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.

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.

In defense technology, smaller is often better. The ideal platform is the most compact one that can still perform its intended mission. This approach provides significant advantages in stealth, manufacturing cost, logistical footprint, and speed of proliferation.

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The belief that China's manufacturing advantage is cheap labor is dangerously outdated. Its true dominance lies in a 20-year head start on manufacturing autonomy, with production for complex products like the PlayStation 5 being 90% automated. The US outsourced innovation instead of automating domestically.

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.

To rebuild its industrial base at speed, the US government must abandon its typical strategy of funding many small players. Instead, it should identify and place huge bets on a handful of trusted, patriotic entrepreneurs, giving them the scale, offtake agreements, and backing necessary to compete globally.

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.