I get what you’re saying about being wary about over - investing in “production capabilities that are no longer needed in 3 years,” but i think that fear is misaligned with reality.

1. Clearly, if there is a need today for such production capabilities (i.e. artillery shell production), this need will not vanish in three years because it is clear that shells ‘have’ been needed for the past 120 years and that need vanishing in only three years is mathematically impossible just looking at years in “3” vs. “120.”

2. Even if somehow you’re correct that in 100 years they look back and say “not one shell was ever needed by the Western world after 2028,” the reason you have an army is to not have to use it. Deterrence. Ramping up shell production will provide a threat deterrence for those countries who ramp up shell production paid for by taxpayers.

3. Between the billion people living in the US and the EU, it is not an exaggeration to say that approximately 1/4th would vote for its dissolvement today and more could be convinced.

4. Ramping up shell production would be precisely what Europe needs to do to grapple with NATO free-riding, thereby strengthening NATO

5. Ramping up shell production would also lessen the impact of populist arguments made by American political parties against European free-riding on NATO, meaning populist politicians would be voted out of power in the US - it would help us politically. Indeed, Trump’s only good point during his presidency were his comments about European free-riding.

6. Even back in 2017, Merkel said “the times when we can depend on the United States are over.” Regardless of how I feel about her or any politician, ramping up shell production is clearly more of a need for Europe rather than a luxury.