Encyclopedias divide "intelligence" into three categories: human, animal and military, the last of which is always preparing for the last war. It has been said that WWIII be fought with nuclear weapons and WWIV will be fought with clubs.
9
Bret Stephens makes a convincing argument—if you are completely without a moral compass.
"The answer ... is to radically increase the numbers of military platforms, lower their costs, and — within ethical limits — enhance their autonomy. "
How exactly does one create a fleet or force of unmanned weapons "within ethical limits?"
Autonomous weapons are a recipe for unending warfare. With no (or few) sons and daughters sent home in flag-draped caskets to grieving families, what is left to check our savagery? Will we only stop pounding our Muslim or Asian enemies with drone-operated guns and missiles when we go over budget?
I thought all conservatives these days worshipped George Orwell. Perhaps it's time you re-read '1984."
16
We are talking about an administration that refuses to accept that the most dangerous weapon in ANY war is.....INFORMATION!
And that's a war we are losing. We lost an election in 2016, lost part of it in 2018 (the Senate) and they are determined that we lose it again in 2018.
Meanwhile, the White House, which should be leading the cyber war fight, is shackling it because the guy called "President" is terrified that protecting our election will make HIS election look illegitimate, which, we know now, it was.
Still, taking serious steps to protect the 2018 election, while acknowledging interference would convey more legitimacy on his administration, but he's to thick and egotistical to recognize that.
So it's no wonder that he likes big "boom-boom" phallic symbols rather than what actually will WORK to defend our nation.
In every way, this administration is a risk to our nation.
I rarely agree with Bret, but this time, he is spot on.
9
The real military edge is not military technology, which changes over time among adversaries, but what inspires your ‘technologically primitive enemies” to challenge a superior military force despite their losses. Palestinian youth challenge Israeli tanks, snipers and helicopters every day with sling shots and rocks. Resentment at injustice has always been the military edge over time.
4
Why is it so difficult to change the military? In a book about the history of the Skunk Works (developers of top secret and stealth aircraft), the author tells not just the story of the F 117, but also a Stealth boat, an idea Lockheed proposed to replace most of a carrier's defense ships with fast catamarans that would be very hard to see and defeat and crewed by only a small number of officers.
When the Navy visited the prototype an admiral asked where the paint locker was located. The Lockheed people asked, "What's a paint locker?" They were told that it held cans of paint the enlisted personnel would need to help keep rust off the ship. Lockheed explained that the stealth boats wouldn't have enlisted crewmen to repair the craft, that they were based on very high reliability technology, and repainting would make the craft more visible.
Since an admiral only gets to be an admiral by managing large numbers of personnel, it quickly became clear that Lockheed wasn't likely to make a sale...
7
The problem with our military is not its equipment. The problem is that ever since WW II we have not used it effectively. War is a horrible thing but if you get into one you have to fight it effectively, to win. Period. But if you worry about politically correct way to fight and about the "proportionality" of your response, you can't inflict the kind of pain on your enemy, that is necessary to win.
That's what Macarthur said. He may have been arrogant and conceited but he knew how to fight a war.
2
Pipe down, sonny boy civilian. There's money to be made here...
5
I think this is a false choice. What’s presented is a choice between old school weapons, like carriers, and new ones, which would supposedly also be cheaper.
First, the new ones will never be cheaper either. There’s no way the “military industrial complex” would give back any dollars!
That’s a selling argument, following the false choice, a good rhetorical tactic, I think.
The real choice is between wasteful and unnecessary militarism, and a more sustainable global socio-economic system that makes militarism lesser and lesser necessary.
The US has an opportunity to shape a new world based on more sustainable values-values that require lesser militarism: where social inequality that causes the destabilization that creates social upheaval is continually reduced.
Instead, this false choice continues the status quo of winner-take-all socio-economics, where fewer and fewer people amass the economic benefits while leaving more and more with less.
This sort of situation can only cause more social-upheaval. We need to think outside the box!!! This essay is all about “smarter” bombs and bullets, it’s tired, it’s getting tired!!
People are just tired of the same all the time, more war war and war and war and poverty, yet people work their tails off!!
That’s why despots and demagogues like Trump are increasingly arising again!!
Why can’t we try to be more egalitarian. Yes, let’s have some commerce, let’s have some business. But let’s also be more fair, for the sake of peace!!!
2
A timely piece. Alas our nation always seems to turn a deaf ear to warnings based on science and technology. That is, until faced with a tragic event. Then, it's "all hands on deck",and "spare no expense" to fashion a tech solution. To wit:
A COMMUNIST Sputnik begat an American moon landing.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor begat the A-bomb
A radical Muslim attach on 9/11/2001 begat 17 years of DRONE STRIKEs.
Need we merely wait on the next tragedy for our military industrial complex to save the day?
Meanwhile, threats to our planet and our democracy, of which we have been substantially warned by science and technology of their ultimate demise at the hands of men, go unaddressed.
Also, McCain did not coin the Military Industrial Complex phrase. He borrowed it from Ike's farewell speech. It has always been "all about the Benjamin's, baby".
3
As true as could be. I have no faith in the military and their arrogance and go along to get a long history. Money is at the heart of this as corrupt as this country has become between Citizens United and Trump I SEE NO CHANGE OF ANY CHANGE AT THE MOMENT.
5
I totally agree with this column. I have tried to argue the same points whenever I have the rare opportunity to talk with someone in the US military.
We need to rethink strategic defense and deterrence. We need to understand how asymmetrical warfare changes the equations of war. We need to stop fighting WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.
The next war will use drones that operate in and under the sea, on land and in the air. The next war will use biological and chemical weapons, especially ones targeted at a nations food supply. The next war will use cyber warfare and cultural warfare.
3
"the Navy is straining to reach a target of 355 ships"
For Reagan, the magic number was 600. Meanwhile, Gary Hart argued for cheaper, smaller vessels that leveraged our technological advantages and we could actually afford to send into harm's way.
The modern American aircraft carrier group is undoubtedly the most potent marine military force in history. But it is also vulnerable to many emerging threats. The current 'administration' is hopeless. Let's please encourage such substantive discussions in the upcoming election.
2
Drone ships and planes will have their place in future wars -- but attempts to build cheap vessels with small crews as not always worked in the past.
In the 1960s the Israelis replaced big WWII era destroyers with FAC missile boats to great success. The littoral combat ships of the current US navy have not been so successful. They poorly protected, little firepower, and a crew to small to undertake basic repairs at sea.
People counted the battleship out in the 1880s because of the torpedo -- but innovation in technology, design, gunnery, and tactics meant that it wasn't till WWII that they were eclipsed by aircraft. And even then the last major naval action fought by the US against Japan was a surface gunnery and torpedo action including battleship vs. battleship.
Some have even suggested that armed with electric lasers, rail guns, and hyper-sonic missiles that the battleship might make a comeback. The carrier might also not be dead -- but their design and the tactics of their use will need to be rethought.
Unfortunately the only way to find out definitively what works and what doesn't -- is to have a war.
This analysis may be only 50% correct. Aircraft carriers, which provide a blanket coverage over about 200 square miles, were also brought in to avoid the entanglements of land-based bases --which were the anchors of the immediately post-War II US strategy. All those CENTO, SEATO et al are long dead and gone, NATO is still with us, but it needs significant changes, which luckily President Trump is harping upon. The Air-craft carriers are still potent, admittedly, technology is generating cheaper and more volatile foes! In short, the US military strategy of the post-World War II remains valid, albeit with some needed timely modifications.
1
The vulnerabilities of these large legacy forces like the carrier fleet have been known and understood by reformers in the Defense establishment for literally decades.
The problem, of course, is that these legacy systems enjoy gigantic political clout both within the DoD and on the Hill. This clout allows them to smother all challengers.
Inside the DoD, careers are built around buying and operating these systems. The officers whose careers are at stake also usually run things.
And if it wasn't hard enough for a huge bureaucracy like DoD to reform itself, the Hill is even worse. While a few members are genuinely interested in Defense affairs, for most, the DoD is primarily a giant ATM delivering cash to their constituents. That's why they sit on the relevant committees -- to keep the money coming.
You do anything to really, truly challenge the primacy of those big legacy systems you will be swarm attacked by various groups in the DoD and then on Capitol Hill. See what happens if you try to retire even one carrier.
The reformers are completely outgunned.
4
Let's have a little faith in our military. Our country is flexible and creative, as well as economically powerful, to adapt to the changes in future warfare. We are already doing so and we are not operating as if we were fighting the last war. US strategic thinking and armaments are au courant. Our perceived enemies are compelled to do what they must to counter the power of the US because of their lack resources and options. What else are they going to do? The time is neither 1415(Agincourt), 1932(Pearl Harbor), 1940(Taranto)or 1941(Pearl Harbor) or 2006. Our naval leadership is not hide bound to a strategy that ignores all that is discussed in your editorial but remains vigilant and on guard.
"A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking could change the way America prepares for the next war"
Well Mr. Stephens, the Pentagon is the world's biggest jobs program for retired officers who set up "security consulting firms" or take lobbying jobs with weapons companies. I'm trying to remember who the last "visionary and independent leader" was that came out of the ranks of the defense establishment.
Congress, likewise, views the military budget solely in terms of money to flow to the districts of those in power.
As for a POTUS capable of long-term thinking, we had one. We replaced him with a guy who works for the Russians.
6
The English longbow was also decisive in the battles of Crecy and Poitiers during the Hundred Years War, both of which occurred before Agincourt. Perhaps that reflects Einstein's definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
3
There is no reason for flying expensive manned aircraft, especially when much of the cost are all the systems to keep people alive. Flying drones with no cockpit or other human accessories and aircraft unencumbered by multiple Gs of gravity make unmanned aircraft far cheaper and more maneuverable than the obsolete F-35.
2
The carriers can be easily destroyed by missiles in a big war with an advanced adversary. However, they have been useful in small wars like invading Iraq, correct? Is this what we are preparing for?
Very scary, and completely believable. Everything we do in this country is geared towards short-term profit, and loyalty to the United States by its politicians or CEOs is nothing more than a quaint idea, especially on the GOP side of the aisle.
3
Companies that supply these dinosaurs to the military have facilities in as many Congressional districts as possible. No senator or representative wants to vote to close a factory in his district.
2
This is not news, well to me it isn't. I even added the Song submarine incident to my science fiction story a few years ago.
I overheard way back in the last century, a long time ago, that in our own war games, our own subs have "destroyed the fleet" being undetected. The results were dismissed.
And If I recall correctly, the British were going nuts looking for the Diesel Electric subs in the Falklands war.
Then add to that the old Soviet tactic of numerically overwhelming the Nato forces sea and land. I mean how many missiles does a jet carry? How many jets does one side have verses the other. Is the opposition side hardened against EMP, which brings up the high ground question, our need for satellite communication and all that.
And lastly, how much of our computer source code in our computers was installed in China or chips purchased elsewhere? NETCENTRIC SECURITY people.
2
It isn't about defense. Just like everything else, it is about what makes the richest of rich even richer. They don't even care if works.
3
We have no need of a bipartisan spirit in Congress. All we need is a Dem White House and Congress and an end to the filibuster. Put the military on a glide path to $500 billion of spending and cut the general staff by 50% immediately.
3
The slalom races on the snows of hell will commence at 0900 hours. Skiers, ready your gear
Bret Stephens has finally written something with which I can agree.
I am a Vietnam combat veteran, an Infantry officer trained specifically to engage in counter-guerilla, jungle warfare. The Vietnamese unit I advised (our Province Reaction Force), performed superbly against the Viet Cong in one of the most fiercely contested provinces in the Delta.
The American units north of us, tragically, were confounded, hammered and harassed into impotence by VC and NVA units with a sixteenth of the technological power and even smaller fraction of the firepower.
The Trump "administration" stoking the fire for a war with Iran is a great example from today's headlines. Yes, we can cause horrendous damage to Iran's infrastructure and population with our technology. But our capital ships can't safely transit the Straits of Hormuz and what ships can enter are going to be sitting ducks for swarms of Iranian shallow-draft torpedo boats. And you can bet the rest of the world that uses Iranian oil will be mad as hell about our mucking about!
The United States Navy spends as much as the next seven nations with blue water navies combined. And the Navy, despite their dedication to mission, can't realistically keep us safe.
The reason for using soft power and Special Forces is to avoid large-scale conflicts we're going to lose.
10
Cyber warfare orinformation warfare. Select enemy. Delete.
2
And THIS, my friends, is why we need smart, conservative thinkers in our American discourse.
I hope someone in Trumps administration takes this to heart.
-- DS
Trump does not do smart.
3
Mr. Stephens misses the point his own metaphor makes: just as the British-French antagonism was pointless and self destructive so to is America's overuse of military force hurting us and the world.
3
For a long time I have thought the US Military looked like a big, bloated, over-confident heavyweight, like George Forman waiting to be made a fool of by the slimmer, trimmer, faster Muhammad Ali back in 1974's "Rumble in the Jungle". Leave it to President Donald "Easy to Fool" Trump to bet all his money on the oversized heavyweight, when a leaner, meaner fighting machine like China is just waiting to bounce off the ropes and end the battle with a series of quick jabs. Sad, but likely.
4
timely and appropriate article - the writing's on the wall
and the lesson ?
what we learn from history is we don't learn from history
history doesn't repeat - but it rhymes
I like the analogy with the longbow
my prediction has been WWIII starts when China turns off the internet.
why use physical weapons when China is supplying 'free if you sign over your oil supply' to countries like Ecuador, full surveillance systems which help dictators simply remove dissenters and intimidate entire populations
as in the Chinese saying 'kill the chicken to scare the monkey'
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting” - The Art of War, Sun Tzu, around 500BC
2
Military industrial congressional complex. Gov't largesse to insure jobs within a district enabled by the legalized bribery of elected officials that is our electoral system.
I am not a military strategist. I don't need to be very clever to recognize that an aircraft carrier, top speed comparable to that of a horse, is ridiculous. It consolidates billions of dollars of aircraft, arms and thousands of Americans to create a "sitting duck" target for ballistic or other missiles.
We arm for the last war. Cyber will be much more effective. Disabling the NYC or Beijing sewer and water system probably more tactical than moving a carrier.
Also, except for Russia's forays into Crimea and Syria, countries are little interested in collecting geography as an anachronistic strategic barrier or to control scarce resources. What would be the beneft of capturing Silicon Valley? Wealth manifests differently in 2019. So should the military.
2
'Today’s version of that cavalry consists of aircraft carriers priced at $13 billion apiece and fighter jets that go for $90 million (and cost $30,000 an hour to fly).'
But on the other side, manufacturing these possibly useless behemoths is keeping so many people 'gainfully' employed, no?
There are many examples in history where, during bad times, e.g., long-lasting droughts, the benevolent king/emperor would have the people build some useless edifice (Bhulbhulaya in Lucknow, India?), and tear it down as soon as it was finished, to simply keep many of the unemployed 'fruitfully' employed until the bad times were over
1
In your historical reading on this topic, be sure to include "War is a Racket" by Smedley Darlington Butler. He had two medals of honor and other top decorations. He played a vital role in the logistics of WWI. He blew the whistle on a proposed coup against FDR after having been offered the leadership of that coup.
