Russia today is out producing NATO on 155 munitions and took about two years.

We have no strategic plan as a country for how we preserve supply in a catastrophic situation.

Every war game we run, we run out of munitions missiles in like six to seven days.

And then it takes about two to three years to refill that battery.

We shoot all our missiles in one week, and then we have none for two years.

If the next conflict demands both brains and bulk, can the U.S. combine innovation with

industrial scale fast enough to win? On this episode of The Ben and Mark Show, we're joined by

Brian Schim, co-founder and CEO of Andrewil, and Chris Power, founder and CEO of Hadrian.

They break down what it really means to out-invent and out-adapt.

Ukraine proved that mass production matters and that advanced weapons without industrial capacity don't deter.

We also discussed the future of U.S. manufacturing, supply chains in rare earths,

automation, off-take agreements, regulatory bottlenecks, and how China's anti-access systems

shape the fight over Taiwan. Let's get into it.

Brian, I believe Palmer has said in an interview that as we think about competition with China,

it's going to be hard to match the scale from the get-go, but where we can continue to win

is in innovation and R&D, and that can make up for it. How would you edit that characterization,

or why don't you flesh out more of what that means? Well, I think the, like, so the U.S. has taken this strategy over the last 20 or 30 years

based on this like probably very anomalous and incorrect Gulf War experience,

where the U.S. having prepared to fight on like the most aggressive ally with the Soviet Union

had invested in all this technology,

believe that somehow punching down on a third world nation and winning was indication that

the strategy was vindicated. And so it went down this like conclusion of technical superiority

...