- JP, 125m, 10m GT, ~0.08m GT/m (kind of in decline)
- SKR, 51m, 18m GT, ~0.35m GT/m (increasing in value)
- PRC, 1400m, 33 GT, ~0.02m GT/m (increasing++ in GT and value)
If modern US was serious as efficient as JP or SKR, it can do 30-120m GT per year. Meanwhile PRC casually building about entire 6 year US WW2 ship building program per year (2024 puts it close to 37m GT). But it's not out of question for US to be competitive in a few generations. But also kind of lulz that SKR peacetime ship building is like 7x more efficient than US during WW2.
chii · 1h ago
> But it's not out of question for US to be competitive in a few generations.
i think it is - as in, if the need ever arises in a war, the loss would be far sooner than the time required for "competitiveness".
That is, of course, this new war is going to play out the same as the last one. But as with all history, it only rhymes.
maxglute · 1h ago
Yes, IMO why DoD wanks about replicator and drone hellscape, when PRC doing the same thing. Everyone is trying to sink each others entire surface fleet... but those with industrial base (even if degraded) can reconstitute faster, i.e. PRC navy is "only" 3m GTs... about 1 month of current production, 2 months for all of USN @4.5m GT (yes 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month), but just to give scale of how "small" modern navies, including USN, are relative to modern shipbuilding.
I also doubt US built ships will ever be globally commercially competitive vs east asian builders (or whoever comes next), but the point is modern ship building has gotten efficient, and it's feasible for US to reshore enough ship building for domestic needs. I think for American's sake, it's illustrative to stop nostalgical pine for US WW2 ship building prowess, because it's really meagre compared to modern ship building scale.
Also be aware that if US WW2 shipping buildig dial was set to 10, PRC set the dial to not just 11, but 50. The consolation is it's very feasible for US to move dial from current 2 back to 10, perhaps even 20. And for US strategic interests (and ego) that's probably enough.
trhway · 1h ago
>But also kind of lulz that SKR peacetime ship building is like 7x more efficient than US during WW2.
there is huge difference between building 1 x 500k GT container ship and 50 ships x 10k GT
About future sea based fighting - Ukrainian sea drones armed with Sidewinders have already shot down Russian helicopters and one Su-30 fighter (may be even 2).
A small sea battle between such a drone and a manned Russian fast light seacraft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djKIu4gC_sQ The drone lost this time, yet one can clearly see potential if the drone were also armed with a small anti-ship missile or just a radar guided machine gun (or they may be organized in a pack where each drone carries one type of weaponry while still staying small and agile). The poor Russian Marines had really hard time and that against just one remotely controlled drone - when the drones become fully autonomous with more suitable weaponry, and attacking as a pack instead of alone, humans wouldn't stand a chance.
I’m ruminating about making some very cheap and simple anti drone systems - the idea is how to respond if say in a small regional theater an adversary launches a million of drones. Don’t see many working in that direction while it should be a large market soon.
treebeard901 · 59m ago
The U.S. seems to think it can out manufacture a country like China, or another peer competitor, during a potential war. This does not seem to be the case anymore... That level of American wartime manufacturing just is not possible anymore.
Maybe robotics and AI can be combined to close the gap... Its just that all competitors will be able to do that too.
Then consider that much of the U.S. aligned shipbuilding happens in places like South Korea. There is no guarantee the U.S. will be able to purchase ships from South Korea during a war in Asia.
Then again, surface ships are quickly becoming obsolete with drones and hypersonic missiles.
If the U.S. wants to get ahead, they need to build submarine drone carriers as quickly as possible.
Alex_001 · 12m ago
Kinda agree with what you said. With the efficiency of china and the people working like soldiers, they can easily build an army of weapon in no time. But still in hope that we see less war in future.
