Weird title. Silicon Valley was literally founded by military spending and as far as I know it never really stopped.

Apparently the crux of the article is that the military wants more private capital to flow in the defense industry and an healthier ecosystems because the few large companies which have become keys to the military complex have become really inefficient.

It’s interesting but a different point entirely.

The latest estimates of the military budgets of the USA and China are 768 billion and 270 billion, respectively - yet China seems to be equalling if not outpacing the United States on speed of technological innovation as well as on international trade arrangements.

Calling on private capital to make risky investments in new technologies that only have one likely customer - the US government (well, maybe some Third World petrodollar recycling options, who knows) - seems to avoid discussing how the current gigantic military government budget is being spent.

Fundamentally, military expenditures don't have much in the way of additional positive economic effects. Say you're producing construction cranes, for example - each crane facilitates further economic activity, in building projects. If you're producing tanks - well, unless your economic model is to raid other countries for raw resources, it's not going to have that same effect. There's also little likelihood for a large consumer market for your product.

The U.S. DoD needs to have more in-house capacity to produce weapons, equipment, and ammunition - as it did, very successfully, from ~1780 to ~1980. Outsourcing to a few far-too-consolidated and far-too-greedy defense contractors (and their well-paid-off friends in Congress) is just plain idiotic.

Silicon Valley tends to have degrees of employee autonomy, encouragement to be curious and ask questions / make suggestions outside your "lane," flexible and high quality workstations and tools, most code and documentation open to most employees, tons of foreigners. From what I understand, defense is lily white, extremely locked down and compartmentalized, you spend months wrestling with a bureaucracy to for access to basic tools and libraries, and not only do you not get to question the big picture, you might not even be read in on what it is. Given these differences, could anyone (other than maybe Apple) actually shift into defense contracting without utterly remaking their employee pool, tooling, and culture? In what sense is it even "Silicon Valley" anymore if you throw away those things?

First they need to fix the visa lottery bs. Many of the brightest engineers educated at our top schools need to leave the US because they can't get a status that allows them to work, stay, reunite with their families and eventually become legal residents and citizens.

Does anyone work (or worked in the past) for a defense contracting company? I'm curious what the environment is like (e.g. is it a pressure cooker using ancient coding standards where everything requires a bunch of people with shiny metal on their work uniform to approve?).

I worked for a startup where DARPA had given a fairly generous grant when I started my career (they made a medical training device that the military was interested in). I was jr, so I wasn't privy to the financial details of things, but overall it was very "waterfall-y" and a lot of form filling and box checking. WLB was overall pretty fair, but the key thing is that processes really hamstrung everyone (think MISRA style of coding standards) and morale was rather low. Pay wasn't great either so I left.

I just wonder now that I am more senior and have more financial responsibilities, is defense a financially safe space in case more tech keeps RIFing, even if overall comp levels are low.

There's a few resources out there for smaller companies to try to get into defense, mainly networks and incubators. [1]

But you'll also see SBIR/STTR funding topics (program run by the Small Business Administration) [2]

You can also try checking out some of the bigger Defense contractors, some have incubator programs and are looking to expand their small business ecosystem for subcontracts, part of that includes funding. (Disclaimer, I work here) [3]

[1] https://defensewerx.org/

[2] https://www.sbir.gov/node/2214225

[3] https://www.boozallen.com/expertise/innovation/ventures.html

The Navy is looking for "builders" for it's next generation of submarines

U.S. NAVY | UNITED STATES MARINES | COMMERCIAL | BUILDSUBMARINES.COM | NAVY'S 'NEXT-GEN' SUBMARINES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RVDcwOYKi4

I thought I saw a very similar headline within the past month or so, also from WSJ if memory serves, though it could have been another publication, perhaps WaPo.

HN archive search-fu fails me.

Closest I'm finding is 5 months old, "State Department Urges Silicon Valley to Aid National Security Effort": <https://archive.vn/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fst...>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33215418>

Acquisition Talk blog spends a lot of attention towards fixing the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, Execution process in defense. There are many barriers for startups, the big one is getting the right amount of funding at the right time. It looks like creating the office of strategic capital is an attempt to solve this problem. Expect the defense majors, Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon to lobby against this hard.

https://acquisitiontalk.com/2022/08/does-dod-not-actually-wa...

I am really interested in smart munitions be it drone shaped or rather classical rounds for howitzers. Super cool topic combining miniaturized electronics, optics and control systems. But at the end… limited buyers, crazy difficult testing and super low success chance. Not really good starting conditions for startup for average engineer.

Now would be the best time to push it, when Silicon Valley employers have a significant advantage over workers, and the amount of people willing to work on anything is the highest its been since the dot-com crash.