4
Since the beginning of civilization, and even before, wars were fought for control of territory. The main objective was farmland; the resource needed to feed a people. Even as late as WWII, we fought over natural resources like oil, tin and iron. Now we fight for ideological goals. When I was in basic training in 1969 we were taught that the infantry served to "cover ground and occupy territory." Unless we intend to permanently colonize a country (as Russia did in Crimea) that will no longer do us any good. The U.S. at least nominally rejects the concept of colonialism so once we are victorious in a country like Iraq, we don't know what to do with it. We need to examine out objectives before we decide what types of resources to apply to those goals.
4
you really don't need hi-tech to get there. just a retired general and WWII tactics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
3
Read this again " A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking "
Now tell me why we are not doomed. In general I would never criticize a member of the Pentagon cause I have no clue in that area . But a " a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking " is just not going to happen. Reason is democrats will never hold republicans accountable and republicans will never change until they are held accountable
5
@Chicago So I guess we can just ignore the eight years Obama ran the Pentagon?
1
Let's consider a tactic involving a hostile group (ISIS?) using a small sub as described here, which starts sinking cruise ships and luxury private yachts. What then?
2
@Pierre D. Robinson, B.F., W.S.
Using aircraft and satellites the sub is located and destroyed.
1
@Casual Observer Per the article, the sub surfaced before detection. But I dare say that bad actors would sacrifice a sub.
When I am elected president my Defense Secretary will be retired admiral James Stravridis.
Recalls the attack, during the Falklands war, of a small high speed craft attacking a British ship with an Exocet missile.
1
Just think. If the USA stopped starting wars, it wouldn't have to spend a major portion of it's GDP on military hardware (and replacing it over and over).
The imagine how much regular citizen progress and happiness could be achieved if that money was spread evenly among the US population, and for education to make us even more successful in the future.
Anyone remember the "Peace Dividend" recovered for the taxpayers by the Clinton administration? And how George Bush II paid it just to the rich as soon as he took office. Then blew everything else on his personal grudge war with Saddam Hussein, that wasn't even allowed for in his new, bigger, defense budget.
Ot doesn't matter how big a "defense" budget you have if, after being attacked by Saudi's on 9/11, you know so little about geography, you miss, and blow away their neighbors, Iraq instead.
3
@Tony Reardon So I guess you forgot the Gulf War .
As a British schoolboy I was taught that the English archers could loose dozens of arrows while the French were cocking their crossbows. A good analogy to the US malaise: the crossbow was technologically advanced and a more complicated machine. But the simple long bow won the battle. Sure they shot down the French cavalry but the English had cavalry too, they just didn’t deploy them in charges on the wet and muddy fields. The English archers rained continuous clouds of arrows on both the troops and the cavalry. You can’t do that so well with the cross bow. The US has invested heavily in technology and has these sophisticated carriers but a simple torpedo or missile can stop them cold. Finally, the line astern convoy formation shown in the photo is a hangover from the days of sail when men of war fired on the enemy who were similarly deployed, all because they were sailing with the wind more easily as square rigged ships. A submarine can’t miss when they face a fleet so deployed. Talk about stupidity.
2
@Cranford
The long bow required great strength and constant practice to use effectively. The crossbow did not require the same level of skill to use well and the range exceeded the long bow. But it was the inability of the French cavalry to move around in the mud and close quarters which made them good targets for both archers and foot soldiers who killed most of them.
2
Well I have to say it: "a serious president capable of long-term thinking could change the way America prepares for the next war" is the perfect description of Elizabeth Warren.
3
It was General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said "Beware the Military Industrial Complex"! We still haven't learned.
I arrived in South Vietnam in JAN 1968, a Captain, pilot, who had been flying the EC-121- which was a Lockheed passenger Super Constellation with a 15 ton radar station inserted amidships. I wasn't needed for that, but because I could fly a propeller plane I was flying the L-19 Bird Dog (The USAF called it the O-1, which might have been the score: US 0, VC 1). My job was "Forward Air Controller" meaning I flew low and slow over the country side looking for signs of the enemy. There were bulletin boards scattered around the base, where the VC who worked on base during the day could see them. An important notice said "If asked about our air operations in Laos, you are to say "We are engaged in armed reconnaissance, we have been for some time, and we announced it when we began."
A few months later I was in Nakhon Phanom, Thailand, flying the O-2 (a two engine Cessna) over the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos. I was called to the intelligence office one evening to read and sign an order stating "If questioned about our air operations in Laos, you are to say nothing. Under no circumstances are you to use the phrase 'Armed Reconnaissance'."
"It's a darn sight easier to let the cat out of the bag than it is to put it back in!" Will Rogers
3
The 800-pound gorilla that is being ignored is climate change. Drought, crop failures, and catastrophic storms drive mass migrations, and turn formerly productive people into desperate refugees or bitter terrorists. Future wars will be fought over natural resources, and the "enemy" will increasingly be those desperate masses. How useful will super high tech fighters be against them?
Climate change will likewise threaten our bases (it is already having serious impacts on naval bases in particular). Would it not be a better idea to allocate money to figuring out how to protect those bases we must protect, figuring out where to build new ones that will be better situated to withstand rising seas, storms, and wildfires, and shuttering ones that will inevitably be overwhelmed? Mother Nature is the true "enemy" force, and she's much tougher than China. We must rethink not only the technology with which wars in the not-too-distant future will be fought, but also who our adversaries will be and why.
2
@Nikki
Big rich, modern countries are going to be struggling with conflicts with other big rich, modern countries as well as hordes of desperate people trying to stay alive. We will need all the weapons systems before the climate change problems are resolved, I think.
Stephens is simplifying the issues a little too much.
Carrier groups and submarines complement each other but are the others greatest threats.
Agincourt was lost by the French because of weather, terrain, and projectiles. The armored knight was not displaced by the long bow nor the cross bow but by fire arms in the seventeenth century, three hundred years after Agincourt.
The military’s fixation on the most advanced weapons over the less sophisticated but flexible ones is a real problem that has persisted for a couple of centuries. Most weapons systems for which the military has invested huge amounts have become obsolete when the next war erupts.
1
I think this is a false choice. Not only will the new fighting machines be more expensive, they’ll also provide less employment. So there will be even less public accountability for the wars, and less jobs.
But what is worse maybe that even fewer problems will be solved by such wars. Instead of debating what fashion more wars might take, we should be investing in the infrastructure to reduce the need for future wars: more egalitarian and fairer governance or economic systems.
The Cold War was supposed to be the problem. Then it was/terrorism. Now it’s “adversaries” like China etc. after these there will be more enemies.
Where does it end?!!
@Frea
Plato said that only the dead have seen the end of war.
We try to minimize the sources of war. The world organizations established after WWII and supported by the U.S. were very successful but they did not end all wars. Mostly we succeed in preventing wars these days but there are always people who find reasons to use armed force to achieve their ends.
Funny to be reading Stephens critiquing the military-industrial complex, since it is this complex in conjunction with the auto industry that defines American capitalism, a political economy that Stephens has ardently defended on many occasions. The military-industrial complex employs millions and contributes trillions of dollars to the national GDP. Wireless telecommunications, the internet, and ancillary industries have been assimilated to this complex.
We do not need to hark back six centuries to understand how a specific armament can bestow a decisive strategic advantage in a military conflict. How many of us can forget images of black pajama-clad Viet Cong, armed with aging carbines and AK-47s, beating back far superior US air power or sandal-clad mujahideen neutralizing Russian “flying tanks”—the Mi-24—with shoulder-mounted Stingers.
The US military is developing weapons of war—beyond drones—that the public knows little about, including wireless directed energy and sonic assault. It is time to pull US troops out of sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and the Pacific Rim and reallocate the extraordinarily wasteful military budget to more pressing issues such as job-retraining, healthcare, and climate change.
Service? Hardly. The military is about jobs, benefits, pensions and neutralizing competing military-industrial complexes and jihadists.
The Russians have shown us yet again that propaganda is the most effective weapon of war.
3
One reason for aircraft carriers is to help the US Navy Officer Corps. You cannot get promoted in the Navy without sea time. Aircraft carriers with 5000 man crews give a whole bunch of officers an opportunity for sea time and punching their tickets for promotion.
2
Finally! A critique of out-of-control and strategically wrong military spending. This drum needs continuous beating until we recognize what defense spending is costing our economy and our society.
4
Even in WWII ,all the Carriers that Japan and the US had at the beginning of the war, were at the bottom of the sea within the first year. Sunk by planes or subs.
“The only question is whether we will learn the lesson for ourselves, or — as we did on Dec. 7, 1941 — have an adversary teach it to us.”
We were attacked in 2001 by terrorists commandeering 3 commercial airliners. What lessons did we learn?
4
We spend more on nuclear weapons than tertiary education every year. Which is more important to our security?
2
Very well put. Multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers are vulnerable to one million ultra-fast, ultra lethal missal.
The nation can no longer afford this insanity.
We need most to up our worldwide competitive skills and reinvigorate our Yankee ingenuity.
Further we need to protect all from the debilitating theft of our nations money by the shady billionaires, and apply that to help keep people productive and healthy.
3
"So what stops it? The answer is what Brose’s old boss, the late John McCain, called the military-industrial-congressional complex."
This from Politco. Note who one of the Senate Leaders were to get this bill past.
"The Senate gave final approval to the $700 billion compromise defense policy bill Thursday that would advocate a major military buildup called for by congressional defense hawks, but would bust through strict caps on defense spending to do it. The National Defense Authorization Act was quickly passed by voice vote, without any final debate or dissent, and now heads to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it. The final compromise is the product of a joint conference talks between House and Senate Armed Services leaders.
Led by Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) and House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), lawmakers hammered out the differences in the Led by Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) and House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), lawmakers hammered out the differences in the House and Senate versions of the bill in only a few weeks."
So much for the being against the "military-industrial-congressional complex."
1
Typical liberal naivete - if we switch to more effective, straightforward, and cost efficient weaponry, who will buy all those expensive tanks Trump's buddies are producing??????
You cannot expect any change or adjustment from the establishment. The cost of any even *adequate* social or economic adjustment is always too high, compared with the ongoing benefits of milking the system as it presently is.
In unequal societies all costs or adjustment are borne by the wealthy, since they control the entire surplus of society. The rest of society, having had all capital stripped from them by the manipulation of the system by the powerful, no longer have any free, *real* surplus from which to extract *real* goods and services. In fact, there are already inadequate resources available to society to even maintain local services and many local communities.
The more prescient of the wealthy, however, are aware of the inevitable consequences of their venal and incompetent management of the global economy, and *are* trying to secure their places in the lifeboats. Not that there is really anywhere to escape to.
As for the military? Too many profiteers milking that cow. Too much money for our innocent Congressmen.
1
Talk about modernity (technology)-- underpinned by the imperial-- "the self-adjusting guarantee of the security of domination", and one reaches the conclusion that the employment of military economies of scale by potential adversaries could only be for that reason, that is, to avoid the domination. Pikemen were Pikemen, Landsknects were Landsknects, so, fast-forward to 1525 when, for the first time in European warfare, gunfire won the day and captured the French King in the process. If met by a similar downsizing on the part of the U.S. the conjecture is whether or not the U.S. could keep pace with this form of technological advancement, and if so, whether its goals would remain the same as in the past. In any case future developments ought not to include such episodes in shameful history as the Chagossians and the Yemenis. They were (are) not robots, and their deracination should not determine the military success of the U.S.
Mr. Stephens (imho) is correct but a different change in technology has created a far more profound paradigm change for war. All out war between modern armies can no longer be won. Will the vasty fields of France be of any value when they are radioactive? What value will Kashmir have after an all out war between India and Pakistan? Nuclear weapons are not simply disruptive, they absolutely rewrite all the reasons - which is more profound then rewriting the "rules" - for war. Regardless of the reasons or religions to justify war it has always been to conquer land. A nuclear war makes that land worthless. You can't "win". It is an absolute and complete paradigm shift and humanity has yet to truly grok it. We are now responsible for our whole planet. We have god like power. Do we have the courage to accept that?
3
Trips to the National War College years ago cemented my belief that someone should round up top generals and admirals and knock their heads together until they start thinking straight.The whole complex is out of control - at huge cost!
2
Stephens is wrong about carriers. At least they move, which makes them awkward to target. Land bases can be very easily targeted with ballistic or cruise missiles, and the bases in Asia have few hardened aircraft shelters. Land bases can be lost due to diplomatic reasons. There is nowhere near enough space in Asian bases for all the land-based tactical fighters that the Pentagon is buying.
Our low orbiting satellite fleet is also highly vulnerable. Both Asia and India have tested anti-satellite missiles in the past few years. They could destroy very expensive imaging, surveillance and weather satellites.
Mini-satellite technology could also leave high orbit communications satellites vulnerable. Meanwhile trans-oceanic telecommunication cables are potentially vulnerable to unmanned undersea vehicles. Destruction of communication links could cripple the global internet.
The US is far too dependent on Chinese imports to risk a war with China, and Washington depends on Chinese bond buyers to keep the Federal government running. We buy lots of telecommunications equipment from China, and the Chinese might find a way to insert Trojan Horse programs in Chinese made cell phones and computers which would cripple the US in event of war.
Foreign governments could easily send hundreds of special forces soldiers to the US posing as students, who could go on the rampage in the US in event of war. 9-11 provides an example of what small groups of armed men can do.
Submitted 4.33pm EST.
1
The limited mobility of a Carrier Battle Group is insignificant to a supersonic cruise missile. But... i suspect using a missile to take out a Carrier would trigger that unwinnable war. The soon to be “loser” will resort to Nukes. Game Over.
1
Once again the basic question about warfare is left aside.
What war ? Against whom ? For which motives and to what aims ?
I understand that USA take care of economic warfare through electronic intelligence and it may well be they're as good as the next hacker community to harm a country just as Russia is obviously performing with the Kremlin's blessing (to say the least).
But then again violent wars are a different matter and a common man like me is not aware that those who are able to wage a war against a super power (that is essentially China and Russia) are more advanced in robot warfare than what the Pentagon brains are secretly planning.
Between those to kind of conflicts western powers are more than ever facing a different threat : large scale and multifaceted terrorism. To these neither laser guns, atom bombs satellites surveillance, super high tech carriers nor uberized unmanned tanks are effective deterence.
To me it seems that the United States army as well as their intelligence services, politicians and successives administrations have always lagged a par behind this real threat : the fact that American superpower is unable to untangle itself from Afghanistan is ample evidence.
If there is an introspective analysis about how America must get ready in future warfares it must start from this assessment.
Only then the prospect of "Amazonification" or "Uberization" of warfare with unmanned robots will be properly assessed as a response to oncoming threats.
It's worth pointing out that the French did win that war. The United States in 2019, like the USSR in 1941, is massive enough to sustain a series of tactical reversals while still emerging triumphant on the geopolitical stage.
Though, of course, no one in the Pentagon or Foggy Bottom would like to lose any more than they have to in order to claim said victory.
