Final answer:
The Military self-sufficiency argument proposes that for the sake of national security, a country should produce key commodities and technologies internally, reducing dependency on other nations. However, this approach to protectionism has its critics who argue that it may not always be economically viable and that mutual economic interests through global trade can also ensure security.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Military self-sufficiency argument revolves around the belief that a country should be self-sufficient in producing key commodities, materials, and technologies critical for national security, to avoid dependency on other nations. This is seen as a branch of the national interest argument, which suggests that over-reliance on foreign supplies for crucial products such as oil or military technology could be detrimental in times of conflict or diplomatic tension. However, the validity of this argument is often questioned, as the economic and diplomatic costs of self-sufficiency can outweigh the potential security benefits. This is especially true when the notion of global trade is factored in, where interdependency can lead to stability through mutual economic interests. Part of the military self-sufficiency debate also ties into the broader discussion of the guns versus butter dilemma, highlighting the trade-offs between military spending and social welfare. This represents a division in public opinion on whether the national budget should prioritize military fortification or other social benefits.