Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
by John Neff on Dec 12th 2008 at 3:00PM 
DETROIT AND OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE
In all this debate about whether we should provide the Big Three with a bridge loan, not enough attention has been devoted to their impact on our national defense. I'd hate to see this country ever get involved in a total global war again, but I especially shudder to think it might happen without the manufacturing capability that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler provide to the United States.
Some people say the Detroit 3 no longer play much of a role in making armaments for the American military. And that's true. But then again, except in time of war, they never have.
Prior to World War I, American automakers were way more interested in making cars for a booming market than they were in diverting resources to military matters. But after the United States entered the war they became intricately involved in the effort.
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.
The U.S. Army relied heavily on tens of thousands of Ford trucks for troop movement and logistics. The Ford Rouge plant built anti-submarine chasers, called E.-boats, a decade before it ever built its first Model-A. The Packard Motor Company of Detroit designed and built the famous Liberty engine, which was used in planes, ships, and tanks.
Shortly after Pearl Harbor, Detroit began its amazingly quick conversion to wartime production. Not only did it produce jeeps and trucks, it went on to make tanks, planes, missiles, machine guns and all different kinds of ammunition. Late in the war it even reverse engineered a captured German V-1 rocket, including the ram-jet engine, and began running them down the assembly lines. Detroit's manufacturing geniuses taught the military establishment how to modify all these armaments to make them in high volume production.
After the war, they abruptly converted their plants back to civilian production. And while they dabbled some in military procurement, it was always a minor sideline to their main automotive business.
Those who say we don't need a domestic auto industry for national defense don't seem to realize we need this just-in-case kind of capability.
And it goes deeper than that. The United States needs a strong manufacturing base at all times. We need to have a market that supports the purchase and use of all different kinds of manufacturing equipment, including CNC machines, stamping presses, laser welders, molding machines, and robots.
We need to use enough of this kind of equipment so that companies stock and sell it here at all times. We need to buy and use enough of it so that we pay competitive market prices.
The foreign-owned transplants have factories here, but virtually all of the manufacturing engineering that went into designing these facilities was not done in this country. In many cases it is still foreign nationals that are heavily involved in running these plants. And while we should always welcome them into the American economy, could this country really count on them in case of all-out global war?
And so, while I fully understand why many people are opposed to extending a bridge loan to the Big Three on purely ideological grounds, is it worth risking the national defense of this country just to claim you're ideologically pure?
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Now follow Autoline on Twitter for ongoing updates every day!
Autoline Daily
In all this debate about whether we should provide the Big Three with a bridge loan, not enough attention has been devoted to their impact on our national defense. I'd hate to see this country ever get involved in a total global war again, but I especially shudder to think it might happen without the manufacturing capability that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler provide to the United States.Some people say the Detroit 3 no longer play much of a role in making armaments for the American military. And that's true. But then again, except in time of war, they never have.
Prior to World War I, American automakers were way more interested in making cars for a booming market than they were in diverting resources to military matters. But after the United States entered the war they became intricately involved in the effort.
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.
The U.S. Army relied heavily on tens of thousands of Ford trucks for troop movement and logistics. The Ford Rouge plant built anti-submarine chasers, called E.-boats, a decade before it ever built its first Model-A. The Packard Motor Company of Detroit designed and built the famous Liberty engine, which was used in planes, ships, and tanks.
"[Detroit] even reverse engineered a captured German V-1 rocket"
After the war was over, Detroit pretty much stopped making military armaments and returned to civilian production. And it had no interest in pursuing this line of business until World War II broke out.Shortly after Pearl Harbor, Detroit began its amazingly quick conversion to wartime production. Not only did it produce jeeps and trucks, it went on to make tanks, planes, missiles, machine guns and all different kinds of ammunition. Late in the war it even reverse engineered a captured German V-1 rocket, including the ram-jet engine, and began running them down the assembly lines. Detroit's manufacturing geniuses taught the military establishment how to modify all these armaments to make them in high volume production.
After the war, they abruptly converted their plants back to civilian production. And while they dabbled some in military procurement, it was always a minor sideline to their main automotive business.
Those who say we don't need a domestic auto industry for national defense don't seem to realize we need this just-in-case kind of capability.
And it goes deeper than that. The United States needs a strong manufacturing base at all times. We need to have a market that supports the purchase and use of all different kinds of manufacturing equipment, including CNC machines, stamping presses, laser welders, molding machines, and robots.
