To what extent is the United States of America prepared to maintain its
military dominance? Has the war in Ukraine revealed any serious
problems in the US military? Why do so many analysts in Washington suddenly seem uneasy?
And, keep in mind that in the current geopolitical context, these questions
are more important than ever. Just look at what Admiral Charles Richard, then no less
than Commander of the United States Strategic Command, had to say in 2022. Check it out:
("This Ukraine crisis that we're in right now, this is just the warmup [...] The big
one is coming. And it isn't going to be very long before we're going to get
tested in ways that we haven't been tested for a long time." – Navy Admiral Charles Richard,
former Commander of US Strategic Command) Now, what exactly is he referring to?
I don't know, after all, if the war in Ukraine has shown anything, it has been precisely the
enormous superiority of Western weaponry, training and financing with respect to
what had been one of its great adversaries: Vladimir Putin's Russia. Isn't that right?
So why does there seem to be so much concern all of a sudden, and is there really a reason?
Well VisualPolitik viewers, the United States military is the most powerful fighting force
that has ever existed... However, the war in Ukraine has brought to light and accentuated
some very significant weaknesses that are now generating a lot of concern.
In this video we are going to tell you exactly what the five great weaknesses of the US’s
military capacity are, the world's largest economic, political and military superpower.
Let’s get started (1. A QUESTION OF PRIORITIES)
The United States is at a historic turning point. Putin's Russia has the plot,
North Korea is becoming an increasingly significant threat, Iran is on the verge
of getting its hands on the nuclear bomb and, above all, the People's Republic of
China hopes to challenge the US for the top spot as the world's great superpower.
("The threats we face today are more formidable than at any time in the
last 20 years." – Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee)
Perhaps that is why the United States has by far the highest military budget on the
planet. However, despite this, some analyses, such as that of the Heritage Foundation,
state that the readiness of the US Armed Forces is currently "weak". The United States spends
a lot, but it also has far, far more commitments than any other country.
In addition, the United States spends a lot in absolute terms, but less and less in relative
terms. If we take into account inflation, rising equipment costs and wages, the level of spending
in recent years may not be as high. In fact, if we adjust military budgets
by the price level of each country, for example, what it costs to have a soldier or what supplies
cost, the story changes quite a bit. Notice, for example, this 2019 chart.
The first column is US military spending, the second is the sum of the military spending
of China, India and Russia. As you can see, US military spending is much higher,
but what happens if we adjust the budgets by the US price level? This is exactly what happens:
The US superpower still spends more than anyone else, but the difference is no longer so large.
And in any case, unlike other countries,
the military is no longer Washington's top priority. You don't believe me? Well,
look at this chart. This is how the federal budget has evolved in recent years.
As you can see, the US government is spending more and more. In fact, in terms of GDP, non-military
spending has grown by almost 50% since the turn of the century, from 12.6% of GDP to 18.6%.
However, the same has not been true for military spending. A smaller and smaller
item within the federal budget. Take a look. As a result, military spending is becoming a
smaller and smaller part of the federal budget. In addition, the military budget has recently
included billions of dollars for things like limiting the military's CO2 and other greenhouse
gas emissions. Which may be a good idea, but which clearly does not determine military capability.
For example, this document that you see here is the Implementation Plan of the Army's Climate
Change Strategy for the years 2023-2027. And this is just one example.
Of course, this lack of priority has consequences.
For example, the last major army modernization plans were carried out in the 1980s,
almost 40 years ago. We are talking, for example, about the appearance of
the M-1 Abrams tank, the M-2 Bradley or the Blackhawk and Apache helicopters.
Yes, obviously, they have improved and are still ahead of their rivals,
but we are talking about equipment that appeared almost 40 years ago. And that's a long time.
And, take note, because we can find a very similar situation in the Air Force.
Since 1987 the number of fighters, bombers, refueling and transport aircraft has not only
been reduced by more than 30%, but today the aircraft are on average much, much older.
To give you an idea, the average age of US Air Force aircraft is 29.4 years.
Yes, yes, that’s right. 29.4 years.
In fact, the average age of some aircraft such as B52 bombers or KC-135 refueling
aircraft exceeds 60 years. The average age of the F-15C is 37.8 years and that
of the F-16 C and D versions exceeds 31 years. And, yes, I know, most of them are up to date,
but we are talking in general about very dated equipment and it shows.
Well, all this has led many analysts to fear that the same thing will happen to the armed forces
as has happened to infrastructure. That they will go from being excellent to being terribly
decrepit. As Washington has other priorities on where and how to spend money, military systems
will gradually age to alarming levels. In other words, the fear is that the
ever-increasing social spending will swallow up everything else.
Surprised? Well, we're just getting started. Pay close attention to the second major problem,
a problem that the war in Ukraine has brought into sharp focus. Listen up.
(T2. WARNING: TOO MUCH BUREAUCRACY, NOT ENOUGH AMMUNITION)
Most people living on this planet know that the United States has
the most powerful military in the world and has had for decades.
