The Cold War, the process of European construction, the main global institutions of our times...
all of this has the same starting point: 1945, the Allied victory in World War Two, the most
decisive moment of the 20th century.
This mega-conflict marked a turning point for global geopolitics, shaping international
relations ever since.
However, today, in 2023, there are signs that we may be approaching another such watershed
moment.
Think about it for a second: The fall of the Soviet Union generated the illusion of an
era dominated by the United States, the great economic and military superpower.
Perhaps it was true in the 1990s, but the economic crisis of the Great Recession, the
attrition suffered in Iraq and the colossal failure in Afghanistan have put the American
empire in trouble.
It has also been shaken internally by the extreme political polarization generated by
Trumpism and his opponents.
The United States is not at its best and so, naturally, the question is obvious:
Who might have an interest in taking advantage of this apparent weakness?
Putin's Russia without a doubt.
As the main heir of the Soviet Union, Russia retains a fearsome nuclear arsenal.
And the Kremlin keeps reminding us that Western support for Ukraine will not come for free.
(Ex-Russian president Medvedev warns we're closer than ever to World War Three – and
risk of nuclear oblivion is growing.
– The Sun)
Now, Eastern Europe is not the only place where US interests are at risk.
North Korea continues to threaten South Korea and Japan.
Kim Jong-un refuses to negotiate his nuclear program with Washington and continues to test
missiles like someone trying on T-shirts.
The same could be said of Iran, which is one step away from enriching uranium to the level
needed to make nuclear weapons according to the inspectors of the UN atomic agency.
But hold on a minute, because if there is one country that has become the biggest headache
in Washington over the last decade, you know perfectly well that it is none other than
China.
Beijing has invested a lot of money and strengthened its nuclear power.
And as we explained months ago in another video, Xi Jinping's great obsession is the
annexation of Taiwan, a key US ally in the world semiconductor market.
Nor can we forget that China's influence has spread far beyond the Asian continent and
that its relations with Moscow are at their best.
So the world continues to change, and not exactly in Washington's favor.
To prevent the new Roman Empire of the West from falling once again to the barbarians,
the White House has a lot to learn from the classical era.
(Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
– Flavius Vegetius, 4th century) (If you want peace, prepare for war.
– Flavius Vegecius, 4th century)
Having an imposing military would serve to deter enemies from acting.
So in the White House they are already wondering whether the US military fulfills this role
and is prepared to deal with all these threats.
(Army report: Military has spent $32 billion since '95 on abandoned weapons programs.
– WashingtonPost)
As you can imagine, no one goes out to announce a failure like this and then stand idly by.
The first commandment of political communication is to offer an alternative to divert attention.
In this case, to replace some of the tasks of the failed Future Combat Systems program,
the Ground Combat Vehicle program was designed.
Its goal was to develop a next-generation armored combat vehicle to replace the Bradley.
But the Army also canceled this program five years later due to budget constraints introduced
in 2011.
And also to this day, because relieving the Bradley continues to be a real money grinder.
Take a look:
(Pentagon Wars Two: Army to spend at least $1.5 billion just on prototypes for third
attempt to replace Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
– Taskandpurpose)
The Obama Administration passed the BCA, the Budget Control Act, in 2011, which had notable
implications for the Department of Defense Budget as part of the White House's efforts
to reduce the rising deficit in the wake of the Great Recession.
This Budget Control Act established spending caps for 10 years, so it has been in effect
until 2021.
This is not the time to discuss whether this Act was necessary or not.
But we can say that it has been an obstacle to the modernization of the US Army, as reflected
in news stories like this one:
(Report: Defense Spending Must Exceed BCA Caps for Nuclear Modernization.
– Defensedaily)
So right now the question is where does the US military currently stand?
What are its main strengths and where might its weaknesses lie?
Today on VisualPolitik we are going to answer all these questions, but first let's take
a look at a little bit of history.
(A PENDING MODERNIZATION)
The US military is the Paris Saint-Germain of the military world.
It spends far more than any other nation by a long shot.
However, the question is the same for both: Is the ton of money they are investing each
year really being spent where it’s needed?
And here opinions differ.
History shows us that the US Army renews itself every 40 years.
It did so between the 1930s and 1940s, at the dawn of World War Two.
It also did so between the 1970s and 1980s, when the weapons that brought the US Army
to the pinnacle of military power entered service.
They are known as the Big Five and I'm sure you've heard of them all: the Abrams tank,
the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, the Apache attack helicopter, the Black Hawk utility
helicopter and the Patriot missile system.
Well, after the fall of the Soviet Union and with the world at relative peace, the Pentagon
launched a series of innovative weapons renewal programs in the late 1990s.
What no one had counted on was that in a single day the future would change forever.
We are, of course, talking about September 11, 2001.
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon prompted President George
Walker Bush to launch two wars at virtually the same time.