With all this technology Iraq learned during the first Gulf War that they couldn't beat us with our traditional military power so just like in Vietnam and land minds, they are using simple stuff like IUDs, suicide bombers and with all our technology we can't fight back against that because that is not how the military is trained. So nobody every learns the lessons of the past and we get beat down in these never ending wars. I do blame the military higher authorities for seeming to have to planning abilities at all. The Pentagon needs a complete do over and new way of thinking instead of just throwing money at them for toys. I was in the military. Surprised they can get anything done with all the way they operate.
As Walt Kelly’s Pogo said, “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”
1
"Catastrophic defeat"? Mr. Stephens predictable rightwing fear mongering about the "next war" misses the real point. The next war with whom? China? Why will they need to bother unless we attack first. Russia? Nah. Putin's got his puppet at work here and Pooty's more interested in billions and posturing as a suited Stalin. Middle East? Could be. If Drumpf's BFF Bibi helps out by attacking Iran before or after 2020 depending how his pal Drumpf does.
But Stephens, also predictably, misses a root analysis of America's current situation and inevitable future. All empires decline by rotting from within. Drumpf is a symptom of the American empire's rot highlighted by the military waste perpetuated since at least the end of WWII to benefit the corporate kakistocracy and their political puppets. Replacing obsolete hardware with robots, drones, and computer hackers only digitizes the rot rooted in "free market" ideology that now benefits only the globalized financial parasites that have emerged since Reagan and Clinton. They've always been there but now have eaten so far into our democratic republic's sinews and vital organs that Stephens "catastrophic defeat" is only a matter of time not war.
2
The main adversary of the USA is not China or Russia but ourselves.
Polarization, fiscal recklessness, infrastructure decay are the roots of our decline.
The US military is a hard shiny shell protecting a weak, rotting body politic.
3
@Lance W.
Of which the heart lies on SF
I found this article to be a timely, thoughtful and elegantly written piece. Right on the money too given that the UK has recently commissioned a new aircraft carrier that it can barely afford to pay for let alone operate, has yet another carrier planned without the fleet and air cover necessary to screen these dinosaurs once they are at sea. Ridiculous backward thinking by the military commands in too many countries.
You are right mano e mano doesn’t get the job done,
I've long joked thinking the next carrier should be named the USS Missle Sponge..
Like the battlecruiser of WW1, designed for dealing with less capable opponents, a death trap when confronted by a capable one....
Reduce DoD spending by 50%. That will result a "less is more" mentality.
There may very well be a case to be made for a smaller number of aircraft carriers to protect force against lesser powers that do not field strong military forces or non state actors. Something like that is implied where the author mentions cheap turboprop planes for patrolling places like Northern Iraq.
As well as failing to learn from those 1932 war games they also failed to learn from Britain's night attack on the Italian fleet at anchor in Taranto harbor. Planes launched from one carrier to the six that launched the Pearl Harbor attacks, sand three Italian battleships, a cruiser and a destroyer. The Japanese almost certainly didn't need to learn of that attack to think of striking at Pearl Harbor, but there are pictures of Japanese naval attaches observing the sunken ships shortly after the attack. The Italians believed that the harbor was too shallow for air dropped torpedoes to work properly and the American navy thought the same thing of the shallow water at Pearl Harbor. The British thought of a gimmick to get around the depth problem and it should not have surprised us that the Japanese did the same thing. Even if the American fleet faced no danger from torpedoes British dive bombers sank a German cruiser on the first day of the war and German dive bombers savaged the Royal Navy during the defense of Crete, so our navy should have still seen the danger from Japanese carriers.
3
The slaughter of the American Civil War was a preview of what was to come in World War I. Millions were slaughtered due to "this is what we were trained to do" thinking -- run the infantry straight at machine guns and try to overwhelm them. The strategy worked with single shot rifles, but not machine guns. But still, the commanders stuck with what they had been trained for. Will an aircraft carrier be able to defeat 1,000 simultaneous intelligent drones? I'm sure the answer is classified. Or unknown.
1
The English longbow perhaps was humble but it was expensive in that it took a lifetime of training for someone to grow up to use it well.
An army of long bowmen was not a rustic militia affair like townsfolk with pitchforks and torches.
5
The longbow’s main advantages were that it had a ballistic trajectory and a relatively higher rate of fire. The crossbow had greater lateral range and more penetrating power, but reloads were slow. The larger point (no pun) is that there is no one ideal weapon system; each weapon system must be evaluated in a context where it is opposed by other systems.
The argument for multiple platforms with some cyber linkages makes sense; in military speak this is called a combined arms synthesis.
2
Excellent article as usual from Mr. Stephen, insightful and thoughtful and extra kudos for using historical analogy, more people should remember what happened in the past that has relevance for today. I might add one more historical note, right before World War two as Germany sought to rearm, under the radar so to speak, of the rest of Europe, they used an obscure part of the Treaty of Versailles that limited the tonnage of warships. Instead of building fewer big ships, they produced many more lighter ships all the while complying with the overall tonnage limits. These ships, albeit smaller and less powerful, still resulted in a potent and mobile new Navy right under the noses of Britain and France - and we all know what happened next. Beware of the little ships up against the big ones . . .
1
It's very hard to tell by reading this you understand the lessons the battle of Agincourt, and as to the lessons facing our military.... maybe.
We've known the problems we face with diesel-electric subs since the Cold War began and the bigger question about technology versus numbers was one we doubled down on long ago for better or worse.
You want to copy the Chinese and Russians? It's easy, less expensive, large numbers and expect to lose a lot of people very quickly. If we AREN'T ready to sacrifice 20 or 30 percent of our soldiers in the first 10 minutes of the opening conflict, that's not our model.
Asymmetrical warfare maybe be much more challenging in scenario based upon long-term attrition. Does America have the stomach for a decade plus of seeing a non-stop slow-motion war with hard to achieve goals and no end in sight? Maybe we shouldn't, and it's a conversation well worth having.
But for the rest, feel free to question cost and mission. As for the weapons and people? Much of the complaints here aren't valid.
1
At a time when we are not at war with a single nation state and are not likely to be in any foreseeable future, we have the most expensive, best equipped and best trained military in the world. We are using it to fight paramilitary groups all over the world. Why is this? My largely cynical answer is--jobs. The jobs employing our military personnel and the jobs created to produce the equipment they train and deploy with. This is why,in large part, that the military has resources in almost every Congressional District in the country to ensure continued support of a vast jobs program.
1
It is a fool’s paradise indeed to believe that peace is the natural state of man and that war is caused by the existence of armies. Without even including the ideological conflicts in the world, and the clear desire of China to control its surroundings, there are multiple examples of how armed forces maintain a status quo. That will be difficult as the world population continues to rise amid global climate change.
1
"For that [intelligence and understanding applied to security issues], we'll have to wait for a future administration."
That rules Trump out ab initio, which is where he belongs. Now let's apply that test to possible alternatives. Warren and Sanders are sloganeering airheads, end of story. But, even leaving them thankfully aside, the fact is there's no alternative in whom one can have confidence, at least not if the confidence is based on demonstrated interest and ability. You may say that's still better than Trump, but once you've said that you've run out of nice things to say.
As the 5th century dawned, things in the Roman Empire looked as good as ever.
1
I have believed exactly the same for years. Goes back to the Falklands War. If the Argentines had access to a few more Exocet missiles they could have destroyed or rendered useless the British Navy.
The military class is America's real welfare class. We need to stop coddling these generals and their perks and spend our money on something we can all enjoy, like roads, bridges and public education.
1
@Tom P: Sure, like without the deterrent value of the military you'd have no threats to your freedom to enjoy infrastructure and public schools..?!? I would agree with any reasonable policies to make the military more efficient, agile, and cost-effective. But you sound like a hippie, expecting the military to hold a bake sale to fund itself...
Russia and only the Lord knows who else, is destroying us from within for pocket change and "a few facebook ads".
And our president sits in the white house like a lump of coal responding by actually FILING SUIT against Congress. Yes. The president is actually suing the legislative branch.
Who needs an aircraft carrier?
3
Well, Americans are fat, lazy, and weak now. All we do is in fight and further helping the Russians gain even more of a return on their investment. Why do only one percent of Americans serve? Most of the electorate is just like the rich politicians in D.C.--neither they, nor their children will have to fight the wars they authorize.
1
This is national that keeps hemorrhagic smallpox in a lab outside Atlanta. We could end global warming and kill billions in 24 hours.
Who cares beyond that.
Brett Stephens skips the obvious solution: strong safety net policies that don't depend on any particular employment. This allows change without devastating working people. Instead of spending trillions on outdated war machines that don't even keep us safe, spend trillions on social security (not the program, the policy), including healthcare, education, job training and retraining, transitional unemployment benefits that close the gap, etc.
1
There is one benefit of expensive military equipment.
Because these systems are so expensive, it makes America less likely to use them in any actual conflict because no one would risk a losing a carrier. It's almost like a leash holding one back from extreme action.
Also too many drones and unmanned military equipment makes you susceptible to hacking and cyber threats, increasing risk of accidents one cannot control. AI and robots making decisions on when to fire is not a good idea. VICE covered this issue actually.
But I largely agree with the main points, cheaper, efficient systems are needed. Not this military complex largess that's wasteful.
1
Unfortunately, for this transformation to happen, the first people you have to convince are the the industrial leaders of the military-industrial complex. They have to be able to see a way to profit from the change (disruption). They have positioned themselves all across this country in such a way that their employees can effectively control who gets elected to congress in many districts. Politicians vote with their electorates and the electorates vote with their jobs and their jobs in many cases are with the status quo for defense contractors. Have to show them a way to make money. Democracy at its best and worst.
This is one of Mr. Stephens' best columns.
However he doesn't mention our 'ace in the hole', which is the ability to utterly destroy any enemy, indeed, to essentially destroy human life on earth.
Had the Chinese attacked the Kitty Hawk in 2006, Xi Jinping might well have survived, as he was then party leader in a minor province, but Hu Jintao would have been literally toast, along with a few hundred million other Chinese. This is cold comfort.
Dan Kravitz
2
This is a good point.
Mr. Stephens’ recommendation is premised on possible warfare between the U.S. and it’s “near peers” such as China and Russia.
But Dan rightfully points out that this would be extremely unlikely because of the danger of escalation to nuclear war, which one would assume no country is crazy enough to go there.
Like nuclear weapons, these massive, billion-dollar carriers are not meant to be used in a big war, but to prevent one. They do this by announcing, if you destroy me, the nukes are coming for you. Cyber warfare today is similar; you bring down my systems and I’ll show you something even worse. So, the world marches on in the new age of Mutually Assured Destruction. I am good with it.
1
We have a President with a vision of the future that is essentially the nostalgic haze of a past world that never really existed. Throw in the profit motive of corporations and the general resistance to change that people in hierarchical organizations possess and, yes Mr. Stephens, change will not come with this administration. At a minimum it would be great to have a diplomatic corp that tries to ensure peace. That too seems to be a thing of the past, unless I myself am stuck in a nostalgic haze.
1
Good analysis. But we actually need to do both. Large carrier battle-groups, and strategic-range bombers project power and protect sea lanes --short of war. Smaller, more mobile, stealthy forward forces including remote technology such as drones would become the first line of defense/offence in a non-nuclear confrontation with a major power. The nuclear option/uncertainty may avoid conflict altogether. If this sounds like a lot of money; it is. Could we use this money for other things, yes. But the Right would use it for tax-cuts. If the United States will not dominate the oceans, in a matter of years the dollar will stop being the world's reserve currency and we will have to pay our debts in Renminbi {Chinese yuan}. Ask Britannia how it worked out when the pound sterling lost its international luster.
A few months ago I recall that the Pentagon warned we might not be able to effectively fight and win a war against either Russia or China, despite having massively outspent them combined on defense each year for decades. Someone should be accountable for the misspending of all that money. This column is sobering.
1
The Pentagon/military/industrial complex is all about winning on Wall St., not about winning wars.
1
This isn't a surprise. We have been preparing to fight WWII, only better, since shortly after WWII. With spy satellites available, a carrier group can always be spotted long before it is in range to attack and either a submarine or a single nuclear missile can destroy it there. I don't think the military is capable of purchasing cheap anything. They, not only go for technological overkill, but set odd requirements for even simple systems that result in toilet seats that cost hundreds, or thousands of dollars.
Donald Trump has promised that the U.S. Military will leave their bases and start shooting Democrats if Trump loses the 2020 election.
America is now (as President Eisenhower warned in 1961) a bankrupted and collapsing global military empire... that serves only the interests of the military/industrial/Congressional complex: that makes USAF Wyoming's largest employer:
"contributing" $350 million/year to Cheyenne economy at an annual national nuclear stockpile cost of $1.2-1.5 billion.
No Democrat or Republican will risk appearing "weak on defense" so the empire collapses into NDAA 2012 death camps (already law, awaiting activation, with article 1021 providing no warrant arrest and 1022 no right to trial- ever)
1
As my back stiffens from being lectured from a person who hasn't served, I have to concede a valid point. The last third of my career was non-operational, in Acquisition, and the process is glacial, hidebound, and illogical. We buy things because they are things much like what we have bought before; we keep buying these things because Congressmen have plants in their districts that make them; we like what we know, and we know shipbuilding, aircraft construction and armored vehicles really well. They reflect not just our judgment of them as weapons but our sense of pride and power as well.
You could say we see our fighter aircraft, our tanks and our ships as the French nobility regarded their steeds and armor.
Pretty sure that’s his point. And, you needed to having served in the military to understand human behavior and economics?
1
It's not just about fighting the next war with the last war's hardware but also fighting the next with the last war's mind set...
There are dozens of instances, both in reality and in exercises of Carriers showing weaknesses against submarines and unconventional tactics. See Millennium Challenge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002), where a war game was won by the Red Team (a Marine general acting as the Iranian military), before the results were changed and the Admiral in charge kept him to a script.
The problem is not just getting military planners and strategists to reevaluate our current method war fighting, but get the public to realize that as well. Carriers are still a prestige system that the public looks at as invincible. There even still folks who loudly complain that we don't have battleships, so having someone in the Navy brass, presidential administration, and Congress (if they exist) convince the general public that it might be time to let it go may be as big of a challenge as fighting the next war.
the fuhrer had "super weapons" that would save germany ,see how that worked out ..they were bleed to death (in part) by arms makers who could afford to escape punishment
Russia has destabilized the world's most militarily powerful country without firing a single bullet. The future of warfare shall be scary indeed.
Don't the French think they won at Agincourt? Any assertion that they lost is fake news!
The real lesson is a truly Trumpian one. If you think you won, and if you say it aloud often enough, not only will you continue to believe it yourself, but you will also convince everyone else of the truth of your assertion.
1
“If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer”
Nobody stockpiles new weapons without the secret itch to test them out in real combat. The Germans did this in Spain in 1936; the US in Iraq; and no doubt, there are Chinese generals who are looking for the chance to bloody our nose as soon as possible.
1
The longbow was decisive at Crecy. By the time of Agincourt, the French had heavy armor that was largely impervious to longbows. But the French charged across a filed of sucking mud, got trapped in the mud, and the English foot soldiers made short work of them with hand weapons. None of this is to depricate the main point of your article. US Sherman tanks were inferior to German Tiger tanks, but we had a lot more of them and that was decisive in WWII, as Victor Davis Hanson's recent book The Second World Wars demonstrates.