We need to use enough of this kind of equipment so that companies stock and sell it here at all times. We need to buy and use enough of it so that we pay competitive market prices.
"The United States needs a strong manufacturing base at all times."
We need to have people who know how to make, use and maintain this kind of equipment. We need to have enough of them so our colleges and universities offer the courses to train thousands of people in manufacturing every year.The foreign-owned transplants have factories here, but virtually all of the manufacturing engineering that went into designing these facilities was not done in this country. In many cases it is still foreign nationals that are heavily involved in running these plants. And while we should always welcome them into the American economy, could this country really count on them in case of all-out global war?
And so, while I fully understand why many people are opposed to extending a bridge loan to the Big Three on purely ideological grounds, is it worth risking the national defense of this country just to claim you're ideologically pure?
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Now follow Autoline on Twitter for ongoing updates every day!
Autoline Daily
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
BigMcLargeHuge 3:06PM (12/12/2008)
Their tank & military divisions can survive without the car divisions.
GM also makes diesel-electric engines for railroads. They also should remain unaffected.
Not that the car divisions are actually going to disappear entirely.
Reply
happy_penguin 3:14PM (12/12/2008)
General Motors hasn't made railroad engines for years.
nist7 3:38PM (12/12/2008)
Well. This is actually quite a solid argument.
We all know there will be more wars in the future. We are mostly certain that there will be one more World War. USA will most likely be involved in this World War. We want USA to have the best chances of winning.
Indeed.
If we want to give USA the best chances of winning World War 3, we would bailout the Big 3.
And I am not being sarcastic. I was leaning against the bailout but after this....I'm really starting to think the other way....
happy_penguin 3:40PM (12/12/2008)
It's okay. China will build our tanks for us when we go to war with them.
blankster 4:19PM (12/12/2008)
So long as the United States continues to sign these trade agreements that allows countries where labor is a dollar an hour to import goods duty free we will continue to loose manufacturing jobs. NAFTA decimated manufacturing in this country and all the current administration can do is try to open up more "free trade". What we are seeing is the results of auto companies (and others) exporting the jobs of their very own customers. The destruction of the middle class. An economy that exists solely on consumption is an economy doomed to failure. We need to keep our manufacturing here!
BLS 6:02PM (12/12/2008)
If you don't believe Mr. McElroys view read the following book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1416524789/bookstorenow16-20
vic 11:46AM (12/13/2008)
Is GM's Electro-motive division, which has long built the finest locomotives on the tracks today, out of business? I remember less than 10 years ago EMD had a gargantuan monstrosity of an assembly plant outside Chicago on old Route 66.
Methinks GM remains in the locomotive business, but then it's been a few years since I checked.
Penguin, when did GM stop making locos?
gearhead18 4:03PM (12/13/2008)
@vic
The wiki page I'm reading (not guaranteed to be true but...) says Gm sold of The Electro-Motive Division in 2004 and it's now called Electro-Motive Diesel. Still in existence and the 2nd largest train engine manufacturer behind GE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-Motive_Diesel#General_Motors_sells_the_Electro-Motive_Division
happy_penguin 2:09PM (12/13/2008)
"In June 2004, The Wall Street Journal published an article indicating that EMD was being put up for sale. On January 11, 2005, Reuters published a story indicating that a sale to "two private U.S. equity groups" was likely to be announced "this week."
Confirmation came the following day with a press release issued by GM. General Motors has agreed to sell its Electro-Motive Division to a partnership led by Greenbriar Equity Group LLC and Berkshire Partners LLC. The newly spun-off company is called Electro-Motive Diesel, Incorporated, which retains the EMD brand that is so widely known in the railroad industry. The sale closed on April 4, 2005."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro_Motive_Diesel
EskimoPie 3:07PM (12/12/2008)
I work in the defense industry and I still think this is a pretty weak excuse for bailing out a failing industry. I'm not saying there aren't other good reasons to, but this one doesn't qualify.
Reply
Patrick 4:32PM (12/12/2008)
I am in the aerospace industry and I disagree. The hundreds of suppliers you use probably get a large part of their revenues from the Big 3. Without them, they will either have to dramatically increase their prices or fold. The taxpayers will stay pay for it in the end, since DoD and other govt projects will cost more. Almost every type of mechanical assemblies in cars are also present in defense industry things like satellites, missiles, vehicles, planes, etc. I'm talking about the suppliers who make materials (metals, plastics, composites), bearings, gearboxes, and more.