The military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were a success, toppling the Taliban
and Saddam Hussein's regime within a few weeks.
However, US troops were trapped in two endless conflicts against various armed groups, which
has required continuous human and financial resources and has been politically draining.
According to Brown University's Costs of War project, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
have consumed more than $4 trillion.
So, as both conflicts festered, military commanders were forced to give up their superweapons
of the future and focus instead on getting the most out of the Big Five.
Along the way, modernization programs like the Crusader, destined to be the next-generation
self-propelled howitzer needed by the US artillery, fell by the wayside.
But wait a minute, because if there is one project that was a real fiasco, it was Future
Combat Systems.
Launched in 2003 by the Bush Administration, its goal was to create new brigades equipped
with new manned and unmanned vehicles linked together to act in an unprecedentedly fast
and flexible manner.
The US military claimed it was its largest and most ambitious program since World War
Two.
However, the Obama Administration decided to cancel it as part of a change in strategy
focused on spending more on fighting terrorism and less on preparing for conventional warfare
against large States like China and Russia.
There’s nothing better than this headline from 2011 to give you an idea of the extent
to which the modernization of the US Army failed.
(Army report: Military has spent $32 billion since '95 on abandoned weapons programs.
– WashingtonPost)
As you can imagine, no one goes out to announce a failure like this and then stand idly by.
The first commandment of political communication is to offer an alternative to divert attention.
In this case, to replace some of the tasks of the failed Future Combat Systems program,
the Ground Combat Vehicle program was designed.
Its goal was to develop a next-generation armored combat vehicle to replace the Bradley.
But the Army also canceled this program five years later due to budget constraints introduced
in 2011.
And also to this day, because relieving the Bradley continues to be a real money grinder.
Take a look:
(Pentagon Wars Two: Army to spend at least $1.5 billion just on prototypes for third
attempt to replace Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
– Taskandpurpose)
The Obama Administration passed the BCA, the Budget Control Act, in 2011, which had notable
implications for the Department of Defense Budget as part of the White House's efforts
to reduce the rising deficit in the wake of the Great Recession.
This Budget Control Act established spending caps for 10 years, so it has been in effect
until 2021.
This is not the time to discuss whether this Act was necessary or not.
But we can say that it has been an obstacle to the modernization of the US military, as
reflected in news stories like this one:
(Report: Defense Spending Must Exceed BCA Caps for Nuclear Modernization.
– Defensedaily) And of course, if in all this time the Pentagon
has not done its homework and the threats have not stopped increasing, these two facts
combined indicate that the country that was considered the great military superpower until
not so long ago could have problems if events were to accelerate against its interests.
What kind of problems are we talking about?
Well...
Let’s get into it.
(AN INSUFFICIENT LEGACY)
Six years ago, Trump gave a new twist to the US National Security Strategy.
The White House refocused on the preparation of the mega-conflict against the great enemy
powers: China and Russia.
This change has been supported by Biden and also by Vladimir Putin.
High-intensity warfare is back, as the Russian invasion of Ukraine has taught us.
Well, the Heritage Foundation produces an annual report assessing the current state
of the US military.
Right now, fierce support is being provided to Ukraine, amounting to more than $27 billion
in military equipment and supplies.
Replenishing inventories will be complicated according to Dakota Wood, head of the Heritage
Foundation report.
Check it out.
According to Dakota Wood, the United States has already provided Ukraine with one-third
of its Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, as well as more than one million artillery shells
and one-third of its total stockpile of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
Don't forget that this stockpile shortage is occurring simply by providing assistance
to Ukraine.
Imagine what a direct conflict against a titan like China would require.
Well, you don't really need to imagine it, because there are already experts preparing
reports on the matter.
(U.S. Weapons Industry Unprepared for a China Conflict, Report Says.
– WSJ)
With respect to the Armed Forces, the Heritage Foundation report considers the capacity of
the US military to fulfill its mandated missions to be insufficient.
The report refers primarily to a question of size.
In every major conflict since World War Two, the United States mobilized the equivalent
of 21 brigades of ground forces, the Marine Corps approximately 15 battalions and the
Air Force about 600 combat aircraft.
In this sense, the Heritage Foundation considers that in order to secure US interests it is
advisable to have a force twice as large.
This would mean that the Army should have 42 brigades, when it currently has 31, the
Marines 30 battalions, when they now have 22, and the Air Force 1,200 fighters, when
it currently has barely half that number.
Likewise, the Navy would require 400 ships, when the actual number has already dropped
below 300.
The Heritage report recalls that in the 1980s, the Navy had nearly 600 ships of which approximately
100 remained deployed.
In 2022 the number of deployed ships stood at about 94, but the total fleet has declined
to 298, projected to be reduced to 280 by 2037.
The same workload on a fleet that number less than half that number means there is hardly
any time for training, readiness and proper maintenance and refurbishment as they are
continuously operational.