Charles Paxton's Crystal Palace from the 1851 Great Exhibition belongs on the list too. Designed in 1 month, opened less than 10 months later, including a redesign to accommodate some trees instead of cutting them down. 3 times the size of St Paul's cathedral. Taken down and reassembled into a different building after the fair. Using entirely new technology including modular prefab cast-iron-and-glass-pane construction, interchangeable fasteners, and flush toilets.
jamestimmins · 2h ago
If you're interested in the US war build up in general, Freedom's Forge is an excellent read.
hyruo · 2h ago
Radical goals, obedient workers, a peaceful environment on the continental, and the necessary industrialization capabilities all worked together to make this seemingly great thing happen.
jonstewart · 2h ago
High unemployment going into it, too.
markus_zhang · 2h ago
Back then the US was the No. manufacturimg power, probably equals Britain and Germany combined and more.
jonstewart · 2h ago
When I first read, years ago, about how many aircraft carriers the US Navy had during WW2, I was gobsmacked. But then I read how most of them were escort carriers, slow converted merchant ships with just a few planes. The US military currently has a lot of exquisite platforms; what it [mostly] lacks today is mass from cheaper systems.
It’d be good if we built more submarines, faster…
vmh1928 · 2h ago
We are dependent on a relatively small number of complex weapons systems. In a high intensity conflict with a peer like China, say, we could expect to loose a significant number of our big ticket items within a few days. It's a big mistake that we don't have a swarm of cheap systems mentality but I suppose that doesn't benefit the MIC so it's a no go. We'll pay for it some day.
architango · 1h ago
This is the problem that the Pentagon’s Replicator Initiative is trying to solve.[1] However, the initiative (while well funded) only began less than two years ago. As MacArthur once said, every failure in war comes down to two words: “Too late.” We shall see.
A friend and I were at the WW2 museum in New Orleans a couple years ago and he said something that really stuck with me. Amazed at an exhibit on wartime manufacturing, he turned to me and said, "This is so unbelievable to me. To think what we accomplished when everyone in the country was pulling in the same direction. There's no way that could happen anymore." I hardly want to glorify warfare, but he has a point. As a young person in our chaotic and ambiguous present day looking back into the haze of the past, there really is something incredibly romantic about the era of war mobilization. Ordinary people had a purpose simply assigned to them, and if nothing else I think it's still the case that people in all eras crave purpose.
roenxi · 2h ago
The attitude is a dangerously rose-tinted view of war, the US was operating internment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent you know. In a war, dissent is quashed. That doesn't mean that it isn't there, just that there is a high tolerance for sub-optimal decisions because there isn't time to ruminate.
The US isn't getting poor outcomes from their manufacturing sector because people are divided, but because the US has policies tending towards deindustrialisation and there is a broad political consensus to keep them. Ban the smokestacks, ban the smokestack economy and enjoy the clean air.
rayiner · 2h ago
> the US was operating internment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent you know
That is non-responsive to the point raised by OP. That had little effect on Americans unless they were the small minority of Japanese. The point OP raised is much more salient. If we end up in another World War, what lessons do you want to have from the past? “Don’t put racial minorities in internment camps” is well and good, but it won’t help you build a giant navy and win a war.
I learned con law from a social studies PhD who had little interest in the constitution, and focused the entire class on this or that minoritized or oppressed group. It’s a terrible way to learn constitutional law—or anything else—because you over-focus on the 20% of the story while missing the big picture about how the country was actually designed to work.
bcrosby95 · 1h ago
I think you missed their point. Everyone was pulling in the same direction because not doing so could land you in prison. During a war (a real declared one) you have little to no right to free speech. More than one person was jailed due to dissent.
wat10000 · 1h ago
Not putting thousands workers into camps for no good reason will help you build a giant navy and win a war. It’s small compared to the whole country but it does help.
But the main lesson I'd want to take is to shut down strong aggressors early, then you don’t need to run a massive war production program in the first place.
Judging by Ukraine, we seem to have learned this lesson but not very well.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF · 2h ago
Could you be a dear and take my spot in the camps this time?
rayiner · 2h ago
Invitations to personalize big-picture issues is an invitation to irrationality. I blame Rawls.