3
@hardy callcott
Historically, Hardy Callcot is correct. Mr. Stephens probably had Crécy in mind, but mistakenly referred to a successor battle. Crécy was the first proof that massed longbows were superior to even armored knights, as the bows shot arrows that could pierce armor.
I also agree that the modern point of the article is frighteningly valid.
Actually that’s not exactly correct. In part the English and Welsh bowman’s fusillade panicked the French knights, many of whom were mounted, which precipitated a chaotic charge into the entrenched English infantry with the usual consequence of medieval battle.
The biggest weakness of our defense forces is a commander and chief who lives in the past not to mention his questionable bone spurs and attacks on a real war hero John McCain and Gold Star families. TRump may be compromised by Putin and is conned by a 30 something Korean dictator who he claims his a great guy while he has tortured Americans and imprisoned huge swaths of the population of his country. Trump doesn't read daily briefings has little attention span to absorb complex military operations preferring to think and speak in bumper stickers. Trump has no experience in foreign affairs and it shows as he puts his punk son in law as the real sec of state . We have lost the support of our allies which was our real power in the world as Trump admires and coddles the world's dictators as he wishes to rule as America's first dictator with AG Barr's help his Roy Cohn at last they can destroy democracy.
Mr. Stephens writes -- in re the necessity for an 'updated' and reasonable military strategy and force -- as follows:
"A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking could change the way America prepares for the next war — to prevent it if possible, to win it if necessary."
………..
With a Boeing bean-counter at the Pentagon helm, a thoroughly parochial, irrationally partisan cluster of feckless republicans who surrender all to the whims of an evil and incompetent president, methinks the bridge to a tech-modern military a bridge too far to cross 'in time.'
It is more profitable to wait for the 'enemy' to sink the ships. We don't do 'proactive.' Its UnAmerican.
1
@WJKush I thought it was agreed that the Iraq war was proactive. Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. Wasn't that the battle cry and you were unpatriotic if you argued against it. Waiting for the UN to find the WMD.
To pick a nit: Your appraisal of Agincourt is outdated. The French cavalry was done in by rain-sodden grounds and an attempted pursuit of the English through a narrow gap, creating a bottleneck that left them as fish in a barrel.
If you could take the need to reduce climate change one-tenth as seriously as you take the need to maintain absolute military superiority, I could take you ten times more seriously.
1
It is said that Charles VI, the King of France at the time of the Battle of Agincourt, could not command the French army as he was suffering from mental illness and was mentally incapacitated.
Any resemblance to actual persons is purely coincidental.
3
What seriously frightens me is that Britain, in addition to it's Brexit bumbling, just launched a bazillion-dollar aircraft carrier. What a dark symbol.
3
I wonder if the best investment would be in the powerful military tool known as "diplomacy."
The French defeated themselves at Agincourt by not following their own carefully prepared battle plan, charging across a muddy rain soaked field in a terrain that funnelled them into a narrow space. The English arrow tips failed to penetrate the French armor. The English king had insufficient forces to capture the French knights to be held for ransom, so he ordered them all murdered with axes, knives and swords.
3
We "fought the last war" in Viet Nam and learned nothing from it. Additionally, we have not learned from our own mistakes or those of others in The Graveyard of Empires, Afghanistan. Maybe the NYT can enlighten us all regarding the curricula at the Naval War College, West Point, US Naval Academy, Air Force Academy and USCG Academy. How, exactly, are our military leaders being prepared?
4
Afghanistan and Iraq are two good examples of how all of the best technologies, the best planes and tanks and guns and drones and and and...
are basically ineffective. Just like battleships were and much of the surface Navy is in the age of missiles.
2
Mr. Stephens is absolutely right that our enemies have invested a bunch of time and energy into figuring out how to overcome our platforms by inexpensive means. The ability of diesel-electric subs to get into firing position against our carrier battle groups is not a new development. Our NATO allies have been demonstrating our carriers’ vulnerability to quiet and relatively inexpensive subs for decades.
The real problem is not that we invest in high-capability platforms. They have their place. We do not invest in the low-cost platforms needed to compliment the Cadillacs. Why? Ultimately, we’re averse to loss. People are an expensive resource. The public reacts very poorly to losses. Our reliance on firepower and flagship systems is a manifestation of our efforts to substitute money for lives.
Ultimately, though, war kills combatants on both sides. Losses among American personnel have to be made up from somewhere. What Americans are really afraid of is being drafted. As a people, we’re willing to finance a military budget equal to the budget of the next 10 militaries combined if that will enable us to avoid serving. Until unmanned platforms come of age, it’s hard to see the American preference for Cadillac systems changing.
The proof is in the years billions were wasted in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. The towelhead with minimal technological resources has prevailed, using guerilla tactics that we haven't used since we did against the British in The Revolutionary War. The old ways are sometimes the best. Especially when you consider the cost of one night vision strafe against a group of five would be terrorists. Consider the cost of one sniper's bullet against a heat seeking missile. That enemy body budget is just way too high.
1
Don't you know that the primary role of the US military today is to siphon off gargantuan amounts of money to large weapons producers and private contractors?
2
The French defeat at Agincourt because of its old technology suggests that the US is doing the right thing by staying technologically afloat. The underlying assumption in the US is that the threat necessarily comes from without, not within. If the US did for its citizens what it did to appease its sense of impending doom from the outside, Donald Trump would have never made it into office.
Initially, I'd add a thought about Agincourt...it was the battle depicted in Shakespeare's Henry 5th...and one thing the English had in their favor was Henry's rousing speech to the troops...as beautifully depicted in the 1944 film with Laurence Olivier. Check it out.
Britain, I believe, encouraged Olivier in the making of the film during World War II to inspire Britain to remain strong...which they did. Like ''Boston Strong'' x 100!
As to the American military today, often I hear how people are comfortable spending "whatever" it takes on the military to make us "safe." But the money spent on military, including expenses for carrier groups, is absurd. Mr. Stephens depiction of $13 Billion per carrier may not include the destroyers and other support ships that are required to accompany and protect a carrier...making the price significantly higher than the number he cites.
It's big, big, big business, pure and simple, and Mr. Stephens rightly notes that it does not provide the sort of protection many Americans think it does
Reading the lead sentence is this article, I found myself thinking "Who could have imagined it would happen again, ten years later?"
As with global warming adjustments, approaches to the military expenditures are deeply embedded in the economic dynamics of the rewarding aspects of the US economy so sensible solutions that affect the monetarily rewarding operations are unlikely to succeed.
There is still an important need for a Navy to protect boundaries, deter piroting, provide intelligence, and project military power. The new navy will have more ships than the current navy but the ships will be smaller, very fast, capable of quickly changing direction, and equipped with latest missile technology. Many ships will be unmanned. We need to start building and deploying the next generation Navy now.
This is an excellent article that should provoke lawmakers to think seriously about our approach to funding the Navy. However, it ignores half the military problem. We need to be prepared to fight Russia or China as a deterrent requiring sophisticated new approaches. This article raises that issue.
It does not address the much more common use of the military (and the Navy in particular) in fighting less sophisticated enemies. The large aircraft carrier groups allow the US to bring power to bear more effectively when combatting developing countries. Thought should be given to strategy regarding the appropriate distances of large military assets from potential risks and we need to monitor development of weapons that would nullify this advantage by developing countries. Someday they will not make sense.
In the interim, we need to figure out how to create this two-tiered force and what monetary allocation makes sense.
Don't expect the military to change with the alacrity of a NYT Opinion writer. If you read Navy centric publications like the The Naval Institute Proceedings you know that the hoped for changes are underway. Getting an unmanned surface ship to project seapower with a port visit or humanitarian assist will be a challenge...
1
So common sense...so true.
One issue with carriers is their perceived status: Projecting Power is the oft-used term. And manufacturers simply love that idea, or protectionist dogma, as it has become. Carriers are now just a bigger, more expensive problem than the Mark 14 torpedo was at the beginning of the Pacific Campaign. It, too, caused many unnecessary American deaths by being next to worthless. And its great flaw was also the caused by ignorant protectionism. People knew it didn't work and yet did nothing. People have known for years that carriers are outdated for use against comparable powers, too. They have been successfully attacked numerous times on exercises; once by Sandy Woodward prior to the Falklands campaign, a war in which he was eternally grateful that the Argentines never thought to attack his carriers en-masse. Hey, but don't carriers look pretty on the high seas!
1
Most people that bandy about allusions to George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” do not appear to have actually read the book, or aren’t that familiar with what lies between the covers.Yes, Orwell foretold of the Forever Wars, Big Brother, wall-to-wall surveillance and propaganda in a totalitarian world, but the least discussed yet most prescient prediction he made was in how he arranged the chessboard in that future world: none of the three superpowers in the novel, Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia, could actually physically invade and conquer any of the others, so they remained in permanent conflict through proxy wars in what would later be called Third World countries, each superpower scrambling for remaining resources and the acquisition and control of cheap, or slave, labor.
Sound familiar.....?
1
All very well taken. But to have a "serious" president, a Democrat will have to win in 2020. Unless you think Larry Hogan can beat the Grifter in Chief in the primaries.
They shouldn't have fought the last war as well as all the present wars and as for future wars I am sure Bret, unless he goes through some profound change, will have a lot wishes that hopefully will all be thwarted.
1
We need to invest in peace. The seas are rising.
1
You have a point Bret, our Military believes in status quo and keeps on improving the platforms that already exists. Our Congress is controlled by the Military Industrial Complex, and the more money they can assign from our Defense budget for these weapons system the better the bottom line looks and the shareholders make a quick and buck.
For how long can we support these increases in this budget? For how long do we need to fight in over 100 countries? We even have fighting capabilities in our Department of State now, why?. Would it not be wise to use the soft power to avoid conflicts and wars? I guess it is easier just to fight with adversaries instead of reasoning with them.
It appears that our armed forces are being used on the behest of major multinational corporations to protect their business interest very similar to what the British did for the East India Company. The result is for all to see.
In the many war theaters we can see the effects of one sided wars such as in Yemen the Saudis, Emiratis, and the US is spending billions whereas the Houthis and Iranians are doing it on the cheap. The same could happen in the Persian Gulf if we are not careful and get hoodwinked by the Saudis, Israelis, Bolton and other neocons to start another war. The IRGC, uses speed boats to cover most of the Gulf and we use the Billion dollars manpower intensive flotillas to patrol is not something to look forward to. I do hope saner minds prevail and this never comes to fruition.
....and the perpetual elephant in the room is the human propensity to violence--in any shape, in any theater, in any age. Most signs point to continued premiditated aggression in the name of tribe, nationality, religious belief, race....and the few signs of peace-making are struggling to gain viability in this "Me/We First," "Me/We Great" environment.
That's the most ominous part of a paranoiac international scene that literally seems to have escaped from a zoo and now runs riot among us. The old quote from Emerson applies better than ever: "Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind."
. . . And continued support of a military-industrial complex such as the world has never previously known severely undercuts civilian welfare. Medicare and Social Security are now in the Trumpuglicans cross-hairs. This support inspires military adventurism which issues in disastrous consequences for the overall American economy.
In 2017 the United States’ military expenditures were $610 billion. Those expenditures were nearly $32 billion more than the combined expenditures of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, France, the United Kingdom and Japan. The 2018 U.S. defense budget was just under $700 billion. That of 2019 is $716 billion. Of the more than $600-$700 billion the US spends annually on the military, about $200 billion is allocated to research, development, testing, and procurement of advanced weapons systems. According to recent estimates, the US now accounts for 34% of all global arms sales, up from 30% five years ago. The recorded total international trade in arms is now about $100 billion per year. What of weapons deals that go unrecorded?
U.S. taxpayers support something like 800 military bases and installations on foreign soil. China, Russia, Great Britain and France have a combined total of 20-30 foreign based military sites.
Rhetorical questions: Is U.S. public welfare suffering to a far too great extent due to a military fixation? Are the weapons we deploy suitable for asymmetrical warfare? Does the use of advanced weaponry create far too many enemies?
1
There is certainly some truth here that the traditional aircraft carrier task force is vulnerable to "near peer" attack, but isn't that what "near peer" means? But there are many, many more reasons to be able to project significant military presence to the far side of the world than a hot confrontation with China or Russia, which are obviously situations we very much want to avoid. One US supercarrier task force alone would present a very formidable challenge to most other potential aggressive acts by most other countries, and this reality is a source of deterrence.
It is interesting that while our generals debate defense strategy China is taking over the world by building bridges, literally, and forging trade pacts--all this without firing a shot. This raises some doubt about redoubts.
Bret apparently doesn't understand that the longbow wasn't a new development in 1415 and that the heavy cavalry relied on by the French were in no way obsolete at the time, nor would they be for some time. The English won at Agincourt through how they used terrain and weather to their advantage.
3
“It doesn’t have to be this way.”
Yes it does. The system is baked in. It cannot of itself change.
We will continue to spend even more on easily defeated
weapons until those weapons are defeated/discredited on
the battlefield or in decline we no longer have or can borrow
the money to spend. History dictates this outcome, we are not that exceptional.
It will come to it that the pending threat and peril is already in the hen house - namely climate change. It is already too late to muster a decisive response. Unfortunately, the human species is a viral mosquito that will effectively be squashed. Our true nobility as a conscious and caring being is ever present, but lately too hidden behind the false charade of power and greed. Count on it.
2
The aircraft carrier has been irrelevant since the end of World War II. It has survived simply because no nation has fired a torpedo at one, mostly because modern industrial nations no longer wage war against each other.
If a small, technologically primitive nation decides to sink an aircraft carrier, the retaliation would be devastating. But a terrorist group with no home territory would be immune to such retaliation.
We have Air Force bases all over the world, within range of any plausible target. A torpedo will not sink an Air Force base. The aircraft carrier should have been retired decades ago.
Based on casualty statistics and our record it would be pretty foolish to underestimate the US on the battlefield right now. We already have swarms of unmanned drones all over the globe. We already have rooms full of Computer/Software Engineers going about the world mucking up things like Iranian nuclear reactors. Most importantly, like it or not but our military is well-versed in war. We haven't not been attacking someone in some time. Not only that, but we just increased defense spending. If we were weak then we would have been attacked already.
1
Bret Stevensw is using the "Staff Director" of a ie, the person supervising the secretarial staff on a Congressional Committee as an expert on military doctrine to support his view that the minitaral us wrongheaded. That is like using Ronald McDonald as an expert on childhood nutrition.
I have two thoughts: First, the real innovation that made supercarriers obsolete was the thermonuclear warhead. Second, see below:
The best "weapon system" is economic integration. Will China want to fight a war with the U.S. when the Chinese economy depends on U.S. consumers buying goods made in China? Will Russia want to fight a war in Europe if the Russian economy depends on selling natural gas in Europe? And considering the treaty connections between the U.S. and Europe, both China and Russia will be loath to look for a fight on either side of the Atlantic. The biggest danger will be if China and Russia start to believe that they could maintain their economies by trading with each other while giving up trade with the U.S. and Europe. That will be the day that the risk of war increases.
Of course, this strategy has its own drawbacks -- manufacturing workers in the richer companies lose out, and automation could make "made in China" just as obsolete in coming decades. Also, authoritarian leaders can enjoy the fruits of a strong economy, so consumers in Europe and the U.S. are faced with the distasteful reality of supporting tyranny every time they shop. However, there is hope that the "long arc of history" will bend toward greater freedom, and in the meantime, we at least are not facing the destruction of war.