What is not so well known is that these armed forces could face a serious problem:
lack of ammunition and supplies. This is something that has been
witnessed all too well in the Ukrainian war. A modern large-scale war is and will be first
and foremost an industrial war. That is to say, an army not only has to have the best weapons,
it also has to have guaranteed supplies, including, logically, ammunition.
For example, it is estimated that the United States has shipped about one-third of its
entire stockpile of Javelin anti-tank missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine.
To give you an idea, at current production rates it would take more than seven years to replenish
the stock delivered to Ukraine. In the case of the Stinger, if we look at its production
level before it was completely stopped, we are talking about more than thirteen long years.
And the question is, but how on earth is this possible?
Well, the truth is that for years, not much attention was paid to the supply
chain. Let's just say that the priority was to buy and develop new war equipment. New planes,
new aircraft carriers, new armored vehicles. The problem is that in the absence of contracts,
the capacity to manufacture ammunition and weapons systems that were not so "in demand" was reduced.
("We spend a lot of money on some very exquisite large systems,
and we do not spend or focus as much on the munitions necessary to support those[...]
Nobody's buying the weapons systems necessary to engage for anything other than a very,
very short-term battle." – Gregory Hayes, Raytheon's Chief Executive)
The point is that the army apparently didn't need it either... Of course, when we cast our
minds back to conflicts like Iraq or Afghanistan, where the military superiority was so clear that
there was no need for large deployments. However, if, on the other hand, we think
of China and a hypothetical conflict in Taiwan, things change completely. In such circumstances,
the need for ammunition could far exceed current stocks and production capacity.
For example, according to a series of analyses and war games developed by the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, a leading US think tank, in the event of a clash
with China, the United States could run out of long-range munitions and precision-guided
weapons in less than a week. That is precisely what explains
news headlines like this: (US Navy Looks To Drastically
Increase Missile Production. – NavalNews) The problem is that turning this around takes
a long time, it requires skilled labor, investment in new factories or expansion of existing ones,
building logistics networks, and so on and so forth. Remember for example
the case of the Stinger missile. The CEO of Raytheon, the company that manufactures it,
said that resuming production of that piece of equipment would take no less than 18 months.
To make matters worse, it is not just the United States. The vast
majority of its allies are in a very similar situation, thus multiplying the problem.
Let's take, for example, a look at the case of Ukraine. Look at it:
According to many analysts, this country could and should be firing at least 250,000
artillery shells a month, but they are firing less than half of that number. Why? Well,
because the 12 European companies that manufacture the necessary ammunition barely have the capacity
to produce 650,000 projectiles in a whole year. And in the case of the United States, production
stands at approximately 20,000 shells per month. But that's not even the end of it, it is also very
difficult to find some basic components that are manufactured in the United
States and not in countries like China. This is considered a clear risk for National Security.
For example, in September 2022, all deliveries of new F-35s were halted for a period of time. They
found a Chinese-made alloy in some components. Well, at this point in time, the Biden
Administration included in its budget request to Congress an increase of more than 50% to purchase
missiles and ammunition, with the idea not only to replenish the stock delivered to Ukraine,
but also to start re-establishing the supply chains. Along these lines,
the production of artillery shells, for example, is expected to increase by 500% in just two years.
(When it comes to munitions, make no mistake: We are buying to the limits of the industrial
base even as we are expanding those limits, and we're continuing to cut through red tape
and accelerate timelines. Dr. Kathleen Hicks, Deputy Secretary of Defense)
However, do you think that this is where all the problems in the production chain end? Well,
you are very, very wrong. Take a look. (Pentagon's dated budget process too slow to
beat China, new report says. – DefenseNews) (Catch Up: China Is Getting New Weapons
Faster Than the U.S. – National Interest) Basically, the time it takes the Pentagon
to identify a need and award a contract has increased 7-fold since the 1950's. Let's just say
the process has become too slow and cumbersome. (I would tell you anecdotally that China is still
after gains we've made in the last five years or so about five to six times faster than us in
acquisition and in purchasing power parity spend about one dollar to our twenty dollars to get to
the same capability, Cameron Holt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Acquisition). And this brings us, directly, to the
third major problem of the US military, one we've already told you about here on VisualPolitik: the
hyper-concentration of the sector. Check it out. (T3.
THE CONTROL OF THE GIANTS) Since the fall of the Soviet Union,
the number of prime contractors has gone from more than 80 to basically these five
major groups you see on the screen. ("Not too many years ago, we had five
times as many contractors and there was more competition and more creativity," – Ken Calvert,
Republican congressman from California) In other words, what President Eisenhower
called the "military-industrial complex" in 1961 has now come under the control of a handful of
giants. Practically everything goes through them. For example. whereas 30 years ago, the Department
of Defense could count on 8 suppliers of military aircraft, today it can only count on 3: Boeing,
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. In the case of missiles, the number has
gone from 8 to 3. Today, 90% of US missiles are manufactured by only three companies: Boeing,
Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. And in certain cases of subcomponents, the situation is even worse:
The Javelin, for instance, is based on Aerojet Rocketdyne's advanced solid
propellant rocket engine, there are no alternatives. If this company has
a problem or a production process fails, then it’s game over. Another company,
Williams International builds the turbofan engines for most cruise missiles. Without
this fan there are no alternatives. And so we could go on with a long list of examples.
