The Sausage Factory

Joe Courtney, freshman Democratic representative and all-around good guy, has become a China hawk, ginning up baseless fears of Beijing's submarine fleet and demagogically helping to launch a new, needless arms race. After all, his district contains 6,000 jobs in the nuclear submarine business and the whole Democratic caucus is really, really eager to help him get re-elected. Brad Plumer has the story.

Photo by Flickr user Wandering Thinker used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

On what grounds do you judge those fears to be baseless??

Posted by Mr. Noah | June 21, 2007 4:11 PM

Well, without getting into whether submarine warfare is really one of the major challenges facing America, don't you think it's just a bit of a coincidence that this particular Congressman is the one who's all over the issue? Fears about China in general may not be baseless — I happen to think they are, or at least are close to it, but whatever — but in this guy's position, they're pretty obviously based entirely on the factory in his district. In other words, baseless.

Posted by Cyrus | June 21, 2007 4:32 PM

Kent Brockman: "I've said it before and I'll say it again; democracy just doesn't work."

Building nuclear submarines (and other large warships) is a victimless legislative crime in that we already have a ton of them (~60 to China~8), so incremental construction doesn't really alter the balance of power, their construction isn't high enough ($2.6B for a Virgina class attack sub) to materially impact the budget and they create a lot of jobs.

Posted by Rob | June 21, 2007 4:38 PM

"Well, without getting into whether submarine warfare is really one of the major challenges facing America..."

It's not, because we have the world's most powerful navy, including a large fleet of attack submarines. Good thing too, since we have become sort of used to getting all kinds of stuff sent here on cargo ships.

IMO though, the focus should be on staying on the cutting edge of naval and military tech, having the best submarines, but not necessarily building ludicrous numbers of them. In the event of a major war, it would be quicker to build more of world-beating planes, subs, etc. than to develop world-beating platforms.

One challenge with subs though, versus, say, fighter planes is (if memory serves) companies like Electric Boat wouldn't stay in business if they didn't have a sub to build (and thus we'd lose our sub-building capability), whereas companies like Boeing aren't as dependent on defense contracts.

Posted by Fred | June 21, 2007 4:46 PM

Mr Noah,

Here are some reasons:

China's economy is based on making stuff to sell to us.

All that debt of ours that China holds. If they did want to defeat us for some reason and destroy thier largest market, why bother with a war when they could just bankrupt us?

Posted by Eric | June 21, 2007 4:47 PM

Al Qaeda and the Chinese are the only justifications our $600 billion a year defense pork factory has for existing at all.

Flip a coin, funnel the pork.

Posted by alphie | June 21, 2007 4:48 PM

"Here are some reasons:

China's economy is based on making stuff to sell to us.

All that debt of ours that China holds. If they did want to defeat us for some reason and destroy thier largest market, why bother with a war when they could just bankrupt us?"

Please read "The Rise and Fall of Greap Powers" by Paul Kennedy.

International trade was a relatively higher in pre-WW1 Europe and the UK was almost entirely dependent on Germany for its steel. Yet, war happened despite going against the economic best interest of the nations. The same will happen in China, although it probably won't be a hot war.

Posted by VictorT | June 21, 2007 4:54 PM

Victor,

There is a lot more that is different between China - US and WW I era Germany - UK than the common factor that they trade with us.

Posted by Eric | June 21, 2007 5:40 PM

All that debt of ours that China holds. If they did want to defeat us for some reason and destroy their largest market, why bother with a war when they could just bankrupt us?

Maybe because bankrupting us would bankrupt them too? ;-)

As for Cyrus' point about Courtney's claims about China's navy being baseless just because Courtney has a vested interest in procuring sub building contracts: What? Just because Courtney's solution is self-serving doesn't mean he's wrong about the problem.

Posted by Mr. Noah | June 21, 2007 6:19 PM

Uh that is kind of the point, if bankrupting us kills their economy what does going to war with us do to it?

Posted by Eric | June 21, 2007 6:24 PM

Uh that is kind of the point, if bankrupting us kills their economy what does going to war with us do to it?

If things got serious enough that China was considering war with the U.S., I doubt bankruptcy would be their top concern.

Your original point was that China could use financial threats as an alternative to war. That point was wrong.

Posted by Mr. Noah | June 21, 2007 6:32 PM

The point wasn't wrong at all,

Your arguing in circles. If China is to the point that they are so fed up with us and willing to go to war, damn the consequences to their economy, then they don't need to go to war to accomplish their ends, just bankrupt us, much easier.

Bankrupting us or going to war with us, either way they kill their own economy, given that why take the expensive, diffcult option of a war?

See what I'm getting at?

Posted by Eric | June 21, 2007 7:04 PM

"Bankrupting us or going to war with us, either way they kill their own economy, given that why take the expensive, diffcult option of a war?

See what I'm getting at?"

No. Because if they go the "economy" route to bankrupt us, they bankrupt themselves too and thus are unable to dominate the rest of the world (India, Europe, Russia).

If they go the military route and beat the US, they might bankrupt both, but they place themselves in a military position to impose their will to the rest of the world because of their overwhelming military. That is the main difference.

Posted by VictorT | June 21, 2007 7:09 PM

How is a bankrupt China going to maintain this mythical overwhelming military?

Posted by Eric | June 21, 2007 7:23 PM

Bankrupt isn't the right term. Let's say massive recession for several years, the time it would take for them to reorganize their massive manufacturing sector toward the war effort.

The chinese economy might be dependent on US sales for now, but the infrastructure that is being built and the techonological know-how that is being learned can be adapted quite easily to a different economy.

Posted by VictorT | June 21, 2007 8:02 PM

Good God. The LAST thing American needs is another war. To stire up animosity between the US and China is not only unwise but truly insane. Instead of focusing on "baseless fears," the Senator ought to address important and real issues, such as combating global poverty. The United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025, are a good place to start thinking and acting with a global mindset. It is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the United States’ current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach if we act together as one world.

Posted by Jesssica | June 21, 2007 8:06 PM