Or, a someone once noted, nations that trade together don’t go to war with each other.
The US thermonuclear arsenal makes "defeat," catastrophic or otherwise. impossible. A serious challenge will be met with civilization-ending (for all sides) force. Gotterdammerung, but effective. Wars along the lines of WWII will never again be fought - our technology has made them obsolete.
BTW, the French lost at Agincourt because they picked the wrong place to do battle. The English bowmen had a marsh between themselves and the French knights. The French attacked, their horses became mired in the muck and the knights were turned into pincushions. Tactics and not technology won the day for the English.
3
Another parallel would be the weaponry (but definitely not the ideology) of WW2. They created some really superior weapons, tanks and, to a lesser extent, aircraft, but they were very complicated. Because of this, production was quite limited and they were hard to service.
Contrast with the Americans and, in particular, the Soviets, who produced large (and in the case of the Soviets, huge) numbers of less impressive weapons, which simply overwhelmed the Germans.
For some time, now, we have been following much the same plan. The F22 Raptor, as impressive as it is, shows only 187 aircraft, total, in the fleet. Including development costs, the total expenditure of 64.3 billion averages out to 359.8 million, per plane. Are F22's capable of shooting down 359.8 million dollars worth of the approximately 1660 fighters currently in China's inventory?
Which brings us to part of the reason, other than the astounding cost, for the limited production of the F22: There being no equivalent aircraft for it to fight in the post-cold war era. Really? Do our so-called military planners believe that the only opponents we face in the future will be Taliban guerillas and the likes of Iraq? Seems to me that was the thinking from 1918 to 1941. How did that work out?
1
There are three very different national security needs in competition here.
The first is the need to be able to defeat an industrial high-tech enemy capable of fielding advanced weapon systems. This requires both numbers of platforms and expensive high-tech platform capability. Right now, we are creating high-tech platform capability but in nowhere near enough numbers. We need to either improve platform survivability or, in the alternative, find ways of moving the high-tech capability onto smaller, more numerous platforms.
The second is the need to fight enemies who employ low-tech weapons, either because they do not have access to the resources of a nation-state or because the nation-state or region they control is incapable of creating or sustaining advanced weapons systems. This requires both troop numbers and some degree of technical augmentation but does not require the high-tech capability required to fight an industrial nation-state.
The third is the need to be able to provide security and stability in a defeated enemy's home state while capable domestic governance structures and a viable economy are created. This is the area where Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld failed so miserably. This requires numbers of troops with the requisite skill sets and recognition of the importance of reconstruction capability - diplomacy, law enforcement, governance and economic development, etc. This is exactly the capability that the GOP is destroying.
None of this is cheap
Mr Stevens, I fear you are mistaken on the basic premise for those expensive weapons. Funding for these weapons was appropriated not for the defense of the Republic, but to spread as much loot around as many congressional districts as possible. No matter the outcome of any war, in this objective Congress has been enormously successful.
5
@KC Absolutely! It has very little to do with defense, and everything to do with the military/industrial complex and our budget dollars.
1
As a historian I cannot endorse the allusions to Agincourt, namely the idea that the longbow was a revolutionary superweapon. Remember that the French won the war, and adapted their tactical use of their well armored men at arms to slaughter English longbowmen late in the war, sometimes even when the *longbowmen* enjoyed numerical advantages proportional to those the *French* had enjoyed at Agincourt.
Nothing to do with the real point of this article, which I do endorse. I'm not against spending money on an effective military, but the current administration's military budget is just doing the exact same things as last generation, but more. Just a few more white elephants to jack up the amount of money that can be spent. No strategic analysis behind it (of the type that the bloated Pentagon badly needs).
2
@Sean
And let's not forget the billions of dollars that just disappeared from the pentagon never to be seen again and never accounted for...
1
I think the longest war that we ever won was the Cold War. The winning weapons were the American Economy and NATO. It was not bigger bombs and faster airplanes. Our President and his supporters want to win WWII again but emotions are dreams. Hello. They purchased three new ships for the Navy and shortly after, in the summer of 2017, we had two of our latest and greatest Made in America Destroyers almost sunk by big slow commercial freighters, killing many American Sailors thousands of miles away from home. And the key reasons for these deaths were the lack of trained sailors and a Navy bureaucracy that always answered every question with "Yes Sir, CAN DO" and forgot that state-of-the-art tools that are heavily used need repairs and updates. Why new ships when you can not find enough sailors for the ships you already have?
And our former allies have moved forward with their plans without us, because we are focused on American First, and seem to prefer Dictators to Democracy.
So we are alone, sitting in our on our roof because of the flooding and dreaming about the war that was once-upon-a-time.
2
@Larry Lynch
and let's remember that the Russians were the main reason that the Germans lost.
1
A bigger question needs to be asked: war to what end? Conflicts like Afghanistan and Yemen are not remotely the same as war between The US and China would be. What would either gain? The losses and the effects on our deeply integrated and interconnected economies would be enormous, and for what? Invasion? To do what? We're not willing to put in the resources to occupy Afghanistan. China? Our defense strategies need to be that, for our defense, which includes the strength and vitality of our country itself. High tech weapons won't save us if the country is fighting with itself or unable to support a wartime footing for something other than bragging rights over a smoldering planet.
Well done Brett. Unfortunately there are far to many episodes proving your point. Further, this administration and it's congressional support mechanisms are simply making the occurrence of Agincourt far more likely. Clearly, history has been poorly taught to our present leadership.
@RPU
Agincourt was only one battle, and the French quickly learned how to neutralize the long bows. They lopped off the bowmen's thumbs.
"A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking... "
Out through the looking glass and back to a land of sanity; it all seems like a distant dream for our beleaguered country.
You are so right. We must remember that the Wehrmacht was defeated in WWII, in part, on both fronts by mass produced, less technically advanced tanks. This was particularly true on the Western front, where swarms of cheap to produce Sherman tanks ultimately defeated the vastly superior but expensive Panther and Tiger Tanks.
The lesson must be learned and quickly. Somewhere, Billy Mitchell is spinning.
@fred Actually, it was the T34 not the Sherman.
To take just one example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program's total acquisition costs are projected at $406.1 billion--this after Trump jawboning about the cost. The airplane is too costly to risk in actual combat (and it has been outclassed by older fighters in shoot-outs).
Ronald Reagan supposedly "won" the cold war by forcing the USSR into an arm's race that it couldn't win except by bankrupting the country.
We are happily doing that to ourselves now.
It will require real money to fund, say, Medicare for All--so why isn't anyone in the scrum of Democratic candidates advocating, say, one less super-carrier or airplane too expensive to fly?
Someone--please, grasp the nettle!
5
The inertia to change and entrenched ideology prevent even smart people to ignore facts & evidence. Whether it's the military-industrial complex or democracy through the voting booth, unmistakable examples such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Brexit and Trump regime, facts get a cursory look at best. There will be no major overhaul to the failed systems. That's good news to the nemesis named in Bret Stephens' op-ed.
"The United States should never again fight a land war in Asia"
(Robert Gates former Secretary of Defence)
Good piece Brett...please continue your analysis.
Nothing about the military is likely to change for the better as long as we have a Commander-in-Chief who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.
2
Nothing about the military is likely to change for the better as long as we have a Commander-in-Chief who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.
2
The prognosis that large surface vessels are increasingly just rich targets is widely shared, but making an analogy to the french defeat at Agincourt betrays that one knows nothing about medieval warfare or the folly of the French there.
The French had Henry and his men cut off from retreat and near starvation. They allowed Henry to pick the field of battle, and then they charged uphill into a very well designed defensive position. This was frankly idiot; both strategically and tactically.
The English did have very large numbers of bowmen, shooting from behind abatis and pikemen, but the major killer of the French was the mud ... that's right -- the low part of the field of battle was so muddy that the French hemmed into it literally died in the mud, pushed down by the weight of armor and the men on top of them.
Picket's charge is a much better analogy for Agincourt, but it was nowhere near as foolish as the French at Agincourt. There was no reason the French should have given Henry battle on his ground there -- again he was starving and the French had him cut off.
2
Try 1942, not ‘32.
@Matt Smith
You need to read the article again, more closely, and then study your WW2 history better. The 1932 reference was to a war game, that essentially duplicated the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, almost, but not quite, a decade later. “...Dec 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy...” You could look it up...
The least important component of the military industrial complex is the military. The most important is profits.
And judging from the last 50 years the least important part of war is winning it.
The American military has been used only four times to protect Americans from harm on our soil.
The Revolution where our ragtag army was killing, and being killed by, fellow Brits.
The War of 1812 we were at war with... Brits again.
The Civil War (which was anything but civil) where we were killing each other. In the name of owning other human beings.
And the last time was the Western Indian wars where we were killing the original people of America.
World War II was a worthy enterprise except that it led to the military industrial complex that exists today as a vampire sucking the life out of our Nation. And it was not on our soil protecting our people from others.
Between not having a comprehensive forward looking plan on how to deal with the world that exists now; with extremism fomenting on all sides; with an ecosystem that is heating up to the point of endangering all life on the planet; and with a form of economic exploitation calling itself capitalism; our species just might not survive the next big thing.
1
1932 huh. How about December 7, 1941!!!
1
@Alberto
Read the article again. The point of the story about the 1932 war game was that, a decade later, it actually happened. And during that decade, no one in the top brass learned the 1932 lesson.
5
The author's comparison to the French at Agincourt misses something doesn't it? The French did not fund the English army, but America funds its enemy. The largest transfer of wealth since 1492 has led to the greatest military expansion in world history, and these 2 events were caused by an aggressive militaristic regime joining the WTO. Bill Clinton had never lived and worked in China, but anyone of us who had could have told him what Chinese would do on joining the WTO (cheat in trade, spy, and funnel the money to its totalitarian regime). Huawei intended to have the entire US using its 5G spyware phones. Kudos the NYT reader who is so progressive, but query the sense of that same person funding China's crushing of human rights, military expansion, dishonest trade practices, racism by Chinese against nonChinese, torture and concentration camps for political dissidents, genocide of female infants. China just killed its Nobel Peace Prize winner. In 1935, Germans killed their Nobel Peace Prize winner. Where do you think this is all going? Wake up.
3
...Yes, yes, yes...(!)
--
The US Military is [I agree] in real trouble.
--
And please don't overlook the fact that the brave, overworked Americans who operate these outdated behemoths [ex: aircraft carriers] are straining, both physically and mentally, just to keep their "uber-complicated" platforms up and running.
***
During the Second World War, the Americans and the Russians prevailed over Germany’s brilliantly conceived and operated “war-machine,” by simply producing more of everything, and by "keeping it simple."
—
One of my father's friends, who happened to have fought, "on the other side," remarked, "that we kept shooting at more and more of your tanks, until we finally ran out of bullets!"
--
President Nixon once said, “Winning is everything.”
And my father advised both his young sons, “to never change a winning game,” but “to always change a losing game.”
***
If America wants to keep on winning [and who doesn’t?] then those who plan for our future better start using their heads!
The underlying idea behind this absurd article is that the only way to deliver peace and security is through preparing for war.
Stupid is as stupid does. This opinion is mired in an intellectual paradigm arthritic at best and cataclysmic at worst. Watch out what you wish for, Mr. Stephens...
@james33 Ramsay MacDonald and Stanley Baldwin endorse this message.
A voice out of the past, General Billy Mitchell. Good for you Bret.
Some of our enemies have positioned nuclear weapons in U.S. cities ready to detonate. Why send a missle that immediately gives away the launch site and invites retaliation?
Sigh.
Remember the Navy that said airplanes could never sink battleships (re Billy Mitchell)? The eight-shot Garand (don't want soldiers wasting ammunition)? Our rotting boots and jamming M16s in Vietnam?
How much strategy is driven by the needs of military-industrial complex to sell complex hardware to combat nonexistent threats?
Russian and Chinese nerd trolls and hackers are clearly a threat that has successfully attacked us and installed a mole or two in the White House and who knows where else.
Who will defend us now?
-30-
We also lose out on language. How many Americans speak Arabic and can eavesdrop on Arabic-speaking terrorists? How many Arabic-speaking terrorists can eavesdrop on American plans?
1
Excellent piece. I am very concerned about entrenched military bureaucracies perpetuating themselves at the cost of true readiness. I think this article points in the right direction, now our political leaders have start asking the right questions and force the military to evolve to meet future threats.
$15,000,000,000 weekly spending money buys a lot but confers no intelligence.
President Kennedy's PT109 adventure was part of a similar asymmetrical warfare plane. This was the plan: to defeat the bulky Japanese cruisers, numerous PT Torpedo boats, working in coordination, would run rings around the behemoth warships and sink them. . . Unfortunately for the great plan, the American torpedoes were all duds and the boats immediately lost each other in the dark. Kennedy's wooden boat was sliced in two by the Japanese vessel and only his extraordinary heroics saved the life of his crew. After the war, JFK went to Japan & was photographed shaking hands with the Imperial Navy Captain whose ship totalled his boat . . . .
You wonder why the Chinese surfaced within torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk. If I were testing stealth technology, I wouldn't reveal the technology's effectiveness to the enemy for no reason. It's the opposite problem of the doomsday device.
An apocalyptic weapon is no use as a deterrent if no one knows you have an apocalyptic weapon. A stealth weapon is useless when everyone knows your stealth capabilities.
I think Bret is speaking from a place of relative ignorance.
All China or Russia would have to do is send a few dozen of their hyperspeed anti-ship missiles at a group of carriers and overwhelm their defenses. Sink a carrier and send 100 high tech planes to the bottom. Militaries always fight the last war. We still plan on fighting major wars against multiple enemies. Our enemies could spend 50 million on missiles and sink 50 billion dollars of ships. Pearl Harbor 2.0 awaits.
When it entered the WWII War, US had a military budget equal to 0.99 % of its GDP. At the end of the war it reached 49%. That is not just Power, it is Projection of Power. That is when America became truly militaristic and slowly a new ethos was developing in the minds of Americans: that of the mightiest military power there was.
All the rest is a corollary: we must keep our dominance, we must patrol, we must police the world, we must keep them jobs, we must trust and respect our service men, bury them with honors, and so on. The war culture.
The addiction to power that Americans succumbed to is the problem. Is there any doubt that America is a violent nation?, that we are plagued by a culture of arms, that we kill like no other civilized nation, with impunity, that we motivate invasions and killings with no shame?... At huge cost to other nations and our nation, which America in many places resembles third world countries, where ignorance of the world is pervasive, where swaths of populations are falling in self inflicted destruction, a nation ruled now by a psychopath surrounded by sycophants and riding a wave of hatred spewed by white lashing Republicans and a GOP that has all but surrendered its morality to the beast of war?!
Why is Trump undermining Western alliances, why is he getting cozy with dictators, why is he dumbing America while he grows the military?
The Beast of Power is alive and well in America and we seemingly cannot tame it!
1
The French didn’t fund the English army but the U.S. funds the Chinese military via the WTO trade agreement.
4
America and China are never going to war.
