrial economy are located right here in North America or can be produced synthetically. We also have a large, intelligent population capable of advanced technical tasks if trained properly, geography very suitable to heavy industry (the Great Lakes region is easily the best place in the world to ship bulk commodities and is ringed by coal, iron ore, potash, timber, and industrial cities), and the largest continuous zone of arable land in the world with the world's best soil to boot.

The deindustrialization of our nation thus constitutes criminally incompetent political leadership bordering on treason.

Another concern is strengthening the country's economy - whether by buying cheap from other countries, or producing it yourself and enriching your own economy using your own funds ('from one pocket to another'). This is perhaps the most important concern, for most countries and in most projects.

Indeed, and happily a great way to strengthen your economy is by being a industrial giant. It's how we got so rich in the first place.

They've known it for years, but are constitutionally subservient to the treasonous civil leadership that destroyed our most basic manufacturing bases years ago (steel manufacture, timber, mining, etc) and who are currently hell-bent to destroy our vehicle manufacturing capabilities.

Amen brother. Our industrial production in most basic industries actually peaked in the 1970s.

[War Angel]

Whenever possible, rely upon yourself. When you cannot, trust old friends.

I agree, Dave. The USA seems to be able to produce most things itself (I did not fully read the article, apologies), and it would seem daft, at least to me, to weaken this ability in favour of even major, but short-term cheap offers from over seas... if such offers even exist.

I think that while improving your own industrial infrastructure may prove difficult and expensive, it will repay itself in the future, especially in a case of major war, as you've described.

And if all else fails, invade Canada!

[Dave]

Whenever possible, rely upon yourself. When you cannot, trust old friends.

I agree, Dave. The USA seems to be able to produce most things itself (I did not fully read the article, apologies), and it would seem daft, at least to me, to weaken this ability in favour of even major, but short-term cheap offers from over seas... is such offers even exist.

I think that while improving your own industrial infrastructure may prove difficult and expensive, it will repay itself in the future, especially in a case of major war, as you've described.

And if all else fails, invade Canada!

Reindustrialization will prove difficult and expensive, but as you alluded to it will pay off in spades by making us far wealthier, more equal (industrial jobs pay much higher wages than service sector jobs), more technologically advanced (most innovation and productivity growth comes from manufacturing), and more secure (not being dependent on nefarious foreigners for vital industrial products or defense needs, less vulnerable SLOC).

One little known fact is that marginal returns do not always diminish, but can increase with scale. Thus for a very large nation like the United States it can even be to our benefit to be protectionist (I'm not necessarily arguing for protection, mind you) as we distort the terms of trade to our advantage and cause returns and skills to increase at a greater rate than in the rest of the world.

I strongly support the annexation of Canada.

[Potemkin]

I strongly support the annexation of Canada.

Do it, and face the wrath of Captain Britain!

[War Angel]

Another important point that is often ignored is national pride. Most people are happy and proud to buy something produced in their own country, especially if that product is of better or at least comparable quality. This is important for both regular citizens and soldiers.

[Cartertonian]

I strongly support the annexation of Canada.

I strongly support the reclamation of all the former colonies of the British Empire...

...watch out, Dave. You'll be first against the wall when our counter-revolution comes.

[Dr House]

One little known fact is that marginal returns do not always diminish, but can increase with scale. Thus for a very large nation like the United States it can even be to our benefit to be protectionist (I'm not necessarily arguing for protection, mind you) as we distort the terms of trade to our advantage and cause returns and skills to increase at a greater rate than in the rest of the world.

This is true, but given the massive scale of industrial conglomerates it would diminish innovation and reduce exchange efficiency within the economy even in an economy as large as the US. The American auto industry, for example, did not technologically advance at all roughly from the end of the war till the mid-70s. Changes to American cars were purely cosmetic.

[Dave]

Another important point that is often ignored is national pride. Most people are happy and proud to buy something produced in their own country, especially if that product is of better or at least comparable quality. This is important for both regular citizens and soldiers.

American manufacturing workers have a slogan that reflects this, War Angel. "Buy American, be American."

I strongly support the reclamation of all the former colonies of the British Empire...

...watch out, Dave. You'll be first against the wall when our counter-revolution comes.

I would be receptive to this under the following conditions:
[1]The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is replaced with the House of Stuart
[2]We retain domestic autonomy
[3]No fucking stamp acts or other intolerable acts
[4]We retain our flag, weights & measures, national songs, and other distinctive components of Americana

Ah fuck it, how about we just annex you?

This is true, but given the massive scale of industrial conglomerates it would diminish innovation and reduce exchange efficiency within the economy even in an economy as large as the US. The American auto industry, for example, did not technologically advance at all roughly from the end of the war till the mid-70s. Changes to American cars were purely cosmetic.

That's not really accurate at all. Power per cubic inch doubled during that period, after all. The problems you cite I would largely blame on unions during that period, who were hostile to the introduction of new managerial techniques or new production methods that would require retraining.

[War Angel]

The American auto industry, for example, did not technologically advance at all roughly from the end of the war till the mid-70s. Changes to American cars were purely cosmetic.

American cars were\are mostly shit, and now-a-days, they just look like Japanese clones.

[Dave]

American cars were\are mostly shit, and now-a-days, they just look like Japanese clones.