GuardianCaveman · 1h ago
You don't think people with victory gardens, and buying warbonds, scraping together spare silk and aluminum and other metals to donate to the war effort, manufacturing of vehicles and other factories converted to output munitions and tanks and other materials is impressive?
You can be amazed at the output and the point of the article without turning this into yet another guilt post about how bad America is. What we did was wrong. But also, we stopped the nazis and the japanese and the italians. the war in the pacific killed 15-20 million chinese civilians, and I won't even go into the other theaters or the war crimes of the japanese or the axis powers (nothing to do with the internment). But maybe whatever the opposite of rose tinted glasses is the way you're viewing the wars.
And no, no amount of good by US forces justifies or absolves us of the sin of the japanese internment but maybe some credit is due at least.
divbzero · 2h ago
I only learned recently that several Japanese Americans were killed in those camps.
The us is getting great manufacturing results - but because of automation only a few people labor and so it is invisible
brandonmenc · 1h ago
We can't build ships.
bluGill · 1h ago
We could but divison of labor is a good thing in general.
khuey · 1h ago
I don't know how young you are but I was around the last time the American society nearly universally agreed on what direction to pull and it led to invading two countries (one on a notorious lie), around 60,000 casualties and god only knows how many civilian casualties, and five trillion dollars spent. Be careful what you wish for.
cadamsdotcom · 3h ago
Yep, purpose.
Societies today have immense latent potential. So many people are doing bullshit jobs that tick things over, sitting there wishing to be put to use for some intrinsically motivating purpose. An existential threat - war - is a well known way to bring that out. But war is too destructive for modern tastes.
We've seen developing countries get great results by government directing private industry in stronger ways than we're used to in the West. For example China's regularly published national development priorities for the next 5 years. If you hew to these you'll be helped in various ways. Singapore's and South Korea's rises to global powers were helped along by government getting everyone to row in the same direction - among other things, I'm greatly simplifying. But to focus on this one idea, I hope you can agree that providing purpose through top-down leadership is a great way to harness societies' latent potential and mobilize in a given direction..
Rudderless, laissez-faire governance got the US a surprisingly long way. But we are seeing the resultant directionlessness leave leaders unable to agree on whether to tear up what's been built, leave it in place, or go some completely random direction.
It's not the ships that were built, it's what they represented. That was what got them built.
southernplaces7 · 3h ago
The latent authoritarianism in in opinions like yours makes it easier to understand why authoritarians keep rising to the top of different societies, so they can destroy lives, squander wealth and crush individual peoples' own perfectly productive capacities for finding their own cooperative purposes in life.
vkou · 2h ago
Pretty sure the current crop of politicians that are destroying lives, squandering wealth, and crushing individual people are doing it as banner-bearers, not of any kind of Eastern collectivism, but of the uniquely American brand of 'fuck you, fuck everyone, fuck any responsibilities I may have, don't tread on me, I've got mine'.
refulgentis · 2h ago
In their personal lives. When they have to deign to consider the impact of decisions on other people.
In their professional lives, they are Patriots Advancing American Independence.
The unquestioned Purpose is what enables the lack of care for others (that blossom in oh-so-many dangerous ways)
refulgentis · 2h ago
> So many people are doing bullshit jobs that tick things over, sitting there wishing to be put to use for some intrinsically motivating purpose
We're a generation of men raised by Fight Club—I'm wondering if a self-induced mass-culling event is really the answer we need.
southernplaces7 · 3h ago
I don't see anything romantic about this. The mass mobilization of a society so well over 400,000 members of its youngest and brightest can die grotesquely overseas while industry, society and culture are forcefully synchronized to a single government issued purpose is not usually something to desire.
