Should the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines purchase equipment, clothing, and services from only U.S.-based companies?

  • The U.S. Armed Forces should limit their purchases to U.S.-based manufacturers, because it will help strengthen the economy that supports them.

    Since the U.S. Armed Forces are paid for by the American public, their vast purchasing power should be limited to U.S.-based companies. This circular process will create a two-way support system that will strengthen both the U.S. economy, as well as increase the support for the U.S. Armed Forces by Americans knowing their jobs, as well as their safety, comes from those entities.

    Posted by: P3nrIin
  • U.S.-based companies should provide all of the equipment, clothing, and services for the American military, because it is a major way to support the country.

    The United States military fights for the American people, and there is no better way to show their solidarity with the American public than by using American goods only. It shows that the military and American companies have a relationship and support one another. Purchasing from non-U.S.-based companies shows that the military is more concerned about getting items cheaply, compared to building ties with American companies, which is a major negative.

    Posted by: TMacias
  • I believe the U.S. military should only purchase equipment from U.S.-based countries, as it promotes solidarity.

    Not only does buying American help improve public opinion towards military efforts, it creates jobs within the U.S., boosts economic outlooks and hopefully encourages others to buy locally as well.

    Posted by: InsidiousErvin65
  • We should only allow our government to purchase from the U.S. so that our economy is aided during war.

    The current state of the economy is a worry considering we are active militarily around the world. This is due to the excess in bidding out services to companies in other countries. It should worry us that other countries profit from our wars, creating a conflict of interest, as if they profit, what keeps them from aiding in continued conflicts?

    Posted by: daveyxh
  • Yes, because doing so would support American companies.

    I think the U.S. military should see it as a patriotic duty to purchase only goods and services that have been produced by American companies. It might be slightly more expensive than getting those goods and services from other countries, but it would give a much needed boost to the U.S. economy and create jobs in our home country where we so desperately need them.

    Posted by: P5ych0Ogdan
  • I agree that the military should buy within the US; otherwise what are they defending?

    The US military has a moral obligation and a patriotic one to buy within the United States only. It doesn't make sense to go to war to fight for the "American way" and then put millions of the country's citizens out of work by purchasing overseas.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • The US should purchase the best equipment possible from any source, not US sources.

    The military needs to purchase equipment that will win a battle. Sometimes this technology may come from a different country. There are many technologies that we currently share with ally countries and it has benefited both parties involved in the transaction.

    Posted by: R0bCIe
  • Yes, the military ought to help support the US economy just like everyone else, if not more so.

    The US military should purchase their equipment, clothing and supplies here in the United States. That shouldn't ever even be up for debate. If the supplies are purchased here, made here, we have our name behind the products. I would rather have my son in the Army wearing a Kevlar vest made in the US than in a sweatshop in India or in a sub-par factory in China. We should take pride in our work and in our military and make the best equipment possible for them to use in their daily duties and when they are fighting in battles elsewhere.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • I agree that the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines should purchase services, equipment, and clothing from U.S. based companies only because the US needs the support.

    I believe that our country needs to be supportive of ourselves. We already have debt with other countries and don't need anymore. Our country is going through economic struggles at the moment and we need work and money to try and stabilize ourselves. We need to support our country above others and try to fix us before we can help others. Purchasing with U.S. companies can help and make a difference within ourselves.

    Posted by: Fr4nKatr
  • Yes, because it is our tax money being used and it will make our country safer from outside threats.

    Our taxpayer money should be used to support U.S. companies. It would help our country become safer from outside threats because it is easier to do background checks on domestic companies. Besides that, we shouldn't want other countries making or supplying things for our Armed Forces as a mater of pride.

    Posted by: MycCra2ii
  • The branches of the military need not be confined to economic limitations.

    This is not a question of economics as much as a question of military consumption. By limiting what it purchases, the military would effectively cut itself off from the best options. Obviously, this would harm the military, confining it to the best of U.S.-based goods when it could have the best of the world. In questions of the military, there can be no compromise.

  • The branches of the US military, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, should not be required to only purchase equipment, clothing and services from US based companies. The military should purchase their needs from sources that provide the best value.

    The branches of the US military need to have the ability to purchase their needs from companies that provide the best value for the tax payer's money. They should not be required to purchase inferior, higher priced goods and services simply because a US company is offering it. The US military should be required to bid their goods and services on competitive basis. In the event that all factors are equal, the US should be given preference, but only in the case of a tie.

    Posted by: G4rwIsdead
  • Sometimes companies outside the U.S. can produce certain products and services better or more efficiently than U.S. companies.

    In my opinion, I believe that the U.S. military should strongly favor supply contracts with U.S.-based companies. U.S. companies often produce products and services with a quality standard that is dependable. However, I don't necessarily believe the U.S. military should be legally limited to U.S. supply contracts. Some technology and efficiency of established production could potentially be better from a company in an ally nation. The U.S. markets all kinds of military technology and products, all over the world. It should be able to choose from technology and products from other nations. My opinion is based on economic and pragmatic ideals.

    Posted by: QuietWayne85
  • The United States military should buy their equipment from any company that offers the best quality, for their job is too important and risky to get anything but the best.

    It is true that it would help our economy and businesses, and instill a sense of national pride, but buying anything but the best equipment could only be detrimental to the military. The military is practically the protectors of the United States' freedoms, and risking that for anything as ugly as money or politics is ludicrous.

    Posted by: DevilishMason95
  • No, the US military should purchase whatever equipment is necessary regardless of where it's made.

    Defense spending is already through the roof. If the US armed forces are able to get either better equipment for the same cost, or cheaper equipment from elsewhere they should go ahead.
    If better equipment is made overseas, and will protect our soldiers better, it should be purchased.

    Posted by: 4uncLife
  • There is no need for the US armed services to restrict themselves to American made items, it's a nonsensical stance based on principle rather than practicality

    Alright, maybe in some wild scenario we could wind up getting all our clothing from China, then fighting a war with them, then having to send our troops into battle naked (or more likely having to spend an inefficiently large amount beginning production ourselves). But, aside from the unlikeness of this situation, any wasted resources adjusting our uniform production process would probably be more than made up for by the savings from outsourcing uniform production before the conflict. Whether or not we face the possibility of a conflict with our uniform supplier, we would be best served by holding to the principle of comparative advantage here, as we do in most other circumstances.

    Posted by: VultureDer
  • The U.S. armed forces should not just buy from US based companies if they are buying from allies.

    It would be idea for the U.S. armed forces to buy from American companies, however, it is also crucial that our soldiers have the best possible equipment. They should not sacrifice safety or ability just to support ourselves. As long as they are buying from a friendly country who we are not in war against and is backing our policies, I don't think it's a problem to buy from other countries.

    Posted by: EImerN4th

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.