The United States currently faces three extraordinary and unprecedented crises. Remarkably, a sense how deep these challenges appears to evade the media and the public.
First, and most imminently dangerous, is the threat to our national security. Never, since the British burned the White House in the War of 1812, has America had a combination of enemies with the military power, the manufacturing capacity, the population, and the raw materials to defeat the nation.
Second, Washington has overspent in the past, but never to this monumental degree and never without gaining much of anything in return. If the U.S. Treasury were an individual or a business, it would be considered bankrupt.
Third, our future generations are ill-served by an educational system that has failed them.
Examine the national security threat first.
National Security
Russia has the world’s largest nuclear force, and Vladimir Putin has been increasingly vocal about his willingness to use it.
A British Government study notes that “Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with a stockpile estimated at 5,580 warheads, of which 4,380 are operational (strategic, non-strategic and reserve).Russia’s large arsenal of 1,558 non-strategic/tactical warheads are not currently subject to any arms control limitations….Since 2008, Russia has been extensively modernising its nuclear capabilities. In 2018 President Putin outlined a number of new nuclear weapons capabilities that are intended to counter US missile defence systems. These include hypersonic missiles and glide vehicles, a nuclear-powered torpedo and a nuclear-powered cruise missile. In December 2023 the Russian Ministry of Defense said that modern weapons systems comprised 95% of its nuclear inventory.”
Russia’s lead in nuclear arms is echoed by China’s lead in naval vessels,
The U.S. Naval Institute reports, citing an official Pentagon study, that “ China’s navy is, by far, the largest of any country in East Asia, and sometime between 2015 and 2020 it surpassed the U.S. Navy in numbers of battle force ships, meaning the types of ships that count toward the quoted size of the U.S. Navy. DOD states that China’s navy “is the largest navy in the world with a battle force of over 370 platforms, including major surface combatants, submarines, ocean-going amphibious ships, mine warfare ships, aircraft carriers, and fleet auxiliaries. Notably, this figure does not include approximately 60 HOUBEI-class patrol combatants that carry anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM). The… overall battle force [of China’s navy] is expected to grow to 395 ships by 2025 and 435 ships by 2030.” The U.S. Navy, by comparison, included 292 battle force ships as of January 29, 2024, and the Navy’s FY2024 budget submission projects that the Navy will include 290 battle force ships by the end of FY2030. U.S. military officials and other observers are expressing concern or alarm regarding the pace of China’s naval shipbuilding effort, the capacity of China’s shipbuilding industry compared with the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry, and resulting trend lines regarding the relative sizes and capabilities of China’s navy and the U.S. Navy.”
The problem will not be addressed quickly. America’s capacity to rebuild has been sharply reduced due to the reduction in the defense industrial base. A Congressional Research Service report warns that
“The U.S. defense industrial base is not adequately prepared for the competitive security environment that now exists. It is currently operating at a tempo better suited to a peacetime environment. In a major regional conflict—such as a war with China in the Taiwan Strait—the U.S. use of munitions would likely exceed the current stockpiles of the U.S. Department of Defense, leading to a problem of “empty bins.”
Some think tanks, periodicals, DOD officials, and Members of Congress have voiced similar concerns. These arguments often center on the role the industrial base would play in a great power war, and make reference to studies, wargames, and forecasts suggesting the United States could run short of critical defense equipment in a conflict (especially one involving China). Industrial capacity could help determine the outcome of such a contingency in two broad ways: (1) enabling production in advance, so equipment could be stockpiled and prepositioned; and (2) allowing materiel to be replenished after hostilities have begun. In addition to conditioning U.S. military performance during a conflict, advocates of expanding industrial capacity have touted it as a means of strengthening deterrence. If potential adversaries believe U.S. industry can sustain a war effort indefinitely, this argument runs, they may be less likely to risk conflict.
A Breaking Defense analysis warns that “America’s military is inappropriately structured and the US industrial base is ‘grossly inadequate’ to confront the dual threats of Russia and China, according to a new, high-powered formal review. “The U.S. public are largely unaware of the dangers the United States faces or the costs (financial and otherwise) required to adequately prepare” for a global conflict, reads an early page from the final report of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy…A bipartisan ‘call to arms’ is urgently needed so that the United States can make the major changes and significant investments now rather than wait for the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The support and resolve of the American public are indispensable.”
Thus, the United States currently has an inadequate military, and lacks the timely capacity to address the crisis.
The article concludes tomorrow
Illustration: Pixabay