Defense contractors are forced to ramp up production but want long-term government guarantees of sales.
Business fears that they may expand production, but there will be no demand in three to five years.
Also, the lack of semiconductors and other problems with logistics have led to the fact that the order is three times longer than before the start of the conflict.
I thought we were told that it was all about protecting democracy and a free world, turns out it’s all about money.
Specifically, they don’t want to spend a bunch of money creating factories if the war ends soon since they wouldn’t make a profit on that. So, either there’s going to be a long war or they’re not interested.
Shit. The people in charge are psychopathic enough to offer exactly that.
But paradoxically the means to ensure a long war don’t exist because a long war hasn’t been assured.
I think the business press breaking with the “slobber zucchini” crowd means institutional support will break before the arms manufacturers get contracts and assurances.
And related to that: these contractors have started to get used to selling weapons that aren’t supposed to be used. Millions/billions pumped into r&d with no end in sight. Selling ammunition is profitable but it comes with raw material problems.
Plus the people involved in making the political decision know that people need to get re-elected. The longer the war, the harder that becomes. Wars like Libya and Iraq are roughly short enough for them (far too long for the victims). Wars like Afghanistan can breed resentment in the supporter base. A war for that long against Russia? Risky. If Russia would go along with it for that long. Maybe this is the break that you describe? Is this already happening, do you think?