In other words, competition has been reduced. And you know what that means:
Less innovation, more cost, less spare production capacity,
fewer jobs and much more dependence on what may or may not happen with a particular company.
But do you want a concrete example? Well, according to US government data,
small companies generate 16.5 times more patents than large corporate giants. However,
over the last decade the number of small companies in the US military
industrial complex has dropped by 40%. But as we have already talked about this
issue at length in a video that I’ll link for you in the description, let's move on to the FOURTH
major problem facing the US armed forces today. Any idea where this is going? Well... Stay tuned.
(T4. YVAN EHT NIOJ) Manpower – plain and simple,
there is a labor shortage. The United States is going through its worst recruiting streak
since 1973. Figures show 2022 was a bad year and 2023 looks set to be even worse.
For example, in the 2022 financial year, the Army fell 15,000 troops short of its
troop target. In 2023 the number of troops may be under by about 20,000. Thus, it is expected
that the 2023 fiscal year will close with about 450,000 troops, compared to the slightly more
than 500,000 that are considered necessary. And it is not just the US Army, the rest of the
armed forces are in a very similar situation. Even the military academies are being affected by this
crisis. For example, applications to the Air Force Academy have fallen by 28%, those to the Naval
Academy by 20% and West Point by 10%. This is exactly what explains news
items like this: (Navy Canceling Early
Discharges and Offering Extensions to Keep More Sailors in Uniform. – Military.com)
VisualPolitik viewers, in the United States there are jobs, the unemployment rate is at practically
historic lows and it shows. Competition for young workers is very high, and the armed
forces have not escaped this dynamic. But that's not the only problem.
The pool of young people fit to join the military without needing any
exceptions is getting smaller and smaller: vision problems, asthma,
mental health, obesity, background... Since 2016 it has gone from 29% to 23%.
To make matters worse, for various reasons, the armed forces are not experiencing a high
point in terms of popularity. Some surveys show that the level of confidence in this institution
has dropped significantly in recent years, making it a much less attractive proposition.
(Trust in US military remains below 50 percent: survey.
About 48 percent of Americans say they have a great deal of trust in the military,
slightly up from 45 percent last year. Confidence in the U.S. military has
plummeted in recent years. In 2018, about 70 percent of Americans said they had a great
deal of trust in the institution. – The Hill) And finally we have the fifth major problem. No
less than this: (5. NEW
THREATS AND NEW NEEDS)
Let's see, don't get me wrong, despite all the problems we've seen, the US military is
still on another level. However, that doesn't mean they don't have cracks, as you've seen they do.
Well, on top of all these problems we have to add another issue: the new operational needs.
We've talked about this in a bunch of videos here on VisualPolitik:
China is modernizing its military at full speed and has an increasingly
aggressive foreign policy. Russia has just become a very
unreliable adversary that has also suspended the New Start agreement that aimed to limit
the total number of deployed nuclear warheads. The Ukrainian War has exposed many weaknesses
that now urgently need to be overcome. North Korea is becoming a growing nuclear
threat and Iran seems very close to getting its hands on the bomb as well.
(NORTHCOM: U.S. to assume 'increased risk' against North Korean ICBMs (intercontinental
ballistic missile) in 2025. – Inside Defense) All this will entail such things as having to
multiply the missile defense system. Because these new capabilities are already aimed
directly at the United States' own territory. And guess what? While in the 1980s the Reagan
Administration announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, popularly known as Star Wars,
which called for hundreds and hundreds of satellite-mounted ground and space-based
interceptors, today the United States has barely more than 40
ground-based interceptors. Catching up will, of course,
take a lot of money and a lot of energy. And this is just one example.
And so, although the United States is the country that spends the most on defense and
has by far the best and most powerful military force, these are the 5 major problems that the
US Armed Forces face today in order to achieve their main objective: to continue to maintain an
enormous military superiority over any adversary. Of course having at your fingertips the B1 and
B2 bombers, the 180 F22 stealths, the F35, the Apache, the Ohio and Virginia class submarines,
the Tomahawk missiles, the Nimitz and Ford class carriers, the Abrams, the more than 400 Himars or
the nearly 1,000 M270s make you a formidable and perhaps invincible opponent, but you can
see that there’s always room for improvement. But having reached this point, it's your turn:
Do you think the US will maintain its global dominance for the next few decades? What do
you think is the biggest problem of all? Will China catch up?
Leave us your impressions in the comments and let's open a debate. And you know,
if you found this video interesting, don't forget to like and subscribe to VisualPolitik.
Once again thank you very much for being there, All the best and see you next time.