I do understand the needs of that particular war, The Nazis and Imperial Japan were truly invasive evils, big and globally dangerous enough to be worth fighting, even if it meant mass mobilization, but generally, there's no nostalgic beauty to such vast butchery, destruction and creation for the sake of destruction. I prefer finding my own purpose in life, and knowing that my children won't be ripped apart by artillery in some blood-soaked field of mud due to government decree.
stevenwoo · 3h ago
Studs Terkel's collection of interviews with various populations of the USA in The Good War is a good antidote to overromanticization of World War 2 conditions.
southernplaces7 · 3h ago
Very much agreed, as are many other narratives, from both soldiers and civilians about the more cynical aspects and hardships of that purpose filled time. The people childishly downvoting my comment expressing a desire to not be forced into a vast government project of destruction and death would do well to read such texts.
mitthrowaway2 · 2h ago
Your comment is being downvoted not because they disagree with the noble opinion you express, but because you were misreading the comment you replied to, making yours a beautifully-written non-sequitur in context.
zelphirkalt · 3h ago
I think what the GP is relating to is that we could achieve so so sooo much more, if we didn't have all the opportunistic selfish people in our midst, who will go against any worthy goal, if it means they can enrich themselves. It is about the distribution of resources to reach goals. It would be quite easy for example to ensure, that every school meets some standards, enabling children to learn well. But there are always some lobbyists lobbying against it, and some politicians working against it, because there is no short term gain to be had for their business or for themselves. Also an educated population is maybe not what every politician wants in the first place, even though we all know, that raising the general education level would be beneficial in the long run.
Or what we could achieve in terms of renewable energy, if we all were behind the goal. There are many examples that benefit society, but anti-social forces and influences are everywhere, delaying, stopping, and sabotaging our future.
0xDEAFBEAD · 1h ago
You're strawmanning.
>It is about the distribution of resources to reach goals. It would be quite easy for example to ensure, that every school meets some standards, enabling children to learn well.
In the US, educational spending went up massively without much improvement in outcomes:
Small-government types like me aren't against good things. We just believe that it takes much more than simply throwing resources at a problem to solve it.
In my view, the "you're just against good things" finger-pointing merely gets in the way of a constructive discussion regarding what actually works.
Based on what I've read about WW2, the US was able to rapidly mobilize because it had great leadership at the time. We're not able to mobilize in the same way nowadays because our government leadership sucks. The civic culture is weaker (in part due to political polarization, and also demoralization due to our failures in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). There's lots of anti-Americanism in America nowadays. Even the right has become anti-American. (Arguably, that's a good thing if it gets us in fewer wars!) And politicians seem to care more about signalling to their constituents that "something is being done" rather than actually succeeding at the thing.
Salaries are higher and projects are more exciting in the private sector. US multinationals are growing fast, and starving the US government of the brilliant, hardworking individuals that would be needed for the government to do awesome stuff. The government turns those people off due to red tape, lower salaries, and a generally bad working environment. I graduated from one of the top universities in the US, and I don't remember talking to any student who even considered working for the government.
FpUser · 1h ago
>"there really is something incredibly romantic about the era of war mobilization. Ordinary people had a purpose simply assigned to them, and if nothing else I think it's still the case that people in all eras crave purpose."
Sure. Food rationing, mass poverty, inability to do anything but prescribed work, mass hysteria. All things to look forward to.
GuardianCaveman · 1h ago
Yeah next time we can just sit it out and let the enemy bayonet babies and slaughter 20 million Chinese people. Ever read rape of nanking?
jonstewart · 2h ago
There was a fair bit of this after 9/11–and much of the military/intelligence apparatus expanded and figured out how to disrupt terrorist organizations—but it was shortlived as the Iraq War was divisive (and rightfully so).
0xDEAFBEAD · 1h ago
Same for very early on in COVID
Spooky23 · 1h ago
Honestly, I felt the same way during the pandemic. People moved mountains to help each other and everyone in different ways.
Of course, the poison of social media took care of that in short order. FDR cracked down hard on misuse of the airwaves and the extremists for a reason.
