To paraphrase patio11, a disagreement between you and the market is not a shortage.
I'm surprised that anyone still believes the perennial "labor shortage" complaints. It has always been about employers refusing to improve wages and working conditions.
They can hire people they can train. They chose not to, instead (whenever possible) whine for visas so they can steal trained professionals off less developed countries
And yet people don't, because it would reduce quarterly profits. So one market (for equities) does kind of magically prevent workers from being trained, by not allowing rational participation in another market (for workers).
How I view "labor shortage" complaints by default:
"What's with this shortage of new cars for $5,000!? As a hard-working consumer, I simply can't find enough of what I want at the limited price I am willing to offer, and I demand to know how the government is going to solve this pressing national crisis of enormous importance!"
Technically, that is absolutely a shortage... Yet somehow it seems wrong to dignify it with a lot of concern, right? The causes of the "shortage" are quite important.
You could say the same thing about any military hardware during a peace-time economy. It’s not a matter if it exists, it’s a matter if the relevant knowledge exists in domestic/friendly industrial base. The U.S. is making more satellites than the rest of the world combined right now.
It is also a question of spin up time. If the demand suddenly existed to rebuild satellites en masse, the lead time on labor resources is part of the total time to rebuild. It becomes concerning if and only if either a) for strategic reasons the time is inadequate, or b) the lead time requires generational training efforts, e.g. college programs, national initiatives, etc. which can't behave predictably in response to an emergency.
Broadly speaking, sure. But you’re not trying to rebuild every single one. At this point you’re in a war, things move faster, and there are a million unknowns. Under the given scenario, it appears that satellites have lost their usefulness akin to tanks in Ukraine. It’s not a matter if you can build satellites, merely if you can stay ahead of your adversary. At present the U.S. can launch more and faster mass to orbit. I’d be more concerned about that than anything else in the provided scenario.
>> Somehow I doubt that after a war with China, satellites would be high on the priority list of things that need rebuilding.
If GPS goes down, most of our communications will go down. A lot of other stuff falls from there. I suspect we'd be OK after a brief adjustment, but it would be very disruptive.
We no longer have the culture, the expertise, or the infrastructure to do these things. They moved it all overseas and to Mexico to save a quick buck. America is dead.
SpaceX has >11,000 satellites whipping around the planet. They increased the number of LEO sats by nearly one order of magnitude in bit more than 5 years.
So apparently the culture, expertise and infrastructure do exist to do these things.
I think there would be a Kessler Syndrome within a few weeks of an anti-satellite campaign at which point trying to launch replacements wouldn't make any sense.
Wouldn't that depend a lot on what and how much were targeted?
Seems a sufficient number of satellites in a particular orbital altitude and inclination would be required to create a self-sustaining cascade.
Even then, the Delta-V of tens to hundreds of m/sec to for violent intercepts seems unlikely to eject debris into different orbital regimes; e.g., it takes nearly 4km/sec Delta-V to move from LEO to Geosynchronous orbit. So, totally Kessler-Syndrome-destroying the LEO orbital range would still leave GEO orbital range available...?
I mean, if we have a war with Russia that involves destroying satellites, it seems like there is a pretty big chance that means it's going nuclear and we'll have bigger fish to fry.
It's becoming increasingly likely that satellites will be targeted in even low intensity conflicts. Bear in mind that lasers are getting more powerful so you don't need to vaporize the satellite, just perform a mission kill by torching the FPA behind the lens.
I think the point is that there are scenarios where large powers would disable/destroy each other's satellites without using nuclear weapons and we would be poorly prepared to replace them.
Is there any infrastructure of which this is not true? Every country, not just the Great Powers, has a large amount of installed plant which is the result of decades, in some cases centuries, of capital accumulation. And which modern weaponry can destroy in a matter of minutes. It's just easier to destroy than to build, and literally no industry has the capacity to rebuild as fast as a war breaks - if they did, most of those workers would be sitting idle in peacetime.
Compare the Battle of the Atlantic in WW2: Germany was trying to destroy merchant shipping faster than the Allies could build it, and failed; not because the subs were hunted down (though they were) but because the US refocused a humongous amount of industrial policy on building Liberty ships in a matter of days per hull. That was a massive national mobilisation, it would have been impossible to do so for more than a handful of capital plants, and it certainly wasn't going to be maintained in peacetime.
Edit to add: Though to argue a bit against my own point, satellites are perhaps uniquely vulnerable, even to nonstate actors. Lasers get better all the time and a satellite inherently needs to pass over other countries to do its job. Much easier targets than, say, electrical grids which can be defended by the internal-security garrison.
I think your parent commenter's point is that the satellites are used to detect launches. No satellites == no early warning == temptation to launch preemptively.
A lot of deterrence credibility depends on at least pretending you think you can get into a fight without it inevitably going nuclear.