A similar problem exists in the Air Force.
According to Heritage, during the Cold War, fighter pilots averaged more than 300 flying
hours annually.
Today they average less than 120 hours.
Likewise, the Army operates with brigades, but focuses its training on a smaller number
of companies, assuming that in combat they will all coordinate well.
And some of you may be thinking: but Heritage's approach of being prepared for two wars is
a bit exaggerated, isn't it?
Well, everyone can think what they want.
But look at what Admiral Richard, commander of the US Strategic Command until his retirement
last December, argued before the Senate.
(VIDEO 2)
("I had previously emphasized our need to be able to deter two adversaries at the same
time.
That need is now an imperative.
You have to deter them all the time.
I do not get the luxury of having a priority to one and lesser to the other.
You have to do them all at the same time.)
Many people think that investing in defense is a waste of money and would be better spent
on social programs because nothing ever happens.
But hey, maybe our Ukrainian viewers could give us their opinion on this.
Currently, the US Defense budget amounts to more than $800 billion.
Let's see now what their big gambles are.
(GET OUT YOUR WALLET AGAIN, UNCLE SAM)
The international landscape has changed completely in the last year.
Russia invaded Ukraine and China is increasingly threatening Taiwan.
America's enemies are moving into action, and that is clear to the Pentagon.
The modernization of the US military can no longer be postponed, as General James McConville,
the current Chief of Staff of the US Army, points out.
(VIDEO 3)
(Everyone believes and I believe strongly that we must transform and modernize the army
now.
So we've got to do that.
We're three years into it, I think we've got some really good programs going.
We probably need about two or three more years of good solid budgets.
And I think that's something we have to do.)
Currently, one of the big gambles of the US Army is the future optionally manned combat
vehicle.
A lot is being invested in R&D because, naturally, optionally manned means that this vehicle
will be able to operate autonomously, a task that has never been achieved and that nobody
has any idea if it will be achieved or how much it will cost.
One estimate puts the figures as high as $46 billion, so it could end up being either a
military revolution or a failure of astronomical proportions.
Now, the Pentagon's big bet is the F-35, the fighter with which they intend to dominate
the skies and to which we have already dedicated several videos on VisualPolitik.
Uncle Sam, get your wallet ready again, this is an expensive toy.
(The Pentagon adds $14 billion to the total cost of the F-35 fighter to $412 billion,
up from $398 billion.
– Bloomberg)
A total of 2,400 F-35s are to be acquired, so each one will cost around $160 million,
a little more than what Barça paid for Dembelé.
In both cases, it remains to be seen whether such a large investment was worth it.
On the other hand, if we talk about the Navy, the program that has already been confirmed
as a failure is that of the Littoral Combat Ships, which are beginning to be retired barely
13 years after entering service due to their high operating costs as they require almost
double the number of crew than planned.
Now the US intends to make amends for this failed program with the Constellation-class
missile-launching frigate.
The first frigate will not arrive until 2026 and the program has already accumulated a
$2 billion cost overrun to almost $11 billion.
But hey, the most repeated phrase in the Pentagon is the same as in Jurassic Park: "We have
spared no expense."
Look.
Indeed, the United States spends more on defense than the next 10 biggest spenders combined.
But modernization requires investment.
In fact, one of the areas crying out for modernization is its nuclear forces.
For years they have been limited to extending the life of their equipment.
The Pentagon is currently developing the Sentinel, its new intercontinental ballistic missile,
which should be operational in 2029.
If this program does not succeed, the United States will see its nuclear deterrent capability
reduced.
Meanwhile, at the political level, President Biden's bet is on AUKUS.
AUKUS is a military alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The pact targets China's navy, the world's largest.
AUKUS seeks to increase the involvement of the White House and Downing Street in Pacific
affairs.
Thus, the United States and the United Kingdom will help Australia to acquire a fleet of
at least eight nuclear-powered submarines, capable of operating with greater range, endurance
and stealth.
The new focus on China is significantly increasing US investment in the Pacific region.
It has just approved $87 billion through 2028 that the Indo-Pacific Command plans to spend
on new weapons, construction and cooperating with allies in the region.
One of the priorities is to strengthen the defense of the island of Guam.
(Defending US Military Base Of Guam, Lockheed To 'Boost' Aegis Weapon System To Thwart Chinese
PLA Missiles.
– Euroasiantimes)
The Chinese DF-26 missile is known as the "Guam killer," so anything the US installs
to defend Guam is more than justified.
And now the question is over to you, do you think the US military is ready to take on
China and Russia, or do you think there will never be a direct clash and it would be better
to spend so many millions of dollars on other things?
You can leave me your answer in the comments.
As always, don't forget that we have new videos every week so subscribe to the channel so
you don't miss any of our updates.
If you liked this video, LIKE it and see you in the next one.
All the best and see you soon.