I would say John McElroy's arguement is not the best example to give but is still important. On a more practical level, with decreased mfg capabilities, the US will incur a bigger and bigger trade deficit due to outsourcing everything. We will lose mfg knowledge and shift financial power to other countries.
golly 1:38AM (12/13/2008)
You're a fine one to talk. If you're in the defense industry, you ought to know that the feds have propped up the defense industry for years to the tune of $$$billions.
PhattyDre16 3:18PM (12/12/2008)
This is a perspective I wasn't expecting. It's also notable to point out that many of the suppliers for the Big 3 are also suppliers for military vehicles and the like.
It is safe to say that the Big 3 going bankrupt would also mean that alot of these suppliers would go bankrupt. I don't think these idiots in congress truly realize the economic disaster we would be in if these companies fall. I would not be surprised if we entered a full out depression, given the fact that Ford, Gm, and Chrysler are so extremely embeded in our economy.
Reply
Artie Lange 3:15PM (12/12/2008)
Are you for real? You're trying to scare people into supporting the Big 3 with the specter of world war? You guys ARE getting desperate.
Reply
tekd 4:00PM (12/12/2008)
It's especially ridiculous since the only war benefit of keeping the Big 3 around would be for their factories...
Thing is, in wartime we'd be able to use the factories of all the import manufacturers as well. So this entire ridiculous argument falls apart right there. Back in the day it would have mattered more since the Big 3 had the only factories capable of working with the metals needed to build tanks and airplanes, but nowadays airplanes and tanks are so complex it's fairly unlikely GM could build them anyways. It's not like their factories are suited for work with the advanced materials found in an F-22 raptor.
This entire ridiculous argument seems to be based on the next war being fought using circa 1950's technology, which is utterly, utterly, ridiculous.
Modern wars have tended to end up being guerrilla wars anyway, so even if the big 3's factories could build tanks it'd be fairly silly to expect to win just because you have more tanks. That's not going to stop guys hiding in jungles, or people blowing up the supermarket or whatever.
And any country that would ever actually fight a traditional war against us also happen to have intercontinental nuclear missiles. It's not like China and the US would ever actually get into a traditional land war-nobody wants to trigger a nuclear armageddon. The only wars the major powers fight are all proxy wars where US supporting countries/factions get weapons and funding from the US, while Russian supporting countries/factions get funding from Russia.
The powers pick on small countries, but there's not going to be a major power tank on tank, plane on plane war anymore. It makes no sense to send millions of troops to another country when you all have nukes that could blow each other up 10x over.
Shipey 4:52PM (12/12/2008)
tekd,
You're right. Guerrilla warfare is the future, just like in Iraq, and Vietnam... and we didn't need any tanks, planes, cannons, or guns for those encounters.
Obvious 7:08PM (12/12/2008)
@Shipey,
Your wrong... what we didn't need was to be there at all.
I agree with tekd and Artie: scare tactics used to try and prop up a failing business model are ridiculous, and in a major confrontation (especially a global war), the number of conventional munitions and land assets are going to matter little in the grand scheme of things.
Even if this assumption is wrong, I would argue the assumption that the Big 3 having any impact on the bottom line is just as incorrect.
Artie Lange 10:04PM (12/12/2008)
Having listened to a variety of Big 3 defenders spew this same silly talking point across many different talk shows today, its apparent that Mr. McElroy is on the take. Autoblog, if you wish to maintain your journalistic integrity, you won't be airing this man's "opinion" on this subject anymore. Its clear that he is not simply stating his personal beliefs, but rather he is simply another mouth-piece for the american auto industry.
Polly Prissy Pants 3:15PM (12/12/2008)
Mr. McElroy is exactly right but you have to consider that you're preaching to the MTV generation where people think history is what happened in 1987. That we could learn from history and look to it to guide us today is as foreign to most people as evolution is to Sarah Palin.
Reply
Tim 3:23PM (12/12/2008)
John makes a very weak argument and fails to cite specific examples of the military and defense programs that are dependent on the US auto industry.
by his logic we should be writing more checks for the defense industry not the autos