No. of Recommendations: 2
This is ultimately a political issue. Whether or not you support government policy to intervene in markets in order to ensure that certain industries are located in the United States is a "should" question, which involves political decisions.Sure I can separate them. I don't accept the premise that the GOP is somehow all about
total anarchy and everybody gets to do whatever they want but if they decide that there is a strategic need for the nation that they're somehow all a bunch of closet liberals. Nation-states must make decisions to survive.
But of the two bases, it was the progressive one that went all in on support, and the conservative one that opposed. Which is part of why this type of stuff doesn't happen in the U.S. enough to ameliorate your concerns - it took a Democratic trifecta to make it happen, because it matches up more with the progressive political philosophy than the conservative one.The "progressive political philosophy" tends to be a) short sighted b) very anti-military c) more in line with the US as a World Citizen (as opposed to a Superpower with certain needs) and d) lacking in understanding that there are Bad Guys out there who, if allowed, would do things that we don't like.
Sure, democrats favor market intervention. They also tend to suck at it - witness Solyndra and the charging stations and High Speed Rail to Nowhere in California or many other bloated projects that cost way more than they should.
Don't get me wrong - I would welcome if more conservatives would decide to support active and muscular governmental intervention in the economy if it is necessary to advance the collective interests of the nation, even if it requires spending a lot more government money. I just don't think there's as many takers on that side of the spectrum as you might think.There are those in the government and particularly the Pentagon that believe that 2027 is the year the balloon goes up. If you know where to look you'll see the feds talking about things that they normally don't say ANYTHING about because they're trying to send the ChiComs the DON'T DO IT message in subtle terms:
https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Ar...as one example, or
https://www.newsweek.com/china-satellite-dogfighti...(The story here is that we know they're doing it and can see it)
or
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/03/secret-space-f...Calling the project a “quasi-operational success,” Kelly Hammett, director of the Space Rapid Capabilities Office (SRCO), said in a briefing with reporters today at the AFA Warfare Symposium that “situational awareness indications and warning payloads” have been “collecting all kinds of very interesting data on the Chinese SOSI [Space Observation Surveillance and Identification System] network” — Beijing’s rough equivalent to Washington’s Space Surveillance Network.
The space-based monitoring technology was launched as payloads aboard Northrop Grumman’s LDPE-3A spacecraft in 2023, Hammett disclosed. The project was the first from the SRCO to enter orbit, and the Space Force said at the time [PDF] that the payloads would provide “enhanced situational awareness.” (Openly discussing payload capabilities; normally they would say nothing).
They NEVER talk about this stuff. Ever.
Then there's B-21 and NGAD
https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsi......and the CCA (Collaborative Combat Aircraft, also colloquially known as the 'Loyal Wingman' program):
https://www.msn.com/en-us/technology/aviation/air-...Speaking of ships, the GOP is all on board with more of them:
https://news.usni.org/2025/04/28/reconciliation-bi...The House and Senate Armed Services Committees want to pour billions into shipbuilding — including $1.8 billion for eight landing ships medium and $4.9 billion for unmanned vessels — as part of the Republican-led reconciliation bill’s $150 billion defense package, released Sunday.
The wide-ranging $33.8 billion shipbuilding portion of the defense measure includes $20.3 billion for 16 battle force ships, namely:
The ships are:
Two Flight III Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers for $5.4 billion.
One Block VI Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine for $4.6 billion.
One San Antonio-class amphibious warship for $2.1 billion.
One America-class big-deck amphib for $3.7 billion.
Three John Lewis-class fleet oilers for $2.73 billion.
Eight Block I Landing Ships Medium for $1.8 billion.BTW, you know what all those ships are for? They represent what an Expeditionary Strike Group looks like. This would basically be a new fleet meant to carry ~2,000 Marines. Extended ops in the Pacific...carrying Marines and F-35s. The
America-class ships are essentially mini aircraft carriers.
The 3 fleet oilers tell you that somebody thinks there's a need to be at sea away from home ports for a while.
The GOP isn't going to hesitate to spend some money...
