Countries are rapidly increasing defense spending due to global instability and the US's shifting role. Massive backlogs for US equipment, like a reported 15-year wait for Patriot missiles, are forcing allies to invest in domestic production and R&D for assured supply.

Related Insights

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.

The conflict in Ukraine exposed the vulnerability of expensive, "exquisite" military platforms (like tanks) to inexpensive technologies (like drones). This has shifted defense priorities toward cheap, mass-producible, "attritable" systems. This fundamental change in product and economics creates a massive opportunity for startups to innovate outside the traditional defense prime model.

Politicians predictably declare initiatives for domestic production of critical goods like munitions or rare earths when dependencies are exposed. However, these declarations rarely translate into effective action, suggesting we must learn to manage economic entanglement as a form of mutual deterrence rather than wish it away.

The concept of 'weaponized interdependence,' highlighted by China's use of export controls, is driving Asian nations like Japan, India, and South Korea to implement economic security acts. This shifts investment toward domestic supply chains in critical minerals, semiconductors, and defense, creating state-backed opportunities.

The US defense industry's error was creating a separate, "exquisite" industrial base. The solution is designing weapons that can be built using existing, scalable commercial manufacturing techniques, mirroring the successful approach used during World War II.

With the U.S. stepping back from its traditional leadership role, European countries are creating new, direct alliances to ensure their own security. A notable example is the emerging UK-Scandinavia-Baltic-Poland axis, which signals a fundamental shift in the continent's geopolitical architecture away from a singular reliance on Washington.

Building hardware compliant with US defense standards (NDAA) presents a major cost hurdle. Marine robotics company CSATS notes that switching from a mass-produced Chinese component to a US-made alternative can increase the price by 8x to 15x, a significant economic challenge for re-shoring manufacturing.

The U.S. military's power is no longer backed by a robust domestic industrial base. Decades of offshoring have made it dependent on rivals like China for critical minerals and manufacturing. This means the country can no longer sustain a prolonged conflict, a reality its defense planners ignore.

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.

The US military's 30-year strategy, born from the Gulf War, of relying on small numbers of technologically superior weapons is flawed. The war in Ukraine demonstrates that protracted, industrial-scale conflicts are won by mass and production volume, not just technological sophistication.