Imagine a true shooting war breaks out. Imagine the F-35 turns out to have a couple of flaws that have hitherto not been discovered for the simple reason that the circumstances under which they appear haven't yet presented themselves (not unlikely, as war games and simulations only go so far).
Imagine that "foreigners" have a AA-missile that, fortuitously or not, exploits these weaknesses. (There are a lot of US university graduates who also happen to be "foreign" nationals working in a variety of high-tech companies that directly or indirectly supply the defense industry...) Imagine that this missile forces the US to withdraw the F-35 from frontline service, because of rapidly mounting losses.
Far fetched? Reading Bret Stephens' article it would seem not. I believe that even the people who believe themselves to be realists about the true nature of war are stuck in a fantasy about the US's industrial might and flexibility.
In WW2 there was an industrial base and skills as well as natural resources that could very quickly be marshaled and turned into "the arsenal of democracy", working 24/7, churning out tanks, ships and planes, safe behind two oceanic moats.
This option has vanished. For Pete's sake, Apple had to abandon its plans to make iPhones or iPads in the US for a lack of capabilities!
And the oceans don't protect you anymore either... In the sort of war this article envisages, the US would itself be a target. This will not be remedied anytime soon.
1
Investment in military technology always reflects a nation’s economic and cultural needs. If the investment appears unsuited for its declared purpose, the true purpose is being concealed.
Well it's not just the U.S. Navy stuck on building more of these battle platforms, the Chinese and Russia, more so China, are looking to project sea force with the construction of new aircraft carriers. Big targets like these ships have already lost their threat with peer adversaries due to advanced missile technologies. No one outside the military had ever heard of an Exocet missile and the damage it could do to a warship until the Battle for the Falkland Islands between the U.K. and Argentina.
"But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at
such a place;' ... I am afeard there are few die
well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their
argument?"
Act 4, Scene 1, William Shakespeare's The Life of King Henry the Fifth
This political analysis of our underlying strategic vulnerability is among the most important offered the American public since the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) was heralded over 25 years ago. The exponential growth of capability derived from the synergy in digital technologies provides new opportunities, new vulnerabilities and the risk of strategic surprise for geopolitical competitors at all global flashpoints. Without the Trump family connections required to obtain a high level security clearance, it is impossible to speak from a well-informed perspective. Ironically, one of the dire threats to our national security lies with the corruption that currently prevails among the elected or politically appointed acolytes in the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Truly knowledgeable government officials or defense industry leaders can not share sensitive military information with civilian media, American voters or rank & file members of the military. For political purposes, the understanding of our strategic postures is uninformed, speculative or premised on recently declassified information that is likely decades behind current capability. While some secrecy is essential for security, the Trump Administration's proven contempt for truth destabilizes our geopolitical situation & increases our strategic vulnerability. It is clear, Putin & Trump have critically damaged our alliances & eviscerated our ability to defend our national interests. Mission Accomplished!
1
Americans will never learn from the past, we are far too busy expecting the next hi-tech will prevent everything bad from happening and save us from our own folly.
Beyond the example of "Grand Joint Exercise 4" is the September 11, 2001 destruction wrecked by dedicated and well financed individuals who commandeered airliners by use of box-cutters (a small hand device that holds a razor blade).
A fanatically dedicated persons with clubs will always prevail over hi-tech persons relying upon complicated defense devices.
In the age of satellites, hiding amd protecmilitary assets is d
""A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president ""
After 32 years military service, I must ask, "Son, what are you smokin?"
You are correct in that we are on a tipping point, however, historically, we refuse to learn other than the painful way, via death of service members. Them we over-react for decades with unthroughout policies.
A simple reminder for those who think it has all changed to cyber-warfare: Those brand new Chinese sand islands with airbases on them are not battery powered, they have real warships around them and real fighter-bombers stationed on them. The military geniuses who spout about how old warfare is now dead cannot envision these bases actually projecting hard-core, flying-steel military power at our ships, but thank God our military can. Actual soldiers and sailors will have to sail out to meet that enemy, and the enemy will not throw flashlight batteries at them.
I'd be interested if Mr. Stevens has ever held a gun, or faced an enemy in a real fight. Save us from inexperienced, bar fly neo-conservative keyboard jockies who know more than our fighting generals and admirals about how to defend our country.
I served in combat for my country, as have two of my sons, and I would't follow Steven's advice to the men's room, let alone to war.
@Nick Lappos Perhaps you should actually read the article. The argument is that the systems we deploy to project kinetic violence are premised on assumptions about the systems our enemies will use to counter us in the next war, assumptions that are obsolete. Swarms of inexpensive AI based supersonic missiles are not "cyber war".
If it develops that we lose aircraft carriers to asymmetric systems, the alternatives will be to take a conflict nuclear or admit defeat.
The attack on the USS Cole should have been the wake up call for the US Navy, a small boat packed with explosives manned by a few people devasted an Aegis-equipped mislsle destroyer. That is asymmetric warfare defined. The other example is of the Soviet T34 tanks which though inferior to their Nazi opposite Tiger tanks were vastly cheaper and therefore overwhelmed the over-engineered expensive Tiger tanks in WWII through sheer numbers.
Cheap, fast, efficient and dynamic may not be sexy to defense contractors, but on a bang for the buck scale they make way more sense for our future needs.
The writer seems to be laboring under the false impression that US military spending is for the purpose of defending the country. The spending is to help vested interests get richer and maintain their organizations, status and power. Their main activities in the last few decades (Iraq, Vietnam) had nothing to do with defending the United States and everything to do with making money for military contractors. As the writer points out, there is no defense logic to using 200 million dollar jets (F-35) that can be shot down with a 2 million dollar missile.
How much are we investing in world peace ? Why does fear always win ? Peace is the ultimate disrupter.
“Do I not destroy my enemies by making them my friend ?”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10667-do-i-not-destroy-my-enemies-when-i-make-them
Abraham Lincoln
1
How about first rebuilding and further strengthening our alliances which have been withering by neglect in the America first era. All of our allies are facing the same expansion threats from China and Russia. All of us together are on a population parity with China, but superior on economic and intellectual terms. We cannot afford to do it on our own.
2
This is the only thing in the NYT that I have agreed with in years.
Two words for you , Bret: Iraq and Afghanistan both L s
Agincourt is not the only model. Nazi Germany had more advanced tanks, planes and large, guided rockets but they were overwhelmed, among other things, by the immense numbers of planes the US could field.
In WWII the vastly superior German Tanks were heavier and more powerful. The cheaper lighter American tanks were no match. But there were thousands more American tanks so it didn't really matter in the end.
2
It has been said that the military always fights the last war.
136
@sjs - The concept of the "last war" can be either hopeful or ominous.
1
@sjs
We are running out of “last wars” as we are continually at war, some place, and not just little ones. Our aircraft carriers do stand as effective mobile platforms for projecting air power and it seems their intimidation value is not lost even as submarines lurk, as they did in WWII and hence. We seem to have capable ground insurgent capabilities, though it does seem an emphasis shift is in order. The biggest question seems to be do we need to be involved in so many military conflicts, and to what extent our current systems are maintained by the inertia of vested systems, as you point out.
8
@Pat
Our aircraft carriers do stand as effective mobile platforms.
Sitting ducks against a fleet of small Iranian speedboats armed with an Exorcet missile.
8
This piece seems... kinda off.
First: Longbowmen did not decide Againcourt. The French did successfully engage the English in melee combat. They were also tired and exhausted after climbing a muddy hill.
Longbowmen helped, certainly, but they were by no means decisive.
Secondly: The fundamental thrust of this article is misleading- a missile will always be cheaper than a ship. You can stick all the cost-cutting procedures you want onto your shipbuilding, but that's a pretty fundamental truth of modern warfare.
Thus, you essentially have two options- Build enough ships that you can afford to lose a few, or invest heavily into defending the ships you have.
Given the massive costs associated with any shipbuilding(and the manpower losses with naval losses), I don't think it's very fair to say that supercarriers are an obsolete concept. They rely heavily on their escorts for missile defense, but... capital ships have always relied on their escorts.
Unless you're willing to just deal with writing off thousands of sailors, I don't think you can approach our navy as a fleet of expendable assets.
1
@Adrian Grady If we built smaller ships we could afford to build more. Doesn't seem like a very difficult concept to understand. But someone capable of writing your last paragraph might indeed have difficulty.
President Kennedy's PT109 adventure was part of a similar asymmetrical warfare plane. This was the plan: to defeat the bulky Japanese cruisers, numerous PT Torpedo boats, working in coordination, would run rings around the behemoth warships and sink them. . . Unfortunately for the great plan, the American torpedoes were all duds and the boats immediately lost each other in the dark. Kennedy's wooden boat was sliced in two by the Japanese vessel and only his extraordinary heroics saved the life of his crew. After the war, JFK went to Japan & was photographed shaking hands with the Imperial Navy Captain whose ship totalled his boat . . . .
@Red Allover Nice bit of history. But there's no reason the torpedoes had to be duds.
Well said, Bret.
A torpedo into the rudder of a Nimitz class carrier can cause it to list sufficiently that it cannot launch or recover planes on deck and thus it becomes both irrelevant and vulnerable. Big Air Force and Big Army share similar vulnerabilities and irrelevancies in modern low intensity conflicts.
1
@Gary Hart Gary is that really you? You alway were pretty clever.
The article mentioned that a Chinese sub snuck close to one of our carriers. Is there no way to detect them?
Nuclear powers can realistically only be kept honest through trade (e.g. energy EU-Russia) and pressured with economic sanctions.
Whilst matching each other's military power is ongoing between superpowers, the operational side of conflicts has largely changed from grabbing land to destabilizing politics and economies.
The US has been doing this for decades in Latin America and the Middle East. What is new is that the West is now on the receiving end. We have brought this on ourselves, by offering easy worldwide access to the phones of our citizens i.e. direct access to their brains. It didn't take long for foreign powers and greedy corporations to start manipulating our population for their own gain. There is also a remarkable tolerance towards industrial and government hacking and spying ("everyone is doing it" attitude).
It seems, we have not learnt our lessons just yet.
1
I saw the title and knew I didn't have to read the article, but read it anyway. Stephens and Brose state the obvious. I guess now there are three of us. Heads in sand?
The US defense budget is 750 billion plus the "black box" budget....... that's 2 billion every 24 hours - minimum. To use John McCain's term the "military - industrial- congressional complex" is an immediate predatory danger to our own nation's more pressing needs.
I think you define the biggest difference between the United States and it’s potential adversaries.
It all comes down to how human life is valued.
You mention putting fewer people in harm’s way. We know that Chinese and Russian philosophy and past experience shows that they are willing to see countless numbers of soldiers and civilians killed to protect their leaders and their system of government.
Our leader had heel spurs. He valued himself more than his peers. That hasn’t changed.
Yesterday, Russia launched a doomsday super submarine.
Our leader wants a costly military parade so he can stand there while soldiers pass by and salute. Flashy hardware will fly overhead.
I give credit to our military personnel. They see a future that can be earned by what they learn while in service. They’re out there and ready to follow orders.
The secret plans are something none of us know. I just hope we’re not expecting to use all that hardware to fight the last war and that we’re ready for the future conflict that is sure to start with some minor insult to the idiot in the White House.
Billions for defense. All the enemy needs are a few suicide bombers or a few small drones. How to defend against such cheap weapons?
"Americans learn only from Catastrophe, not experience" - Teddy Roosevelt
Unfortunately the Democrats are trying to stop many of the disasters of electing a liar, a grifter and a fraud as President or we may have already woken from that fever.
I guess our time of reckoning is till to come.
May God have mercy on our souls.
2
The place to start teaching the "No more Agincourts" theory is at the US military academies, and not with the Chiefs of Staff, current serving Admirals, or Captains salivating for their first carrier command--they've already consumed too much "Big Carrier Battle Group" Kool Aid.
Good article. Now how about one on the perfidy of a supposed ally in attacking the uss liberty, and how over the decades we reacted by sending that supposed ally billions.
@Rhporter Good question, albeit not on topic. I do believe Mr. Stephens is solidly pro-Israel. I doubt we could ever get him to say anything about the USS Liberty.
If there's something you can't possibly defend but you still want to shield the perp the only choice is silence.
I have never before read an editorial that resonates so strongly with my own experience and analysis. I spent six years in the Navy and 32 years working for the Navy delivering fuel and stores to Navy ships at sea, at least 'hundreds of times' to aircraft carriers. I've been in a few formations like the one depicted in the lead photo. As I worked my way up through the ranks, the thoughts that Stephens consolidates in this editorial occupied more and more of my "What if?" thinking time.
I am not a warrior, I can't even claim to be a logistician. I just delivered gas and groceries. So my 26 years as captain of naval supply ships doesn't make me an expert; it just gives me a more personal view on this. Those enormous, expensive aircraft carriers are an important component of our military. As a British guy once said, "Four and a half acres of sovereign territory." In the eyes of the public, wherever they go, they project an enormous presence, and having been there I can attest that it is very often welcomed.
But the areas where our biggest and most expensive manned weapons systems can operate is now circumscribed by the capabilities and ambitions of our potential adversaries. For humanitarian missions, big and capable manned ships are better than the alternative*. But having been there many times, I dread the thought of aircraft carriers being forced to defend the South China Sea.
* https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=50991
2
In peacetime, officers do not normally rise to the rank of admiral by challenging the views of their superiors. This reality discourages creative thinking and exposes a military to potential disaster.
The Germans in WWII exemplified the folly of misplaced priorities. They developed tanks whose technology excelled anything the Allies could deploy. But the behemoths cost too much to produce in large numbers, and their weight sharply reduced their range, forcing them to refuel frequently. The cheaper, inferior American tanks could not compete one-on-one against the Tigers, but their mobility and far greater numbers more than compensated for this disadvantage.
In the air, the Germans poured massive resources into developing a jet fighter, but its cost and fuel consumption precluded the deployment of enough planes to affect the war. The far cheaper, and thus more numerous, American P-51 (Mustang) could swarm and defeat the superior German adversary.
Hitler's fascination with technology dictated the German approach, and it cost his regime dearly. Our military does not answer to a ruthless dictator, but the bureaucratic principle that power at the top can suppress creativity below still applies.
And when did the US last win a war ..... ww2 maybe.
@Wtf I know no one believes this but we won in Korea. The goal was to stop North Korea from conquering South Korea and take a look: South Korea is not under Lil Kim's thumb. There's no way that is not a victory. You can say the victory wasn't worth the cost but you can't say it wasn't a victory without being utterly wrong.
The Gulf War: Kuwait is not occupied by Iraq. Now in this case the ease of our victory may have contributed to Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq. Victories can have negative consequences. Doesn't mean they aren't victories.
Don't worry, Kirsten Gillibrand or maybe Elizabeth Warren will have the answer.
“A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking....” Ha, ha, ha! This article should be labeled satire.
@Rebecca Motlagh Well it wasn't that long ago we had such a president. Such a secretary of defense? I really don't know but it hardly seems impossible. Now Congress may look difficult but that's because the Republicans decided to follow the Gingrich playbook. If the voters would react appropriately we could get there.
Profits before patriotism - if I may use that maligned term. Honestly, does anyone believe that Congress will reset and reapportion strategic goals while there are recommendations made by a committee of lobbyists? We saw this when Regan and Carter began to twiddle the priorities in the military. They got blow back.
