Putting the Economy on a War Footing

American  Thinker 

On December 10, I attended the U.S. Naval Institute’s Defense Forum 2025 in Washington, D.C. Its topic was “Accelerating U.S. Shipbuilding to Pace the Threat.” The threat is the Chinese navy which now outnumbers the U.S. Navy in number of ships, though not (yet) in total capabilities. The USN is weighted towards larger ships with more firepower and more advanced technology. We still have 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, with three more under construction compared to China’s three smaller conventional carriers with one more under construction which may be nuclear. But China’s smaller surface warships bristle with anti-ship missiles that put our carriers at risk. And they are building warships faster than we can.

Beijing outnumbers us 66-53 in attack submarines, but ours are all nuclear powered whereas China has a mix of nuclear and diesel-powered subs. However, in the shallow waters of the First Island Chain the diesel subs are not to be dismissed. They are quiet and well-armed and do not need the range of American subs that operate globally. Indeed, because Beijing’s aggressive aims are nearby, their fleet is concentrated and has air and missile support from bases along its coast.

The contest for control of the Western Pacific and the security of the U.S.-led alliance system (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, and Australia) is an arms race. As William Toti, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of War, told the Defense Forum, “The mantra at the Pentagon every day is ‘War Footing.’” It is 1938 again, proclaimed Toti, referencing when America launched its massive shipbuilding and rearmament program in the years leading up to World War II. The United States did not wait to mobilize until after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Due to the years it takes to build major warships, this was a buildup just in time to fight the war, but not soon enough to deter it. These warships surged into action in 1943, just in time to replace the USN’s heavy losses in the first year of the war. Without them, had the isolationists who dominated public opinion (but fortunately not national leadership) prevailed instead, WW II would have been lost.

Eighty-five years ago, the industrial strength of the United States was unmatched. Launching out of the Great Depression, the Arsenal of Democracy fielded the best-equipped military the world had ever seen on a global scale while still making significant contributions to the armament of our allies. And this effort was made without impoverishing the home front. There were, of course, shortages as factories shifted from cars and appliances to tanks and warplanes, but there was also a feeling of purpose and unity that empowered the Greatest Generation. Compare that to the hollow “lost generations” of today.

As historian Harry Veide has shown in Betting Against America: The Axis Powers Views of the United States, Japan and Germany were both aware of America’s economic superiority but still chose war because they did not believe soft, decadent Americans could muster the effort to generate real strength. While progressives and isolationists in the U.S. were attacking the “merchants of death” in the defense industry, citizens in Japan were voluntarily donating money beyond what they owed in taxes directly to purchase weapons. Hitler believed only the Jews in America were anti-Nazi, not that it mattered since a “mixed race” people could never unite to win a modern war. Hitler foolishly declared war only four days after Pearl Harbor because he had no respect for the American character.

Today, there is again the image of a deeply divided America. Not just bitter partisan politics where party is so often placed above country. Foreign adversaries can recruit not only protesters but also terrorists to cripple U.S. security policies. Yet, Americans have rallied to great causes in the past, often overnight when pushed. The new problem is that decades of neglect have weakened our ability to respond by deindustrializing the economy and gutting the infrastructure and supply-chains of strategic sectors.

Ideas have consequences. The post-Cold War malaise did not just see the 600-ship fleet built by President Ronald Reagan decline to 284 warships today, but the loss of generations of shipyard workers, the contraction in production capacity and the stagnation of technology. The popular notions of “globalization” and “the end to history” meaning the end to Great Power competition and war swept away all concerns in economic policy about how strategic assets -- from factories to research labs to critical minerals and energy sources -- are distributed between nations. For three decades the West (but not its enemies) were crippled by a liberal ideology prevalent across the spectrum. The small wars on the periphery did not call forth rearmament. It was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that reintroduced the world to major warfare for major stakes.

President Trump’s demand in his first term that NATO members commit 2% of GDP to defense has been raised to 5% in his second term, a goal even we are struggling to meet due to the bloated spending and debt run up in corrupt “peacetime” budgets. Last week NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte made a speech warning that “conflict is at our door” and that “we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz compared Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategy in Ukraine to Hitler’s assault on Czechoslovakia in 1938. NATO economies have a 10-1 edge over Russia, enhanced with more advanced technology. They just need the time (and will) to convert that advantage into military strength to put Russia in its place.

The U.S. has a natural interest in European security, but its primary focus is China, whose threat is aimed directly at America. Fortunately, there is a bipartisan consensus that the threat must be met. This was evident in the nearly identical calls for action at the Defense Forum from Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), both of whom sponsor legislation to further expand shipbuilding. (There were grimaces from the audience after Kelly declared that “partisanship harms national security” given his dangerous stunt of pure partisanship in calling on the military to disobey “illegal” orders from President Donald Trump, meaning any order liberals do not like. It is a shame to see a man with such a splendid career as a Navy pilot and astronaut degenerate into a political hack.)

President Xi Jinping has told his generals and admirals to be ready for war by 2027. It is doubtful he will attack Taiwan while a strong president who has shown a willingness to use force is in the White House. But in 2029 there will be a new, untried president. His willingness to act could be doubted, especially if the balance of military power has appeared to shift against the U.S.-led Asian alliance. It is far better to deter wars than fight them, but deterrence rests on the enemy’s belief that we can and will fight. Making it clear that we are on a “war footing” is essential to maintaining peace through strength.

It will not be easy or pretty. The message from the Defense Forum is that we will need help from our allies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s suggestion that her country could respond militarily if China attacked Taiwan was welcomed as its small but powerful fleet of advanced warships would be crucial in a fight. South Korea, which can build warships in half the time of U.S. shipyards, is providing capital, technology, and training to Americans to boost our productivity. And Toti told the Defense Forum the idea of building U.S. Navy ships in Korean shipyards “was not off the table.” With a time horizon closer than the end of this decade, every option, every bit of energy, must be focused on getting the job done.