Restructuring the U.S. Defense Industry

TLDR: The post-Cold War defense sector has seen a major change in the U.S. defense sector as mentioned in this paper, and many of these changes do not address the key issues in restructuring the post-cold-war defense sector.

Abstract: The end of the Cold War produced major changes in the U.S. defense sector. More than 2 million defense workers, military personnel, and civil servants have lost their jobs. Thousands of arms have left the industry. More than one hundred military bases have closed, and the production of weapons is down considerably. As signiacant as these changes are, they do not address the key issues in restructuring the post–Cold War defense sector. The Reagan-era defense buildup led contractors to invest in huge production capacity that no longer is needed. This capacity overhang includes too many open factories, each of which produces a “legacy” system that was designed for the Cold War. Many individual defense plants are also too large to produce efaciently at post–Cold War levels of demand. Until this excess capacity is eliminated, the United States will continue to spend too much on defense. The politics of jobs and congressional districts that many analysts thought governed the Cold War have triumphed in its aftermath. Today, years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, not one Cold War weapon platform line has closed in the United States. 1 The same factories still produce the same aircraft, ships, and armored vehicles (or their incremental descendants). During the Cold War, the high level of perceived security threat increased U.S. policymakers’ respect for military advice on weapons procurement and research and development (R&D) decisions. The military services’ expert knowledge checked Congress’s pork barrel instincts, and failed or unneeded weapon systems were often canceled. Today, however, contractors and congres