After all, if America’s military thinkers all believe if America fought China it would inevitably result in mutually assured destruction - then American security guarantees for Taiwan lose all credibility.
Most American military planners assume that if China invades Taiwan they'll use smaller "tactical" nuclear missles to do things like destory carrier groups to test the will of the US on MAD. Predicting, probably correctly, that the US will not respond with a full scale nuclear strike in response to the destruction of a military target just because nuclear weapons were used.
They are likely expecting the same kind of war we are already in with Russia; in which Russia tries to keep its attacks just below the threshold of open war and its rhetoric and "negotiations" about "seeking peace".
Russia have already attacked subsea cables, openly assassinated targets in many countries, shot down civilian airliners, made multiple drone attacks in Europe, and more. They go for plausible deniability and/or exploit western politicians' desire to avoid conflict and "not escalate" on their watch (and nevermind western politicians already craven to them from the current US President to other parties including AfD, French National Party, etc.).
It is entirely plausible this will escalate to Russia taking out a few satellites, with either kinetic or directed-energy weapons, and the need to replace them. Indeed Russia has been observed testing such systems in the recent years.
There is no need to assume nuke use at all for something to get to the stage of taking out satellites. Taking out satellites with kinetic or energy weapons would definitely leave millions of graduates alive.
This is true for everything. They gutted the whole country. There is nothing left. Sold for parts. Collapse soon. That is why they are gearing up for total fascism, they know people are going to be pissed when the quality of life dies off for all of the US and there are no jobs.
To paraphrase patio11, a disagreement between you and the market is not a shortage.
I'm surprised that anyone still believes the perennial "labor shortage" complaints. It has always been about employers refusing to improve wages and working conditions.
Shortages can't be defined out of existence this way. Markets don't magically train workers or provide security clearances. People have to do that.
But markets can make doing those things financially worthwhile.
>> People have to do that.
Companies can train people too.
They can hire people they can train. They chose not to, instead (whenever possible) whine for visas so they can steal trained professionals off less developed countries
And yet people don't, because it would reduce quarterly profits. So one market (for equities) does kind of magically prevent workers from being trained, by not allowing rational participation in another market (for workers).
How I view "labor shortage" complaints by default:
"What's with this shortage of new cars for $5,000!? As a hard-working consumer, I simply can't find enough of what I want at the limited price I am willing to offer, and I demand to know how the government is going to solve this pressing national crisis of enormous importance!"
Technically, that is absolutely a shortage... Yet somehow it seems wrong to dignify it with a lot of concern, right? The causes of the "shortage" are quite important.
You could say the same thing about any military hardware during a peace-time economy. It’s not a matter if it exists, it’s a matter if the relevant knowledge exists in domestic/friendly industrial base. The U.S. is making more satellites than the rest of the world combined right now.
It is also a question of spin up time. If the demand suddenly existed to rebuild satellites en masse, the lead time on labor resources is part of the total time to rebuild. It becomes concerning if and only if either a) for strategic reasons the time is inadequate, or b) the lead time requires generational training efforts, e.g. college programs, national initiatives, etc. which can't behave predictably in response to an emergency.
Broadly speaking, sure. But you’re not trying to rebuild every single one. At this point you’re in a war, things move faster, and there are a million unknowns. Under the given scenario, it appears that satellites have lost their usefulness akin to tanks in Ukraine. It’s not a matter if you can build satellites, merely if you can stay ahead of your adversary. At present the U.S. can launch more and faster mass to orbit. I’d be more concerned about that than anything else in the provided scenario.
Somehow I doubt that after a war with China, satellites would be high on the priority list of things that need rebuilding.
You'd probably start with rebuilding more basic manufacturing and refinery industry destroyed during the war.
>> Somehow I doubt that after a war with China, satellites would be high on the priority list of things that need rebuilding.
If GPS goes down, most of our communications will go down. A lot of other stuff falls from there. I suspect we'd be OK after a brief adjustment, but it would be very disruptive.
Most of the planning for possible conflict between the USA and China is for a more limited conflict, such as an invasion of Taiwan.
All the stated problems are just problems in peacetime; Pay and bureaucratic red tape.
We no longer have the culture, the expertise, or the infrastructure to do these things. They moved it all overseas and to Mexico to save a quick buck. America is dead.
SpaceX has >11,000 satellites whipping around the planet. They increased the number of LEO sats by nearly one order of magnitude in bit more than 5 years.
So apparently the culture, expertise and infrastructure do exist to do these things.
I have to disagree Newport, RI. is a hot bed for this kind of development and I’m sure there are other places not mentioned on HN.
Here is a trade school that is actively training the needed workforce.
https://www.iyrs.edu/
We "lack workers to rebuild" many things that could be lost in a war with peer thermonuclear-armed powers. The only winning move is not to play
I think there would be a Kessler Syndrome within a few weeks of an anti-satellite campaign at which point trying to launch replacements wouldn't make any sense.
