The final reason that manufacturing is important is\nthat manufacturing ensures that the U.S. has a strong industrial base to\nsupport its national security objectives. We need to preserve our national\nand homeland security to be able to produce the goods that allow us to defend our\nnational sovereignty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
American manufacturers supply the military and Defense\nDepartment with the essentials needed to defend our country, including tanks,\nfighter jets, submarines, unmanned vehicles (drones) and other high-tech\nequipment. The same advances in technology that consumers take for granted\nsupport the military, particularly soldiers fighting overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the keynote address \u201cLessons for a Rapidly Changing\nWorld\u201d at the CA World conference in 2003, Dr. Henry Kissinger, former U.S.\nSecretary of State, said, \u201cThe question really is whether America can remain a\ngreat power or a dominant power if it becomes primarily a service economy, and\nI doubt that. I think that a country has to have a major industrial base in\norder to play a significant role in the world. And I am concerned from that\npoint of view.\u201d He added, \u201cBut if the outsourcing would continue to a point of stripping the\nU.S. of its industrial base and of the act of getting out its own technology, I\nthink this requires some really careful thought and national policy probably\ncan create incentives to prevent that from happening.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As more and more manufacturing was outsourced\noffshore, the warnings of the dangerous consequences continued. Joe Muckerman, former director of emergency\nplanning and mobilization in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, wrote a\nguest editorial entitled \u201cWithout a Robust Industrial Base DOD Will Lose Future\nWars\u201d in the April 17, 2008 edition of Manufacturing & Technology News<\/em>.\nHe opined:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Joe Stalin said that World War II was not\nwon on the battlefields of Europe but in Detroit. Had Stalin lived until the\nend of the Cold War, he probably would have arrived at a similar conclusion.\nThe U.S. won the Cold War because it maintained technologically superior\nstrategic weapons at a level that deterred the Soviet Union from attacking our\nvital interests. The United States was able to sustain this force for half a\ncentury during which the U.S. economy prospered while that of the USSR\ncollapsed. \u2026 Today the U.S. industrial base is fast becoming global and the\nU.S. economy is in trouble.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In April 2011, the Information Technology &\nInnovation Foundation (ITIF) released the report<\/a>, \u201cThe Case for a\nNational Manufacturing Strategy,\u201d by Stephen Ezell and Robert Atkinson which echoed my strong belief that manufacturing is\ncritical to our national security:<\/p>\n\n\n\n They wrote, \u201cIf we lose our preeminence in\nmanufacturing technology, then we lose our national security. This is because:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The report revealed that the \u201cUnited States has\ndiminishing or no capability in lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery production,\nyttrium barium copper oxide high-temperature superconductors, and photovoltaic\nsolar cell encapsulants, among others. \u2026 Additional examples of\ndefense-critical technologies where domestic sourcing are endangered include\npropellant chemicals, space-qualified electronics, power sources for space and\nmilitary applications (especially batteries and photovoltaics), specialty\nmetals, hard disk drives, and flat panel displays (LCDs).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n