Not an expert at all, but wasn't part of The Cold War playbook to outspend the USSR?
Investing in capability isn't necessarily a signal that we expect to deploy that capability. But it does force the enemy to level up, then when that enemy runs out of money, they tend to implode.
I literally have no idea, so more than happy to be educated!
Well I'm shooting from the hip here and sharing only my gut intuition, so welcome to the party!
In my opinion, governments buying (or taking over) producers that are necessary for the military feels like a drastic departure to how the military industry has operated for decades.
At least in the US, though I think also in Europe, governments have been happy to keep up the status quo of writing massive checks to military contractors that, at least on face value, provide military equipment and training at a massive markup. In the US that markup also tends to be shared with those in power writing the checks through "gifts", campaign donations, and high paying jobs.
Military contractors generally don't seem to be hurting for capital to pay employees, especially the actually vital contractors. If the government takes them over, the most likely motivator I see is for the military to have full control over production, projects, and information security.
Investing in capability isn't necessarily a signal that we expect to deploy that capability. But it does force the enemy to level up, then when that enemy runs out of money, they tend to implode.
I literally have no idea, so more than happy to be educated!