Conversely, entire branches of knowledge can be lost if not enough people are working in the area to maintain a common ground of understanding.
Conversely, entire branches of knowledge can be lost if not enough people are working in the area to maintain a common ground of understanding.
In the US, we keep on manufacturing Abrahams tanks. We're not at war. We have no use for these tanks. So to make things make sense, we give money to some countries with the explicit restriction that they must spend that money on these tanks.
Why do we keep making them? Because you need people who, on day one of war, know how to build that tank. You can't spend months and months getting people up to speed - they need to be ready to go. So, in peacetime, we just have a bunch of people making tanks for "no reason".
It's one of the great reasons to cultivate a collection of close allies who you support: it keeps your production lines warm and your workforce active and developing.
But that industry has been taken over by asia.
There aren't many that haven't been.
Certainly there are many we're currently building and many we will build after that. Biggest in the world kind of stuff.
Gerald R Ford class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arleigh_Burke-class_de...
Didn't you answer your question in the above sentence? They are used to protect US foreign interests by sending them to allies. It's not because people will somehow forget how to make them. It's based off of an assembly line and blueprints. I don't see how this would be forgotten, any more than it would be possible for society to forget how to build a CRT TV just because they are not used anymore.
I'm always impressed that America's moribund manufacturing industry nonetheless makes prodigious amounts of expensive vehicles. It feels like one year I was hearing about the terrible failure that the F-35 was and the next year I looked up and we've got more than a thousand of them - enough to dwarf any other conventional air force.
But in the end the F-35 really does work pretty well by all credible accounts. It could have been a lot worse.
There is also the supply chain to consider. Many of the parts coming from suppliers are custom or on a limited lifecycle so when orders stop the supply chain disintegrates and can't be quickly reconstituted regardless of how much money you spend.
We sold some of them to Australia, and they struggled to get them off of the docks as the trains and bridges couldn't handle the weight.
Unsurprisingly, the military has asked for lighter tanks.
As it is, we do also have lighter military vehicles - basically retrofitted F250/350s with a shitload of steel bolted on. They're great in many instances, but sometimes a tank is just what you want.
But also remember tanks are tanks - they're meant to drive over all kinds of nonsense. It might be something of a technical roadblock if there's an impassable ravine, but there are still many, many instances where they'll be useful.
IMO we'll see them fall out of favor heavily if we start doing more mountainous island warfare.
Edit: I was curious so I looked it up, and there are a number of options:
1. Shore up/reinforce the bridge you want to cross with temporary structures
2. Just fill the damn terrain if it's a narrow ravine
3. Build a quick ferry
4. There are apparently literal armored vehicle-launched bridges (AVLBs)
They do not believe the tanks will be able to get there in time without doing that.
But that only gets you mobility in allied nations willing to spend billions on infrastructure.
Either way, we can always just... scout a route ahead of time which doesn't take us straight to a dead-end. We probably already do this with satellites in a matter of minutes or hours nowadays.
Especially if the work is classified.
The manufacture of FOGBANK, a key material for a thermonuclear weapon's interstage, was lost by 2000 because so few people were involved with its manufacture and the ones who knew retired or moved on. It's thought to be an aerogel-like substance.
5 years and millions in expensive reverse engineering was required to figure it out again.
I'm guessing they documented it this time.
[0] https://www.twz.com/32867/fogbank-is-mysterious-material-use...
Numbers game doesn't work in the idealized way you think it does. if you let too many mediocre or bad people become scientists, some of them engage in fraud or ill- considered modelmaking, which wastes the time of good scientists who are in the place of having to reproduce results that were never going to work.
I feel it is more connected to the culture (for example I would expect to happen more in a hierarchical culture than in an egalitarian culture, or more in a believing culture than in a critical culture).
We worry about "bad science", but I read a physicist that claimed that the theory of relativity was really accepted and used only when the older generation (which were generally reasonable scientists) died and not before, because they just would not wrap their mind around "something that different". Which I don't think is the way "we" perceive scientific progress (a scientist looking at proofs/logic/building on others/impartial/rational/etc.)
let me give you ONE example. Homme Hellinga (tenured professor at Duke) claimed to have designed a triosephosphate isomerase. his grad student Mary Dwyer (science hero) recognized it was an artefact and called him out on it, got railroaded and i think even sued. after the dust settled, hellinga was merely forced to give up his named seat (he kept tenure and was still getting grants). meanwhile my grad student friend burned three years of his life doing a project based on a different hellinga result.
i have many, many more examples (this one is publically known, so its safe to talk about and i personally know someone who lost years to it), some worse, some not as bad.
here's two more publically known incidents just at duke:
there's a nice short story along those lines, by Scott Alexander
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/