The romantic notion that the US can rapidly pivot its industrial base for war is a misleading myth. Today's weapons are vastly more complex and reliant on fragile global supply chains for components that are controlled by adversaries, making a WWII-style industrial mobilization impossible without years of preparation.

From China's perspective, producing more than it needs and exporting at cutthroat prices is a strategic tool, not an economic problem. This form of industrial warfare is designed to weaken other nations' manufacturing bases, prioritizing geopolitical goals over profit.

The sectors within the "American Dynamism" thesis—defense, energy, space, manufacturing—are not siloed but form an interdependent system. Strong national security requires a resilient energy grid and space-based communications, which in turn depend on domestic manufacturing and critical minerals. This holistic view is crucial for both investors and policymakers.

The US won World War II largely due to its unparalleled manufacturing capacity. Today, that strategic advantage has been ceded to China. In a potential conflict, the US would face an adversary that mirrors its own historical strength, creating a critical national security vulnerability.

The US faces a stark choice driven by its fiscal reality. It can either reindustrialize around the military-industrial complex, selling weapons to profit from global conflicts, or continue sending aid abroad, accelerating its path to bankruptcy and the collapse of domestic social programs.

Instead of sending aid, the US could profit from global conflicts by becoming the primary manufacturer and seller of weapons. This approach would re-industrialize the nation, create high-paying jobs in the military-industrial complex, and generate revenue without direct military intervention or sending cash abroad.

Simulations of a conflict with China consistently show the US depleting its high-end munitions in about seven days. The industrial base then requires two to three years to replenish these stockpiles, revealing a massive gap between military strategy and production capacity that undermines deterrence.

While the West may lead in AI models, China's key strategic advantage is its ability to 'embody' AI in hardware. Decades of de-industrialization in the U.S. have left a gap, while China's manufacturing dominance allows it to integrate AI into cars, drones, and robots at a scale the West cannot currently match.

Globalism was highly successful, lifting millions from poverty. Its failure wasn't the concept itself, but the lack of strategic boundaries. By allowing critical supply chains (like microchips and steel) to move offshore for cost savings, nations sacrificed sovereignty and created vulnerabilities that are now causing a predictable backlash.