39-45:
- US, pop 130m, 40m Gross Tons. ~0.05m GT/m
2023:
- JP, 125m, 10m GT, ~0.08m GT/m (kind of in decline)
- SKR, 51m, 18m GT, ~0.35m GT/m (increasing in value)
- PRC, 1400m, 33 GT, ~0.02m GT/m (increasing++ in GT and value)
If modern US was serious as efficient as JP or SKR, it can do 30-120m GT per year. Meanwhile PRC casually building about entire 6 year US WW2 ship building program per year (2024 puts it close to 37m GT). But it's not out of question for US to be competitive in a few generations. But also kind of lulz that SKR peacetime ship building is like 7x more efficient than US during WW2.
i think it is - as in, if the need ever arises in a war, the loss would be far sooner than the time required for "competitiveness".
That is, of course, this new war is going to play out the same as the last one. But as with all history, it only rhymes.
I also doubt US built ships will ever be globally commercially competitive vs east asian builders (or whoever comes next), but the point is modern ship building has gotten efficient, and it's feasible for US to reshore enough ship building for domestic needs. I think for American's sake, it's illustrative to stop nostalgical pine for US WW2 ship building prowess, because it's really meagre compared to modern ship building scale.
Also be aware that if US WW2 shipping buildig dial was set to 10, PRC set the dial to not just 11, but 50. The consolation is it's very feasible for US to move dial from current 2 back to 10, perhaps even 20. And for US strategic interests (and ego) that's probably enough.
there is huge difference between building 1 x 500k GT container ship and 50 ships x 10k GT
About future sea based fighting - Ukrainian sea drones armed with Sidewinders have already shot down Russian helicopters and one Su-30 fighter (may be even 2).
https://www.twz.com/sea/aim-9-sidewinder-armed-ukrainian-dro...
A small sea battle between such a drone and a manned Russian fast light seacraft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djKIu4gC_sQ The drone lost this time, yet one can clearly see potential if the drone were also armed with a small anti-ship missile or just a radar guided machine gun (or they may be organized in a pack where each drone carries one type of weaponry while still staying small and agile). The poor Russian Marines had really hard time and that against just one remotely controlled drone - when the drones become fully autonomous with more suitable weaponry, and attacking as a pack instead of alone, humans wouldn't stand a chance.
I’m ruminating about making some very cheap and simple anti drone systems - the idea is how to respond if say in a small regional theater an adversary launches a million of drones. Don’t see many working in that direction while it should be a large market soon.
Maybe robotics and AI can be combined to close the gap... Its just that all competitors will be able to do that too.
Then consider that much of the U.S. aligned shipbuilding happens in places like South Korea. There is no guarantee the U.S. will be able to purchase ships from South Korea during a war in Asia.
Then again, surface ships are quickly becoming obsolete with drones and hypersonic missiles.
If the U.S. wants to get ahead, they need to build submarine drone carriers as quickly as possible.
I'm surprised this isn't on the list.
It’d be good if we built more submarines, faster…
[1] https://www.diu.mil/replicator
The US isn't getting poor outcomes from their manufacturing sector because people are divided, but because the US has policies tending towards deindustrialisation and there is a broad political consensus to keep them. Ban the smokestacks, ban the smokestack economy and enjoy the clean air.
That is non-responsive to the point raised by OP. That had little effect on Americans unless they were the small minority of Japanese. The point OP raised is much more salient. If we end up in another World War, what lessons do you want to have from the past? “Don’t put racial minorities in internment camps” is well and good, but it won’t help you build a giant navy and win a war.
I learned con law from a social studies PhD who had little interest in the constitution, and focused the entire class on this or that minoritized or oppressed group. It’s a terrible way to learn constitutional law—or anything else—because you over-focus on the 20% of the story while missing the big picture about how the country was actually designed to work.
But the main lesson I'd want to take is to shut down strong aggressors early, then you don’t need to run a massive war production program in the first place.
Judging by Ukraine, we seem to have learned this lesson but not very well.
