However, the US is nevertheless playing catch-up with its adversaries, and experts have previously told The Telegraph that it cannot compete on costs with countries like China, where labour costs are lower and regulations looser.

That isn’t why American weapons cost so much.

You’ve got a central planned government with access to the best manufacturing capabilities in the world competing with a profit driven handful of companies that have the US government by the balls.

Cutting wages and regulation won’t fix that, they know they can overcharge on every component the US buys.

Plus modern war is not like previous wars where it was difficult to project power. It’s easier now than ever for small weapons to bypass security and hit asymmetric targets. It’s essentially all attrition based, and having the most expensive gear is like the Japanese building Yamato class battleships in ww2. They were indefensible to air attack, so useless on the field. Modern aircraft carriers won’t stand up to fleets of cheap sea-born drones, especially when it costs 100x more to defend than produce.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

I think much like WWII, we have no idea what a war between two modern powers would actually look like.

Would one be able to take out the others satellites? Could either defend their factories from long range missiles? Could any country function for long without the global economy providing food/raw materials/etc.?