None of the currently existing big defense contractors have offices in silicon valley. I don't know what the reason is, but it can't be simple happenstance.

As a self-styled ultra-libertarian, I felt a sudden visceral disgust when I saw the title of this article. After all, SV is supposed to be all about peace, love, woke-ism and "making the world a better place".

Also, since I am always right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong, I didn't want to bother reading the text. Luckily, there was an audio version by a not-so-hostile narrator.

TL;DR: China has already wooed their equivalent of SV.

Microsoft having a lot of partnerships with the military industry, and now also getting their hands on all of OpenAIs technology. In parallel, OpenAI stops sharing information about their models, making it harder for other countries to copy. Add to that the chip ban. Hm...?

So far, the "defense 2.0" companies seem to be following the path of Anduril - very high grade drones and cams. I'm not trashing them - there is a huge market for military grade observation tech.

I'm just wondering when one of these startups commits to making things that kill people.

Even then, a company isn't just limited to selling to the military...way waaaay more Sig P320s have been sold to civilians than will ever be sold to the army, and I expect the Spear to likewise be much larger for civilian sales than government sales (yes, a civilian Spear is coming).

Is it crazy to imagine this is the “tit” for the “tat” of bailing out SVB?

This is very short-sighted. Gemini astronauts rode Titan 2 rockets to orbit (just an ICBM with a different payload). The space shuttle was designed mainly to insert Keyhole satellites. The internet was developed in pursuit of developing a robust means to route message traffic in the event of nuclear attack. DARPA's IPTO influenced the development of time-sharing. JPEO CBRND is catching a bunch of vaccine developers who are about to fail, sorting the wheat from chaff, and having them develop vaccines for orphan diseases and use cases that US pharma doesn't see as useful. JPEO CBRND funded the development of the Biofire PCR arrays that were widely deployed early in the pandemic as a load-and-go testing solution for minimally equiped labs.

The flush-head rivets were developed by Howard Hughes, ostensibly for his racing H-1, but his aircraft company was keen to sell to the military (air war was highly anticipated during the interwar years, so speed and endurance were first order motivators).

I mean, the list goes on and on. It's true, we invest in war machines, but as a percent of GDP, it's been going down for quite a while and now rivals the EU at something in the vicinity of 2% (we're over, they're under): https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941...

Turns out out, not dying is a hell of a necessity that mother'd a lot of invention. And at a national scale, sovereignty is the equivalent. And the enemy gets a vote. See Putin.

Working in this space on projects ranging from cancer to comms, I'm hear to tell you, biologists have a much harder job than weaponeers, but it's human nature, not US defense policy that's an issue.

> Calling on private capital to make risky investments in new technologies that only have one likely customer - the US government (well, maybe some Third World petrodollar recycling options, who knows) - seems to avoid discussing how the current gigantic military government budget is being spent.

Historically, there has been no shortage of entrepreneurs chasing defense dollars. Lots of iconic weapons, from the Thompson submachine gun to the Spitfire to the Colt revolver, were developed speculatively and later sold to militaries that hadn’t initially requested them.

> Fundamentally, military expenditures don't have much in the way of additional positive economic effects. Say you're producing construction cranes, for example - each crane facilitates further economic activity, in building projects. If you're producing tanks - well, unless your economic model is to raid other countries for raw resources, it's not going to have that same effect. There's also little likelihood for a large consumer market for your product.

Lots of military procurement expenditures have resulted in products with immediate civilian applications: rockets, radios, first aid equipment, antibiotics, encryption, highways, helicopters, jet engines, radar, sonar, Kevlar, canned food, computers.

It's far more complicated than that.

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/how-does-chinas-defense-spendin...

>China seems to be equalling if not outpacing the United States on speed of technological innovation as well as on international trade arrangements.

What is this based on?

Military spending on chip tech is a large part of how SV started.

We should definitely do so with AI now.

China pays personnel way less and a huge chunk of that budget is personnel costs

The gaps in US/China arms will never be closed by startups...no startup is going to start churning out Columbia-class subs or F35s.

We screwed up and lost decades on crap like the Zumwalt class, the LCS and numerous other boondoggles that easily cost us a decade and $100 bln++. The LCS really deserves special mention for a unique level of stupidity - we are scrapping them pretty much as they come off the line. Its crazy - we don't want these ships, have committed to scrapping them...and we're still ordering them! Only in America.

Let's not forget how much we built and burned in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many subs and carriers could have been built with the resources squandered? We sure did buy a lot of Humvees that never came back.

Even without those epic failures, it isn't clear we could beat the Chinese in manufacturing. Throwing bodies at a problem is definitely in their wheelhouse.

While we were bombing, they were building. Now we get to deal with it.