Countries that spend huge amounts on its military to protect an empire are countries in decline. Beware of the hysteria of the military industrial complex (Eisenhower’s farewell address) and those calling the U S weak after spending more and more $ down a black hole.
155
@Gary Cohen Took a looong time for Rome's decline.
1
@Jack Toner
Almost everything changes faster these days. No longer fighting with spears and knives only. The development of gunpowder changed everything and now atomic weapons are becoming obsolete as sonics, electromagnetic weapons and other kinds most of us don't even understand the terminology of are developed. And with increased speed and ease of transportation guerrilla warfare has come more and more into vogue. Many "soldiers" no longer wear uniforms unlike the past when one could just look for the "redcoat" or certain style of helmet! Now that Kim Jong Un is conferring with Russia and China we could be pulverized tomorrow. Especially since Trump is too busy holding rallies and golfing to pay attention to intelligence briefings!
8
@Jack Toner
Immigration and failure to take adequate care of them helped speed it up.
4
the US' armed forced would not need to be tested ever if it stopped bullying everyone and causing wars all over th eplace while cozying up tho those who should be stopped, but have oil and money.
The US has lost credibility
1
The absurdity of war has never more obvious to me than after reading your article, Bret. What we really need are some innovative thinkers who realize that war is obsolete. Yes I know we have been practicing this method of conflict resolution for millennia but how effective has it been? Somebody needs to step up to the plate and point out that it has been a complete failure and we need to find a better way. We are 'Homo sapiens' after all - the smart ones.
The world isn't what it once was. Not since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fears of Russian and Chinese aggression against the continental US, are just that; fears. The US nuclear arsenal trumps any so-called imperialistic designs that the other two super powers might have. Therefore to continue to prepare militarily for these types of conflicts is ludicrous.
The military was right, of course, in recently proclaiming that the biggest threat to the US is Climate Change. The mass migrations and unrest this will cause dwarfs all other threats. But right now, the US is headed in the opposite direction in this regard.
Terrorism: the number one thing the US can do to reduce this threat is to lobby. Lobby really hard, for a fair and just solution to the Palestinian question. Once that is settled the raison d'être for fundamentalist Islamist attacks vanishes overnight. But right now, the US is headed in the opposite direction in this regard.
The next thing the US would need to do is to stop backing tinpot dictatorships that end up impoverishing their own populations. Your next terrorists, folks, will be the poor and downtrodden who will wish to strike back at those countries and propped up and supported the petty tyrants that made their daily lives miserable. But right now, the US is headed in the opposite direction in this regard.
As Malcolm once rightly said, the chickens coming home to roost ought not be a surprise for anyone.
Mr Stephens: I don't know where your information came from, but the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) had been decommissioned sometime in the early 90s.
1
Low cost barges for floating tarmac, and everything else in small vessels designed to fool or elude the drones. This is the future of projecting force. Can only hope its a no brainer for those tasked with thinking about these things... and that the Chinese don't get there first.
1
America does love to practice war. Of the 239 years of the existence of the USA 222 of those years have been spent practicing war somewhere against someone. To greater and lesser success. And of course Americans keep their small arms expertise current on one another. Just the cost of empire I suppose.
First, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Sunday, December 7, 1941 NOT 1932. Second, it was President Eisinhower, former Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during WWII, NOT Senator McCain, who coined the term "military-industrial complex". Third, the stunning English victory at Agincourt was followed in short order (less than 10 years) by the loss of all English possessions in France, with the exception of Calais. Henry V died young, leaving an infant son to inherit his throne. Dissention at home and military mismanagement in France, the refusal of King Charlse's sonand the French to accept Henry as legitimate successor, and the inspiration of the "maid of Orleans" were factors that even the vaunted English Crossbow couldn't overcome.
2
@Michael Frieberg Extraordinary isn't it that in the op-ed pages of what is suppose to be one of the greatest English language newspapers in world there is a piece laden with so many historical errors. Clearly Stephens is not a historian but the question then becomes, just what is he? Obviously a military hawk and a tout for the Pentagon. Certainly a conservative if not a Trumpist-which he also may be given he's proposing multiplying the lethality of the greatest military the world has ever known by orders of magnitude and then turning it over to the most immoral, unethical, unhinged leader of any advanced nation in living memory.
@Michael Frieberg
You do realize the first 2 paragraphs were talking about a war game right? It says so right in the 2nd paragraph:
"Early on a Sunday morning in 1932, a fleet of some 150 fighters, dive-bombers and torpedo planes struck the naval base at Pearl Harbor. The ships lying at anchor on Battleship Row sustained direct hits. Also hit were the base’s fuel storage tanks and the Army Air Corps planes parked nearby at Hickam Field.
The surprise was as complete as it was devastating. Only this was an Army-Navy war game, the attackers were American pilots operating from the carriers Saratoga and Lexington, and the bombs they dropped were sacks of flour."
It was never a description of 1941. It was explaining that a war game had shown Pearl Harbor's weakness years before the Japanese attacked. Not to mention that the Japanese probably copied some of it as I'm sure there were spies present when the war game was held.
1
@Michael Frieberg
Your reading comprehension of the above article must not be operative today, along with that of several other commentators. “Grand Joint Exercise #4” was indeed conducted on a Sunday in 1932. It was an Army-Navy war game, as stated clearly in the article, and Mr. Stephens, then goes on to note that it presaged the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor nearly a decade later. He also notes that the top brass did not learn the lesson during the ensuing 9 years, which is the thrust of the article. Also, while Eisenhower did indeed coin the term, “military-industrial complex,” it was indeed John McCain riffing on that formulation some 40+ years later. As for the French at Agincourt, the victors wrote that history of the longbow; the truth, as another commentator noted, was a bit more complicated.
1
I am a full fledged technophile, but I also know how vulnerable such systems can be. The author makes a good point about needing more weapons options that are cheaper and not too expensive to put in harms way, but when remote controlled systems are down, you need some human drivers, or such ships are useless. What we need is the right mixture of systems. And war planners who appreciate the breadth of needs and a Congress that does not dictate funding based on congressional re-election strategies.
One reason we won WW2 was we had that mix and were also not shy about putting our expensive war ships into battle in the Pacific.
I share Bret's concern about our vulnerabilities and costs. These things take time. Human generations really. Not that our admirals are stupid, but collective decisions like that are slow and we have invested so much into our current fleet we must lean on it as it is for another few generations as we migrate to new stuff. No doubt our vulnerabilities and advantages will change with time, but the same national interests that led us to build that fleet will demand we use it for as long as it can still put to sea and engage an enemy. New technologies will be added to the old but still serviceable systems. Only rarely can new technology be put in service as fast as well-meaning civilians realize new dangers and the dangers our sailors have managed successfully for many years.
24
@Mac Clark
Our enemies probably won't be on warships but instead in the hobbyist's mini submarine, gliders, drones, and billionaires' yachts. Think of the wealthy background of Osama bin Laden, the sons of the spice billionaire in Sri Lanka, maybe even Russian oligarchs who have bought condos in Trump's towers and joined his golf courses! The gated communities could be the first line of attack!
2
@Mac Clark Unfortunately, we cannot wait generations for this to be fixed. Our adversaries will not graciously stand by while our top leaders die off. They will help the process.
4
@Mac Clark
Bret Stephens has never volunteered to wear the military uniform of any American armed force.
Stephens did not attend and graduate from any American military academy.
1
Right idea, but limited ideas. Go further: make war democratic.
On land: 5 million Harleys with multi fuel engines, sidecars crammed with weapons, riders (both active and reserve) with radio-equipped helmets and bad attitudes. Turn 'em loose in anybody's country.
At sea, lots of bass boats, air-cushion vehicles and jet skis -- ditto on radio and attitude. Small delivery ships to get them to the general scene to ravage a coastline or two.
In the air: the only aircraft known to have penetrated to and landed in Red Square, Moscow was a Cessna 172, if memory serves. Same thing: small planes, drop tanks, many weapons and pilots who like to fly under bridges.
1
People have been saying this for decades. Our military industrial complex does not want to hear. Profit margins are thin for drones. Navy boats and foolishly expensive planes are lets not forget tanks are welfare local economies. Don't expect change under this dinosaur he even wants more tanks. Sitting ducks for cheap intelligent anti tank weapons. We will make Sudan, Venezuela or some middle income country shake with fear with our weapons. First world countries not so much.
Pentagon with it's political master who enjoy the "Razadel photo with latest miracle weapon". Low tech is not a glamerous photos for political master to be seen in.
Low tech weapon system: history, languages and cultures trained services members.
Better yet, Brett. For a few million bucks, an enemy like Russia can flood social media with outrageous nonsense aimed at a hyper-partisan audience starved for any information that reinforces its own conspiratorial impulses and biases. Turn reasonable people into fascists. Democracy-loving people into supporters of dictators. Reality into alternate reality. Allies into enemies.
Learning from the incredible success of Russia's 2016 campaign, and America's failure to anything whatsoever about it, Russia, China, and other countries will be even bolder in 2020 and beyond.
Who knew that the credulity of the American voter would be the country's ultimate downfall!
3
We saw this preview of the future when Iran swarmed the fleet with cheap inflatables.
A swarm of these as drones will turn a carrier into a coffin.
The Strait of Hormuz could be a new graveyard of the middle east.
1
Bret the basic argument in your story is correct. The fallacy lies more in the philosophical than our current reality. The US has overkill capacity of ?,pick a number! Our enemies whoever they might be are a minor lot intent on gaining power through intimidation. We as a country have to have the moral back bone to either bluff them or wipe them out and be done with it. The bluff can be "seen" with the military hardware currently being used. The alternative of course is not nice and not well suited to a "progressive"culture. War is not nice !
"a serious president capable of long-term thinking"
"For that, we’ll have to wait for a future administration."
Well done.
You are on to something here and should be adjusted ASAP smaller faster where needed as for the industrial military complex yes a big problem but can be in the formula to bring them along. The same could be said about the privet sector obvious changes need made but big business dose not want to lose there profit share even if it would be for the good of all.
"A Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit. . . a serious president capable of long-term thinking?" It is to laugh. Or weep.
Excellent editorial: he didn’t even blame it on the Democrats this time!
Sadly, speaking against the military industrial complex and their ever-expanding budget is deemed defeatist and un-patriotic. I hope others will emulate Brett Stevens’ forthrightness on this issue.
I'm not sure what we can do to keep our carrier fleet out of harms way except force all the admirals to be stationed on them, especially during tense times.
It's not by accident that senior commanders of the Navy and Air Force made their way up the ladder by their experience as fighter pilots, aviators, and ship commanders. How flexible on tactics and strategy are they now as 4-star officers?
It's very possible that our forces may have to learn the hard way by absorbing a stinging loss. While it's unlikely that a Chinese stealth submarine would launch an unprovoked torpedo attack on a Navy carrier, some non-state actor wouldn't hesitate. It's inconcievable that the Navy hasn't gamed out this scenario, but meanwhile, we are still sailing and flying and buying expensive machines.
To back up his claims, Stephens cites Agincourt, which works in some ways and fails in others. The English longbowmen did make a difference; they were 80% of Henry V's army. But their main effect was against the French horses, armored only at the head. Terrain played a more crucial role. The battlefield was a muddy, recently-plowed field hemmed in by dense woods, so the French couldn't outflank the English. French chroniclers confirm the chaos created by maddened horses, and knights or men-at-arms too densely packed to use their weapons well. How will modern combatants recreate such conditions at sea or in the air?
1
Trump has never had to think about the military or foreign relations, does not know anything about them and obviously not willing to learn anything. Everything is transactional.
There is no reward or gain in Syria. Let's go. Same for Afghanistan and Iraq. South Korea, make'm pay. Same for NATO.
World leaders know he can be rolled. North Korea plays him. But he might think that a short, clean, good war somewhere might do something about his ratings before the election.
1
Absent a direct attack on American soil, we can count on any future conflict with a major industrial power following the pattern of say, WWll, when money competed favorably with patriotism as banks & corporations, directly & indirectly, aided the Axis.
It's not unreasonable to believe that certain "investments" of our present outsourcers will be spared destruction like some Gothic Cathedrals in previous wars. Just as the neo-cons thought that Iraqis would welcome invasion with flowers & cheering, so the internationalists would have us believe that like the Phoenix rising, democratic capitalistic transformation can appear after taking down totalitarian regimes. Ya gotta believe. How many more times?
1
Contrary to myth, the longbow ended the age neither of cavalry nor of aristocracy. Longbowmen were prominent in war for about another century after 1415. Agincourt was arguably the last battle where their use was decisive. Cavalry, including armored cavalry, continued to be essential and even sometimes decisive on European battlefields for another 400 years.
1
The carriers in the photo are the Stennis and the Lincoln - the picture was taken yesterday while both transited through the Mediterranean.
Unfortunately, or maybe a ray of hope in regard to the subject of this op-ed, these are the only two carriers we have at sea at the moment. Tellingly, they are both in the Med coming from or going to our aimless and perpetual war in the Middle East.
Maybe we can stop playing world's policeman and wind down our military complex? (Complex used in the psychological sense, not the infrastructural)
1
The Big Powers will never fight a ‘conventional war’. It would become nuclear almost immediately. That’s why since WW 2 their battles have occurred by proxy, For example Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.
Read Paul Kennedy’s insightful book, “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers”. Military bankruptcy is America’s greatest threat to it’s stature and well-being. Judging by the neglect of US infrastructure and the dominance of a self-absorbed oligarchy, it’s already happening.
1
January 17, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."
1
I agree that the future is in higher performance unmanned aircraft, but something needs to transport them. There are plenty of SF stories to go by not to mention Tom Clancy.
1
The Taliban has no air force but we're still at it after 18 years. These weapons are really great for fighting enemies that can't fight back directly at these weapons platforms but apparently they are insufficient to win on their own.
Excellent article Mr. Stephens! Yes, its easy for anyone with a minimal sense of history to see why we in the 21st Century continue to rely on the military model that we inherited following WW ll- Money and politics.
The Generals don't want to give up their toys, their comfortable billets or their pipeline to the big bucks after retiring to "Consulting" work in the defense industry. And the manufactures of these Hyper-expensive 'Transformer' type war machines know all they need to do to stay on the tax payer gravy train is threaten to close a plant in Congressman Grifter's district or deny Senator Blowhard's next campaign contribution (and then accuse anyone who dares question this arrangement of "undermining our national security", by voting against the next untested multi-billion dollar defense system ).
You pegged it Mr Stephens; our Military and Navy are being run like the Titanic: Heart pounding flashy, a technical marvel of the age, and rushing full steam into history, bands playing on into the night.
4
A few years ago during an exercise, a Swedish diesel electric submarine penetrated the anti-submarine shield around a US nuclear carrier and was able to get close enough to take photographs of the faces of its crew through its periscopes. The US Navy was so impressed (and alarmed) they leased the sub and its crew for a year to figure out how to defend against a super silent sub. I'm not sure they came up with a solution. When I was in the Navy, the submariners had a saying: There are two types of vessels on the seas, submarines and targets.