But they used to be the best in the world.

Like just about everything else we made.

[Dr House]

But they used to be the best in the world.

When and by what measure(s)? I would prefer to drive any iteration of the Porsche 911 over any American musclecar, personally (though I realize as a gearhead I'm not representative of the general population ).

[Dave]

When and by what measure(s)? I would prefer to drive any iteration of the Porsche 911 over any American musclecar, personally (though I realize as a gearhead I'm not representative of the general population ).

Prewar, by measures of technological advancement, performance, and cost. Postwar I would also much prefer the average American car (e.g. Chevy Impala) over the average European car due to their much larger size, far greater power, and great styling. This is not to say that postwar American cars weren't without problems (subpar handling and brakes), but as daily drivers they were much more satisfying and practical than typical foreign cars which were smaller, less powerful, and couldn't take as much punishment. At the top-end European cars definitely exceeded American cars during the postwar period, although there were some truly great Cadillacs and Lincolns.

Since the 1970s though American cars have basically been junk, although things have improved lately (though not enough).

[War Angel]

But they used to be the best in the world.

German cars were always better. But, yes, the American cars had a golden age... but then, large, noisy, heavy cars which drink fuel like a Russian drinks vodka on New Year's Eve became less of a wanted commodity. And big engines don't make a car great - if Audi can make a 1.8 liter engine deliver well over 200HP (and I'm not even talking supercars), why are the American cars struggling with engines exceeding 3 liters and often a whole lot more?

These days, people want a car that isn't too big, just big enough, fuel-efficient and comfortable. American cars deliver this (presumably), but no better than the Japanese (or Koreans, for that matter). And in terms of luxury and performance, Deutschland remains the top dog.

Oh well, you can always make fun of the French.

You can cough at a Renault the wrong way, and it will break. My dad's old Subaru ran for nearly 30 years (a cheap-ass car, really the bare minimum), until he sold it - and it still goes, as far as I know. German cars go on forever, too.

Gotta give it to the Germans - whatever they do, they do it well. Cars, weapons, tools, genocide... trust the Germans to deliver.

[Dave]

German cars were always better.

No German car was comparable to mass-market prewar American cars like the Model A, and no German car was comparable to the best prewar American luxury cars like the Duesenberg J-Series or the Cadillac V-16.

But, yes, the American cars had a golden age... but then, large, noisy, heavy cars which drink fuel like a Russian drinks vodka on New Year's Eve became less of a wanted commodity. And big engines don't make a car great - if Audi can make a 1.8 liter engine deliver well over 200HP (and I'm not even talking supercars), why are the American cars struggling with engines exceeding 3 liters and often a whole lot more?

It is an error to focus on power per unit of displacement, the more relevant metric is power per unit of weight. American manufacturers often use pushrod overhead valve engines rather than overhead cam engines. These engines make less power per unit of displacement, but a little known fact is that they are significantly more compact and weigh less. Thus, the 6 liter V-8 in the Corvette takes up less space than the 4 liter V-8 in a BMW M3, weighs less, is more powerful, and has much more usable power and torque at low RPMs. The advantage of an OHC engine is that it can intake much more air, very valuable for a race car, but in passenger cars long and narrow intakes are used to restrict noise and higher revs are typically not needed, thus OHV has some advantages. However OHC is smoother and more refined, which is also valuable in a passenger car. So as you can see the situation is not so simple.

But really the way forward isn't to copy foreigners. We need to lead. We need to develop the next generation of automobile technologies that blow nefarious foreigners out of the waters. Things like composite monocoque bodies, homogeneous charge compression ignition six stroke engines, hydrolastic axles, etc.

These days, people want a car that isn't too big, just big enough, fuel-efficient and comfortable. American cars deliver this (presumably), but no better than the Japanese (or Koreans, for that matter). And in terms of luxury and performance, Deutschland remains the top dog.

Oh well, you can always make fun of the French.

You can cough at a Renault the wrong way, and it will break. My dad's old Subaru ran for nearly 30 years (a cheap-ass car, really the bare minimum), until he sold it - and it still goes, as far as I know. German cars go on forever, too.

Gotta give it to the Germans - whatever they do, they do it well. Cars, weapons, tools, genocide... trust the Germans to deliver.

All true.

[Dr House]

All true.

Except for the apparent implied connection that Subarus are German. Subarus are Japanese.

[War Angel]

No German car was comparable to mass-market prewar American cars like the Model A, and no German car was comparable to the best prewar American luxury cars like the Duesenberg J-Series or the Cadillac V-16.

I was talking post-war. Dunno 'bout those cars.

It is an error to focus on power per unit of displacement, the more relevant metric is power per unit of weight.

True, and I also mentioned how heavy American cars tend to be. There's a limit, too - you can place a 700HP engine on a 3 ton car, and it still won't behave like a 1-ton car with a 250HP engine, you know? A big, heavy car is still exactly that. American cars remind me more of boats, really.

But really the way forward isn't to copy foreigners. We need to lead.

That will take more than just money... you need to go to your roots, to be a pioneering nation.

Except for the apparent implied connection that Subarus are German. Subarus are Japanese.

LoL, I know that d00d. Notice the 'too' at the end of that sentence. Meaning, Japanese cars are survivors, and so are German cars.