The Economics of Manufacturing Weapons
By Kira Webster
In 2016, it was revealed that the U.S. Air Force has set to work on a new stealth bomber: the B-21 Raider. Its primary feature is to carry thermonuclear weapons, as well as conventional missiles and bombs; however, it is also reported to be used as an interceptor aircraft, intelligence gatherer, and battle manager. Its unit cost is projected to be about $536 million, and the Air Force plans to buy 200 of them. William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel of the USAF, calls it a “huge boon for Northrop Grumman, the plane’s primary contractor.”
He also marks this as another huge blow to U.S. taxpayers. The Pentagon never shies away from spending billions of dollars on nuclear manufacturing, and the B-21 Raider is no exception. Despite how Congress and all of its defense companies will insist that this is the only deterrent to a full-blown nuclear crisis, history has proven that it is not the effective way. It wasn’t so long ago that the U.S. dropped seven million tons of bombs during the Vietnam War, which resulted in countless innocent lives being lost. Astore argues that our wide artillery has only emboldened our government to strike counterproductively, even if it goes against traditional rules in national security. Once our military sees an opportunity, they’ll find a way to use their accessories, no matter how inappropriate it may seem. That’s the reality of developing new weapons: it’s more of an incentive for us than a deterrent to others.
Along with military forces each competing to be the strongest – not just in comparison to other nations, but even with each other (the USAF, the Navy, the Army) – they also make strong cases appealing to Congress about creating more jobs in many representatives’ states. After all, who’s going to turn down a project with high-paying employment opportunities in their districts (especially when arguing for the safety of the American people)? And while more jobs are created with competitive pay (relative to the communities they’re carefully pocketed in), it’s not entirely a win. These new factories are highly automated according the Bureau of Labor, who has recorded that the manufacturing workforce has been running with less than 13 million workers for the past decade. On the other hand, factory output has steadily risen. Taxes are funding machines to build machines.
Any kind of manufacturing has always depended on some sort of public funding within the U.S., but today, roughly 10% of the $2.2 billion in factory output goes into weapons manufacturing sold to the U.S. Department of Defense. That fraction is only expected to go up with Trump, who is highly unlikely to go against pressure from both Congress, the Pentagon, and corporate greed. Back in 1945, after the U.S. went through years of rationing products for WWII, citizens were in need of new everything: cars, appliances, clothes, homes, and furnishings. Factories were converted into civilian production companies and the economy flourished since there were plenty of jobs for everyone, and we had a healthy trade system with the rest of the world. However, after the Korean War, manufacturing companies decided not to convert. They also prophesied that it would be more profitable to continue with business as usual.
In 1992, William Anders, Chairman of General Dynamics, gave a speech here in St. Louis on an October day, and said, “It is not that conversion cannot work, it should not work. Making plowshares is not so easy for a military contractor, and not as profitable as making fewer swords. What contractors should do is lobby for every military dollar that can be squeezed from Congress . . . and from foreign sales. If we can’t invest in good core defense programs with decent returns, rather than add [civilian products] just to look bigger, I believe we should return excess cash to the shareholders.” Trump is more than willing to uphold this philosophy – cutting significantly in domestic spending but adding a 10% increase to military outlays from this first budget proposal.
Although, putting the military first has now become so embedded in our culture that even if Trump cancelled the B-21 Raider, there would be enormous pushback from the public. Furthermore, if recent news is of any indication, Trump wouldn’t even be the one to face it. Conservative media and White House correspondents would simply blame the other party and further the divide between the people while companies like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin count their earnings.
