A protracted war between the United States and China would create immense demands for munitions, requiring production to be grown far beyond surge capacity. These demands have led to calls for the United States to mobilize its defense industry and rapidly expand munitions production, with policymakers and commentators hearkening back to the nation’s role as the “Arsenal of Democracy” in World War II. What would industrial mobilization look like in the 21st century, and how can the Department of Defense prepare for expanded production requirements?
In Arsenal of Democracy: Myth or Model?, CSBA Research Fellow Tyler Hacker revisits the interwar period and World War II to identify enduring lessons and cautions for contemporary industrial mobilization planning. To accomplish this, he recounts the history of World War II’s mobilization to separate mythology from fact, follows the evolution of the munitions industrial base since the 1940s, and considers the enduring competitive advantages of the U.S. military and its industrial base.
Hacker finds that planning for industrial mobilization and protracted war remain essential for synchronizing strategic assumptions, preparing the industrial base, and expediting efforts to expand military production. The study explores the vital part that military requirements play in industrial planning, identifies ways to shorten mobilization timelines, and examines the role of force design, allies, and homeland defense in industrial mobilization.
The monograph concludes that U.S. military strategy in great power war must not be reliant on the industrial strengths of decades past. Instead, the United States must consider the role that the nation’s contemporary competitive advantages—the free market system, leadership in commercial and defense technologies, and a global network of allies and partners—play in military-industrial planning and rebuilding the American industrial base.