Wouldn't that depend a lot on what and how much were targeted?
Seems a sufficient number of satellites in a particular orbital altitude and inclination would be required to create a self-sustaining cascade.
Even then, the Delta-V of tens to hundreds of m/sec to for violent intercepts seems unlikely to eject debris into different orbital regimes; e.g., it takes nearly 4km/sec Delta-V to move from LEO to Geosynchronous orbit. So, totally Kessler-Syndrome-destroying the LEO orbital range would still leave GEO orbital range available...?
Depending on the density of debris in LEO it might be very difficult to launch through to the higher orbits.
No, there wouldn’t be. Space is huge. There aren’t that many satellites, and even the largest are relatively small.
I presume "anti-satellite campaign" means hundreds of anti-satellite missiles launched into LEO / MEO, at which point we do have a serious problem
Kessler Syndrome is a very specific accusation. It would be a disaster for sure, but not KS.
They are small until they are blown into a million pieces.
I mean, if we have a war with Russia that involves destroying satellites, it seems like there is a pretty big chance that means it's going nuclear and we'll have bigger fish to fry.
It's becoming increasingly likely that satellites will be targeted in even low intensity conflicts. Bear in mind that lasers are getting more powerful so you don't need to vaporize the satellite, just perform a mission kill by torching the FPA behind the lens.
China destroyed a sat with a laser years ago. Not disabled - destroyed. It created a bunch of debris.
I think the point is that there are scenarios where large powers would disable/destroy each other's satellites without using nuclear weapons and we would be poorly prepared to replace them.
Is there any infrastructure of which this is not true? Every country, not just the Great Powers, has a large amount of installed plant which is the result of decades, in some cases centuries, of capital accumulation. And which modern weaponry can destroy in a matter of minutes. It's just easier to destroy than to build, and literally no industry has the capacity to rebuild as fast as a war breaks - if they did, most of those workers would be sitting idle in peacetime.
Compare the Battle of the Atlantic in WW2: Germany was trying to destroy merchant shipping faster than the Allies could build it, and failed; not because the subs were hunted down (though they were) but because the US refocused a humongous amount of industrial policy on building Liberty ships in a matter of days per hull. That was a massive national mobilisation, it would have been impossible to do so for more than a handful of capital plants, and it certainly wasn't going to be maintained in peacetime.
Edit to add: Though to argue a bit against my own point, satellites are perhaps uniquely vulnerable, even to nonstate actors. Lasers get better all the time and a satellite inherently needs to pass over other countries to do its job. Much easier targets than, say, electrical grids which can be defended by the internal-security garrison.
I think your parent commenter's point is that the satellites are used to detect launches. No satellites == no early warning == temptation to launch preemptively.
I think once satellites are in pieces while orbiting it’s not just a workforce problem to be solved.
A lot of deterrence credibility depends on at least pretending you think you can get into a fight without it inevitably going nuclear.
After all, if America’s military thinkers all believe if America fought China it would inevitably result in mutually assured destruction - then American security guarantees for Taiwan lose all credibility.
Most American military planners assume that if China invades Taiwan they'll use smaller "tactical" nuclear missles to do things like destory carrier groups to test the will of the US on MAD. Predicting, probably correctly, that the US will not respond with a full scale nuclear strike in response to the destruction of a military target just because nuclear weapons were used.
Hope for the US it won't reach the FOGBANK level of disaster.
what kind of war are the authors expecting, where war against Russia/China destroys sattelites, but still leaves millions of graduates alive?
population would be the first thing dropping off in the nuclear exchange
They are likely expecting the same kind of war we are already in with Russia; in which Russia tries to keep its attacks just below the threshold of open war and its rhetoric and "negotiations" about "seeking peace".
Russia have already attacked subsea cables, openly assassinated targets in many countries, shot down civilian airliners, made multiple drone attacks in Europe, and more. They go for plausible deniability and/or exploit western politicians' desire to avoid conflict and "not escalate" on their watch (and nevermind western politicians already craven to them from the current US President to other parties including AfD, French National Party, etc.).
It is entirely plausible this will escalate to Russia taking out a few satellites, with either kinetic or directed-energy weapons, and the need to replace them. Indeed Russia has been observed testing such systems in the recent years.
There is no need to assume nuke use at all for something to get to the stage of taking out satellites. Taking out satellites with kinetic or energy weapons would definitely leave millions of graduates alive.
This is true for everything. They gutted the whole country. There is nothing left. Sold for parts. Collapse soon. That is why they are gearing up for total fascism, they know people are going to be pissed when the quality of life dies off for all of the US and there are no jobs.
Already at 25% functional unemployment