---
title: "Gene Mesher Protecting critical supply lines does not require that..."
date: 2025-02-22
source: facebook
type: comment
context: "Archer T. Ships replied to Gene Mesher's comment."
fb_link: "https://www.facebook.com/dyi/l/?l=AYPCXq9R0aD1F5u0S-FsVIXBlerTCyiHQgWwgwNDIy31FNg6epSbFZrTlJ94VY6k1H5fZ1P5L5CkhO9tVJL7O7zQHf2anZ4aRh_NS4bpZZp-5ZObaDSTj6NwKETZmY-v7hRU5la_vcVxGgTLKWr5M0hb5P3GU-7G18acEmmzzxKBPafpJ1MwVZ6Bn5KFj5eGeIDfCg0oFNI&s=519"
---

# Gene Mesher Protecting critical supply lines does not require that...

*February 22, 2025 — Comment Archer T. Ships replied to Gene Mesher's comment.*

Gene Mesher Protecting critical supply lines does not require that our own government cut off US manufacturers from foreign suppliers (considered an act of war when done to Japan). Doing so weakens, not strengthens, our military readiness.  (If protectionism worked, the US shipbuilding industry would be thriving under the Jones Act.) If the US government put forward RFP's for steel suppliers that were wholly owned by US citizens and located on US soil, some manufacturers would step up (albeit likely at much higher price than open market price). Alternatively, the USG could specify that there be at least four independent suppliers for critical components located in friendly countries. The USG could also relax the immigration suppression laws that prevent US manufacturers from hiring inexpensive laborers from other countries. There would then be much less incentive for companies to move overseas in order to be competitive on the global market.