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).
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.