Where I think we agree but I’m having trouble communicating is in labour and defence goals being able to both be achieved, but where instead of labor getting short-term stability and high pay amid long-term instability, shipbuilders get short-term instability amid high pay and long-term stability.

There is no structural reason America cannot have a competitive commercial shipbuilding industry. Including with collective bargaining. High-productivity industries naturally command high pay; we can guarantee that with regulation. Where the problem comes up is in purchase protectionism, which hinders our shipyards’ capabilities and quality (bad for defence) and creates a safe harbour from which our delicate industry can’t venture.

The goal I see is a lot of highly-productive dual-use shipyards that are subsidised for military procurement but must also compete to sell commercial ships. Subsidies are awarded systemically, but never guaranteed in the long run to a specific shipyard. The shipyard may need to grow and shrink as they win and lose business (and subsidies), but that’s better than the entire industry expanding and contracting on generational timescales, systematically training up a naïve workforce before dumping them into a market where their skills are near worthless.