Lockheed Martin Corporation

Cyan Banister support ×2 ▼ on 📈 Legacy defense primes (Boeing, Lockheed, RTX) lose 2025 E220 · 2025-03-22 ▶ 1:15:18

Well, obviously, Boeing is the big loser here. You've got to, it's interesting to me how bad they just fumbled this.

Friedberg support ×2 ▼ on 📈 Legacy defense primes (Boeing, Lockheed, RTX) lose 2025 E220 · 2025-03-22 ▶ 1:13:49

And so having spent far more on the Starliner program than on the Crew Dragon program, the Starliner program is gone now. It's basically done. And the Crew Dragon program has now done 16 crewed flights to space, 11 for NASA, four private commercial flights, and continues to perform.

Joe Lonsdale support ×3 ▼ on 📈 Legacy defense primes (Boeing, Lockheed, RTX) lose 2025 E218 · 2025-03-08 ▶ 34:07

We had a big contest four years ago, L3, Raytheon, Northrop. These guys, in and out of government for decades, they've gotten tens of billions of dollars to the same technology area. When we went head to head with them, we didn't just beat them by a little bit. We shot down the hardened drones nine and a half times farther away. Same size, same power, nine and a half times. Completely wiped the floor.

Friedberg support ×3 ▼ on 📈 Legacy defense primes (Boeing, Lockheed, RTX) lose 2025 E216 · 2025-02-21 ▶ 38:07

We've seen it in the Ukraine-Russia context that a $10,000 drone can destroy a $10 million piece of equipment and China now has drone factories that can output millions of drones each month... do we really need aircraft carriers? Do we really need tanks?

Chamath support ×3 ▼ on 📈 Legacy defense primes (Boeing, Lockheed, RTX) lose 2025 E216 · 2025-02-21 ▶ 35:23

you can't be spending three or four billion dollars a boat and taking eight, nine, 10 years to build these things. This is not sustainable... What you have instead are system integrators with extremely deep connectivity that are able to contract well, not necessarily to invent well.

Naval Ravikant support ×2 ▼ on 📈 Legacy defense primes (Boeing, Lockheed, RTX) lose 2025 E215 · 2025-02-15 ▶ 1:18:39

If you look at it today, probably the largest defense contractor in the world is DJI. They got all the drones. ... If we have a kinetic conflict right now and we don't have good drone supply chain internally in the US, we're probably going to lose because those things are autonomous bullets. That's the future of all warfare. We're buying F-35s and the Chinese are building swarms of narrowzones.

Chamath support ×2 ▼ on 📈 Legacy defense primes (Boeing, Lockheed, RTX) lose 2025 E215 · 2025-02-15 ▶ 37:54

So on Thursday, what happened with Microsoft, they had a $24 billion contract with the United States Army to deliver some whiz-bang thing. And they realized that they couldn't deliver it. And so what did they do? They went to Anderil. Now, why did they go to Anderil? Because Anderil has the technological supremacy to actually execute.

Friedberg support ×2 ▼ on 📈 Legacy defense primes (Boeing, Lockheed, RTX) lose 2025 E209 · 2025-01-04 ▶ 41:27

I went with the old defense and aerospace providers — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon... defense budgets are going to shift towards a more tech-oriented and ROI-driven rationalization... this government contracting business is going to be deeply challenged this year.

Sacks support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E164 · 2024-02-02 ▶ 1:16:49

And when it does happen, you get this lunatic fringe who unfortunately are some of the leaders of the Republican Party calling for a larger war against Iran.

Jason oppose ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E163 · 2024-01-26 ▶ 1:03:37

The majority of people don't want to be involved in foreign wars. That's across both parties.

Jason oppose ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E161 · 2024-01-13 ▶ 12:48

I can't imagine anybody would want to do more military action at this point in time when the American public is exhausted from it.

Sacks support ×3 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E161 · 2024-01-13 ▶ 11:43

The problem is that with every war, the mainstream media starts propagandizing for the wars, and they'll basically demonize whoever it is that we're going to go to war with and explaining why they're a huge threat. They'll engage in threat inflation, and so the American people end up supporting it.

Friedberg support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E152 · 2023-11-03 ▶ 16:39

I've shared my point of view for a couple of years now. I think the US is in a, call it subconscious conflict escalatory state that would continue to drive us into these sorts of conflict

Sacks support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E152 · 2023-11-03 ▶ 15:06

Will policymakers in Washington change their tune or change their perspective on this? Probably not, the uniparty of both Republicans and Democrats are still seems to be a majority who want to fund another 61 billion for Ukraine.

Sacks support ×3 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E151 · 2023-10-27 ▶ 25:49

our industrial capacity is so hollowed out that it's going to take us five plus years to replace our stockpiles of artillery ammunition, of javelins, of stingers

Friedberg support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E151 · 2023-10-27 ▶ 22:02

there's significant material and industrial production shortages, not just in the US, but around the world, to support rising conventional wars that seem to be scaling all over

Sacks support ×3 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E149 · 2023-10-13 ▶ 50:13

That artillery stockpile was basically taken and given to Ukraine. Remember, we ran out of the key type of ammunition in the Ukraine War, which is 155-millimeter artillery shells. That's why we gave them cluster bombs. The US is already dangerously low on ammunition, and that's before we get potentially another war or another front in this larger global conflagration that's happening.

Sacks oppose ×3 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E148 · 2023-10-07 ▶ 16:28

And I think there is growing opposition to a blank check as long as it takes policy towards Ukraine. We've already appropriated over 100 billion. What's the return on investment of that? The counteroffensive failed.

Sacks support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E147 · 2023-09-29 ▶ 58:22

From 2015 to 2021, we could have gone along with efforts under the Minsk Accords to resolve this conflict in the Donbass peacefully, but we never did that. We never gave it any support.

Sacks support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E146 · 2023-09-22 ▶ 9:07

both Republicans and Democrats want more military spending. I don't hear anybody really argue for cutting military spending ... but the Democrats are completely on board with war now

Sacks oppose ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E144 · 2023-09-01 ▶ 19:16

And the people who are attacking him now are all these neocons. It's basically the whole military industrial complex. It's all the bought and paid for politicians and think tanks who want America to be in these forever wars. So I think he's being attacked by the right people, and that's going to help him.

Sacks support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E143 · 2023-08-25 ▶ 1:22:11

It's a combination of being trapped in legacy thinking where we have to be the policemen of the world combined with all the big donors in the party, many of whom are wrapped up with the military industrial complex, want to contribute to that.

Sacks support ×3 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E137 · 2023-07-14 ▶ 1:16:25

Now, you know who it's an asset for is the military industrial complex, because all these countries, when they join NATO, agree to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

Friedberg support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E137 · 2023-07-14 ▶ 1:15:24

it's obviously going to require a significant influx of capital by some estimates up to $2 trillion to increase the security capacity of NATO

Jason support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E137 · 2023-07-14 ▶ 1:09:53

I do think that the solution is 10 more Palmer Luckeys. I mean, I think the Silicon Valley's anti-supporting the military is a crazy position that needs to change and we should make more weapons and have VC-backed companies making weapon systems