You can be amazed at the output and the point of the article without turning this into yet another guilt post about how bad America is. What we did was wrong. But also, we stopped the nazis and the japanese and the italians. the war in the pacific killed 15-20 million chinese civilians, and I won't even go into the other theaters or the war crimes of the japanese or the axis powers (nothing to do with the internment). But maybe whatever the opposite of rose tinted glasses is the way you're viewing the wars.
And no, no amount of good by US forces justifies or absolves us of the sin of the japanese internment but maybe some credit is due at least.
[1]: https://www.history.com/articles/japanese-american-relocatio...
[2]: https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Homicide_in_camp/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident
Societies today have immense latent potential. So many people are doing bullshit jobs that tick things over, sitting there wishing to be put to use for some intrinsically motivating purpose. An existential threat - war - is a well known way to bring that out. But war is too destructive for modern tastes.
We've seen developing countries get great results by government directing private industry in stronger ways than we're used to in the West. For example China's regularly published national development priorities for the next 5 years. If you hew to these you'll be helped in various ways. Singapore's and South Korea's rises to global powers were helped along by government getting everyone to row in the same direction - among other things, I'm greatly simplifying. But to focus on this one idea, I hope you can agree that providing purpose through top-down leadership is a great way to harness societies' latent potential and mobilize in a given direction..
Rudderless, laissez-faire governance got the US a surprisingly long way. But we are seeing the resultant directionlessness leave leaders unable to agree on whether to tear up what's been built, leave it in place, or go some completely random direction.
It's not the ships that were built, it's what they represented. That was what got them built.
In their professional lives, they are Patriots Advancing American Independence.
The unquestioned Purpose is what enables the lack of care for others (that blossom in oh-so-many dangerous ways)
We're a generation of men raised by Fight Club—I'm wondering if a self-induced mass-culling event is really the answer we need.
I do understand the needs of that particular war, The Nazis and Imperial Japan were truly invasive evils, big and globally dangerous enough to be worth fighting, even if it meant mass mobilization, but generally, there's no nostalgic beauty to such vast butchery, destruction and creation for the sake of destruction. I prefer finding my own purpose in life, and knowing that my children won't be ripped apart by artillery in some blood-soaked field of mud due to government decree.
Or what we could achieve in terms of renewable energy, if we all were behind the goal. There are many examples that benefit society, but anti-social forces and influences are everywhere, delaying, stopping, and sabotaging our future.
>It is about the distribution of resources to reach goals. It would be quite easy for example to ensure, that every school meets some standards, enabling children to learn well.
In the US, educational spending went up massively without much improvement in outcomes:
https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/primary_scost.gif
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/...
Small-government types like me aren't against good things. We just believe that it takes much more than simply throwing resources at a problem to solve it.
In my view, the "you're just against good things" finger-pointing merely gets in the way of a constructive discussion regarding what actually works.
Based on what I've read about WW2, the US was able to rapidly mobilize because it had great leadership at the time. We're not able to mobilize in the same way nowadays because our government leadership sucks. The civic culture is weaker (in part due to political polarization, and also demoralization due to our failures in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). There's lots of anti-Americanism in America nowadays. Even the right has become anti-American. (Arguably, that's a good thing if it gets us in fewer wars!) And politicians seem to care more about signalling to their constituents that "something is being done" rather than actually succeeding at the thing.
Salaries are higher and projects are more exciting in the private sector. US multinationals are growing fast, and starving the US government of the brilliant, hardworking individuals that would be needed for the government to do awesome stuff. The government turns those people off due to red tape, lower salaries, and a generally bad working environment. I graduated from one of the top universities in the US, and I don't remember talking to any student who even considered working for the government.
Sure. Food rationing, mass poverty, inability to do anything but prescribed work, mass hysteria. All things to look forward to.
Of course, the poison of social media took care of that in short order. FDR cracked down hard on misuse of the airwaves and the extremists for a reason.