Usa: pursuit of military dominance obsolete

Usa: quest for military domination obsolete

Image: clay banks/unsplash

The chairman of the armed services oversight committee sees the claim by low-cost, "tiny little drones" undermined

"The u.S. Should abandon its quest for military dominance", that is an unusual phrase these days. Just recently, the swedish sipri institute (stockholm international peace research institute) calculated a new high in global investment in military strike power. A whopping 1.$981 billion is said to have been spent on armament worldwide in 2020. Top of the list was the usa with 778 billion dollars. This is equivalent to 39 percent of global military spending (rallying despite pandemic).

The statement mentioned at the outset came these days from david adam smith (usually just adam smith), a democratic politician who chairs the armed services and military budget oversight committee: the house armed services committee. Smith cannot be accused of original pacifist motives. He voted for the patriot act in 2001 and the invasion of iraq by u.S. Troops in 2003. But in his view, it is now time for the u.S. To align its military objectives with a new reality.

The u.S. Military must realize that global dominance is no longer a viable strategy for national defense, because the pursuit of this unrealistic goal makes the country more insecure.

Adam smith

Smith, in his tweets advocating for policies against inequality, advises recalibrating military aspirations not for humanitarian reasons, but because the machinery used to assert military supremacy is too fragile for the use of comparatively cheap drones. That’s where the movie set comes in:

"You can’t just be so rough and mean that nobody will take you on because they can take on a tiny little drone."

Smith thus echoes a statement by u.S. Central command chief gen. Kenneth f. Mckenzie jr. Which at the beginning of february spoke of the u.S. Having "are on the wrong side of the cost and position curve at the moment", because the drone technology favors the attacker and not the defender.

The drone systems are inexpensive, easy to adapt to circumstances and requirements, weaponize, and proliferate, according to kenneth f. Mckenzie jr. , who warned that drones provide adversaries with the operational opportunity to, "u.S. And partner facilities to be monitored and targeted". At the same time, he said, it is easy to plausibly deny the matter, which adds up to "an unstoppable return in favor of our adversary" .

I consistently argue to my air force colleagues that the future of air operations (i.O. "Future of flight") is vertical and unmanned, and i believe that we are now beginning to perceive it. The growing threat from these systems, coupled with our lack of reliable network capabilities to counter them, is the most worrying tactical development since the advent of improvised explosive devices in iraq.

General kenneth f. Mckenzie jr.

The chairman of the oversight committee now recalculated the return on investment: drone swarms would cost next to nothing but deliver more firepower than an f-35, which would have difficulty penetrating a given zone because of air defense systems. Adam smith warned of a situation, "where we may have $100 billion worth of aircraft that can’t penetrate our adversaries’ zones, but they can hit us with 75 percent worth of drones.000 dollars kicking the disc out of the body."

To this descriptive sentence he added, according to information from the airforce magazine adding yet another factor complicating the u.S. Military’s claim of global dominance: russia’s asymmetric strategic capabilities through hackers and "disinformation campaigns", which are also comparatively inexpensive, he said, so that the thresholds of global competition are no longer the old ones:

"In the world we live in today, no single nation will dominate because the barriers to entry are so low. So you have to be much more nimble, much smarter and much more diversified if you want to achieve your national security goals."

But the old school still dominates "a lot of money for high-caliber prestige weapons", as bloomberg reported two days ago: almost half a billion us dollars per interceptor missile ("interceptor") to protect the u.S. From approaching nuclear missiles from north korea and iran. A system consisting of 31 such units is being planned interceptors, with ten for tests and 21 for real operations.

To this the always us-critical blog moon of alabama (from which you could also read such analyses about the us competitors in the competition) also has a calculation: three "interceptors" it takes to hit an incoming missile. According to the report, the 21 interceptors were targeted for seven attacks. However, north korea was able to equip its missiles with mirvs (multiple independent reentry vehicles), providing each missile with multiple independent reentry bodies.

"You do not need to carry expensive nuclear warheads. One missile with seven exchange bodies would be enough to empty all the silos of the ground based missile defense (gmd)" – not necessarily a good outlook for u.S. Security, but a good deal for the arms industry, according to moon of alabama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.