This is a good example of the theme of the article. Bad actors with good, lethal and relatively inexpensive technology could quite possibly sink one or more of our carriers, shoot down our blindingly expensive fighters or swarm our warships with lethal drones. I think we're going to realize far to late that we're just feeding a ravenous defense industry and the mindsets of people trying to fight the wars of two or three decades ago.
5
...and what do you think our major adversaries are doing alongside the digital warfare technologies? Launching aircraft carriers (China 2x and more), modernizing their rusting fleets as fast as they can (Russia), and buying 4th and 5th generation fighters (Korea, India, etc.) if they can get them.
There still is no substitute (yet) for boots on the ground (and air and water) to project power, and until our adversaries stop doing it, the US won't either...
Ultimately military technology will collapse under the weight of its own complexity. The default at this point is nuclear which makes it tough when the enemy is already part of one’s community through indoctrination and sleeper cells. Bottom line is the ability of the individual to defend themselves and their families. Counting on the government is not necessarily going to be an option.
We are often reminded how the U.S. has a defense budget larger than many nations' defense budgets combined. The question of whether we're spending that money wisely is rarely addressed.
7
The war is truly for hearts and minds. Military technology has failed in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Smart bombs will never defeat the way people think; in fact it tends to increase hostility.
The USA must have a strategy to win hearts and minds. There is a very large and dry sponge out there just waiting to soak up an ideology of human rights, international law, and environment protection. Will the USA take advantage of the opportunity?
4
@Greg I'd love to see human rights, respect for the rule of law, and environmental protection make it TO the USA sometime soon myself.
"That incident ought to have been a loud wake-up call to the Navy that the age of the super-carrier is drawing to a close just as surely as the age of the battleship was coming to an end by the 1930s."
Too true. In strictly military terms inexpensive Chinese medium range ground to ship missiles have probably made the South China Sea a killing field for these carriers already. Increasing carrier defense is very costly, and can be countered by a cheaply achieved increase in attacking missiles.
4
As idealistic as it may sound, I think it is our country's best interest, and all other countries as well, to agree to scale back the size of their military forces. To believe we will always stay ahead of our enemies militarily and never suffer a defeat that ends in a nation-ending defeat is folly.I think our best hope is that over the long term all nations reduce their military forces to the point that no country can defeat and occupy another. Imagine the benefit if military spending was directed to other purposes,, or simply eliminated. It may seem idealistic, but the inevitable alternative will be wars and ruination for millions of people, quite possibly our own.
2
"A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking"
You will never have all that in the same administration. Anyway, there will never be a conventional war with Russia or China because of nuclear threat that would erase all trace of life from our planet. And"autonomous AI weapon systems" could end up as dangerous as nukes to our species.
Best would be to let the militaro-industrial complex with the same budget and convince them to phase with it to space exploration.
Every bloated, inefficient, over funded and over confident military needs a catastrophic defeat from time to time. Preferably with a large number of casualties. It is the only thing that can keep red tape and complacence in check. A little humility and healthy fear of your opponents is a good thing, especially in war.
4
Mr. Stephens undermines his argument by being glaringly unaware of a few importance nuances to his "historical" arguments. Like that Henry V would have lost at Agincourt if it hadn't been raining. Or that French armored cavalry eventually learned how to defeat the supposedly invincible longbows, and went on to win the 100 Years War. Or that in the first real WARTIME encounter between an aircraft carrier and surface warships (HMS Glorious versus two German battlecruisers) it was the carrier that went down.
It's always a bad thing when journalists try to pretend to be military historians. They believe that their "insights" -- which amount to nothing more than 20-20 hindsight -- should have been enjoyed and acted upon by those in charge at the time. And then pat themselves on the back being so much more clever than all those real generals and admirals.
1
The situation Stephens describes is exactly like the one in Arthur C. Clarke's famous short story "Superiority" from 1951. It did not end well for the expensive new systems.
2
As a former staff officer on a 4 star admiral's staff, I can assure you that no changes will come about without a transformative commander in chief such as Bernie Sanders (see his commitment to auditing the almost unauditable Pentagon) or Pete Butigieg (like me a former Naval Intelligence Officer). Cutting the defense budget by half will force the Pentagon think the way less well funded adversaries do. An efficient fighting force is an effective fighting force.
4
@Franklin Ohrtman And we'll fight our increasingly aggressive adversaries with what? Harsh word? Make no mistake about it, there are several countries in the world with expansion plans. They are encouraged by this kind of pacifist stance.
Here in San Diego where the Pacific Fleet has its base, I’ve often speculated about the Pearl Harbor style attack which could take a large portion of it out; only it will be rockets, not armed aircraft this time. A large portion, and its population, of a beautiful city will be gone. The price for living in paradise or the cost of the hubris of our leadership? Avoidable or a dystopian dream come true? Will the casualties we inflict on our adversaries make up for it? Would humanity survive the conflict? Overwhelming military response doesn’t have to be the answer, but it seems to be the only one under consideration here.
2
Carriers will be useful for some time to come but they are getting increasingly vulnerable to advanced military technology. Someone at the Pentagon should be aware that the Chinese are making great strides in laser warfare. We need to be ready for the inevitable attacks on our communication satellites which, if successful, will destroy US operational defenses and our overall ability to communicate on the battlefield.
China intends to oust the US from our Asia Pacific military and economic position and replace us with its own hegemony over Taiwan, the Koreas & Japan. We are seeing this now with the Chinese attempts at deploying bases in the South China Sea and reducing our ability and that of our allies to navigate these international waters.
Chinese military policies make it almost inevitable that we will clash with them at some point in the future. Our military needs to be ready to thwart this likely onslaught. New technologies will have to be developed to combat Chinese & Russian cyberwarfare.
5
Not a great choice of analogy, since the English longbow was a difficult weapon to master, which required plenty of "expense" in training, and could only draw from a limited pool of recruits (those able to draw the bow). If the French knights are the aircraft carriers, the English longbowman isn't the stealthy Chinese mini-sub--he's an upgraded guided missile cruiser.
1
Points to ponder. Even during the Vietnam war, with their vietcong guerrilla tactics of multiple small surprise attacks seemed to mock the vastly superior -though rigid- weaponry displayed by the U.S.; it's knack, not brute force, that wins the day. And yet, changing to a more functional military prowess would require 'painful change' from the current cozy military-industrial complex 'business as usual'. But from words to action, there is a stretch, right?
4
Let's not get too carried away about military spending.
A detailed 'pie chart' of US government spending shows that it is primarily a social welfare agency.....that happens to have an army, navy and air force.
Total social welfare spending is more than 3x the military budget, which is about 18% of total spending.
Or am I missing something here?
@Kenneth Johnson
As it should be. Do you really think the major purpose of governance should be bombs and bullets?
The military is also a social welfare agency. I know people who have enlisted and served because it comes with Healthcare, among other benefits.
Slow down. Take it easy...
Technology is changing warfare; and the Pentagon is an entrenched bureaucracy. But wars and intra-regional conflicts will continue to unfold under the rules of game theory. Stephens's wide-eyed sense of panic, therefore, isn't helpful.
An even bigger question than how to send bombs––all major adversaries will, in rapid order, have similar technology––is whom to bomb.
Recent wars of conquest and subversive actions of terror on every continent except Antarctica have targeted noncombatants, effectively scrapping the Geneva Convention regarding civilians.
Potential retaliation against civilian populations for an attack by a country or an organization against military targets greatly extends the half-life of existing attack and defend systems.
This is particularly true if one's adversary is certain in advance of operations that to stage an attack against an opponent's military will result in the destruction of its civilian infrastructure and population.
North Korea are masters of this aspect of game theory. Take note that they maintain their posture with threats from conventional missile batteries and traditional divisions of infantry.
2
The essay's underlying assumption is that war, some hot and some cold, are inevitable as are the vast billions wasted to prepare and fight them. There have been presidents and congresses that believed diplomacy could lessen the threat and burden. Nixon and Reagan were two of them, difficult as it is for me to praise either president. Yes, defense spending is necessary. But if the Department of War could be returned to being the Department of Defense, we could spend 20% of today's figures and be safe.
2
@John Mullen
Are you kidding? Reagan? Cut taxes and greatly increased military spending. That was the start of our huge deficits.
5
Even though the Navy and Congress was not in favor of it...
Roosevelt insisted and pushed for the conversion of cruisers under construction to small fast aircraft carriers. The establishment wanted nothing but Essex Class but in the end we got about the same number of Essex and Independence class ships. Those small faster carriers provided about 40% of the fleet air power. They cost less and were quicker to build. Yes, the had a lower survival rate, but their speed helped in a lot of situations.
What happened after WWII. They were all dumped in favor of rebuilding the "bigger" Essex ships. We never learn our lessons.
Some years ago after 9/11 I sat in on a conversation. It was a talk between a current Air Force Officer Fighter Pilot and an aging man in his late 80's. The older man had commanded a fighter wing during the WWII. The argument was that old man said if he had 50 of his guys in combination of P-51 Mustangs and P-47 Jugs that they could hold air superiority over Washington for a day over the "most advanced air force in the world".
Why? because the new aircraft had too short a flight time and that a swarm of older aircraft would outlast them. Shure the old timer said they would see a 50% loss rate, but the damage the Jugs could do on the ground in a day was nothing to sniffle about.
All that could be done for about $50M or less than the cost of a single US fighter.
There was a lesson in that discussion that no one in power will concede to at our peril.
1
Since the writer alludes to Agincourt, it might help to take the following facts in account:
1) The British troops were trying to save face by posing a march through a part of northern France, having realized from their initial arrival it was, for them, a military disaster owing to their siege of Harfleur which (to put it kindly) "took longer than expected" and the simple fact that they were greatly outnumbered.
2) Nearing the end of their march, the British troops were trying to get to one of the few "safe" places the controlled in northern France, Calais, without incurring further losses.
3) The French figured out a way to bog themselves down by engaging the fight on a deeply muddy field where, having in their arrogance made a point of bringing their battle horses and their knights, all laden with heavy armor armor, making them sitting ducks, while they tried in vain to extricate themselves from the muck, for the British longbows.
One side was trying to bluster and get out of town with minimal losses. The other side was intent on showing all their muscle in all their glory on a combat field so unsuitable to their military equipment as to defy reason.
And so, the people of bluster won and we got Shakespeare's Henry V.
Hey, sometimes things work out.
Oddly, despite having been in the military and reading lots of military histories, I feel highly unqualified to correct the mistakes, if any, regarding America's global defense strategy.
Maybe I lack confidence.
1
The amusing thing about this article is its seemingly blanket assumption that an actual fighting war with any state or entity that would necessitate even one of these lumbering, already-obsolete (as per the article) behemoth of the seas to seriously intervene—and when I say intervene, I mean actually using all those over-medicated $60M fighters with their countless air-to-ground/air-to-air/air-to-anything-that-moves missiles.
Who on earth is this entity going to be that is going to be necessitating all this action?
While all the arms racing has been going on among the superpowers since arguably the last serious shooting war—the war in Korea that marginally involved actual Chinese forces—the world has inarguably *changed beyond imagining.*
Any war that might involve the US against any "superpower," of which there are currently only two—Russia and China—are currently completely and utterly unimaginable.
But all this, in turn, is hopeless indulgence in complete fantasy. It's as if everyone is thinking that for the next superpower war, opposing forces are going to assemble on a battlefield, the leading generals are going to ride up and down the front lines exhorting the troops that "That day is not this day!" and then the trumpets are going to announce the first cavalry charge.
The article is ignoring the fact that the real enemy—Climate Change—doesn't care how many missiles are arrayed against it.
6
One million dollars worth of small drones can bring down any ninety million dollar aircraft, and without risking the life of a pilot.
Top Gun was a movie: it has zero to do with actual contemporary (not to mention future) warfire.
5
"The answer, Brose argues, is to radically increase the numbers of military platforms, lower their costs, and — within ethical limits — enhance their autonomy. "
With the exception of the autonomy part, this is textbook Col John Boyd thinking. Cheap and fast is how you win, not expensive and slow.
3
@Jack McNally Funny, but cheap and fast is a big part of how we won WW II. The Germans had developed the world's greatest tank fleets led by the massively powerful Tiger tank, but they were defeated by a combination of a much greater number of cheap (except in lives) and fast Sherman tanks and inexpensive anti tank guns and air power. Our industrial capacity to build great numbers of planes and tanks negated any inferiority in their designs.
As Stephens suggests, it is madness to spend as much as we do to feed the military industrial complex. Unfortunately it has become too great a part of our economy, so it retains great political power. Our representatives in Washington are rewarded for "bringing home the bacon" to get re-elected time and time again. The country will never truly progress until we stop this vicious cycle.
1
@Jack McNally Stalin's comment about quantity having a quality all its own comes to mind.
It strikes me that this is not an "either big ships or new weapons" but a case of needing both. Big ships for regional problems (little wars) and advanced offensive weapons against major players.
It think it's called right-sizing.
2
While I do understand the gist and point of the article, I firmly believe—more than ever before—that we need to rebuild the bridges connecting us with our allies that have been dismantled over the last 2 1/2 years. More than that, our efforts needed to be re-doubled with regard to developing a more positive relationship with the likes of Russia and China. The US defense budget should be sharply reduced, and those funds re-directed toward more positive efforts, including domestic national infrastructure.
1
If one were speaking of tanks (armour), Agincourt would make some sense. Since the focus here is on the Navy, perhaps Manilla Bay more accurate... where modern steel hull ships with the truly revolutionary guns- in- turrets turned old broadside cannon sailing ships to matchsticks in minutes.
The modern Agincourt was when Israel's tanks met the Saegger in 73.
The USAF's "Manilla Bay", as yet unremarked in US histories, occurred in 1962, because nuclear war shifts the clock into relativity zone. Missile tech turned ships and tanks to stone, bomber jets to crawling snails when a war would be over in 20 minutes. (the USSR's fusion devices had been "miniaturized" for ICBMs, our ICBM's had only fusion, because...
Le May and his crowd monopolized hydronukes for their B52s in Hill budget politics.)
Mondo bondo bucks go to big industry for the old systems now, which are well protected, thusly, on The Hill. Also, old systems are very effective against 3rd world targets. Carriers can deploy much air power against weak nations.
The real question, once we lose our superiority illusion, that we rule everywhere; is: should we continue a strategic doctrine where every problem is a nail, and a tool box of too many hammers is the only answer.
2
The highly automated and/or autonomous small systems that Mr. Stephens advocates, under real-world fog-of-war conditions, will be about as useful as a driverless car on a winding Vermont dirt road during a blizzard:
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319746326
1
Brett,
To complete your story, the English became just as hide bound by tradition as the French. Just as the French were wedded to the armored cavalry charge, the English became wedded to the longbow, the weapon that was decisive at Agincourt. The French turned the tables on the English by using a weapon the English pioneered - the cannon. It was FRENCH cannon that decimated the English at Castillon to end the Hundred Years War.
Most of the weapons that are being rapidly developed by our adversaries to counter our aircraft carriers, are weapons pioneered by us. Are we going to someday face our own weapons at some future Castillon?
(Your point about a nation being married to a particular weapon system is well taken, but Pearl Harbor is not good illustration. The ships caught at anchor by the "flour bombers" could have just as easily been aircraft carriers as battleships. Pearl Harbor is more a lesson about vigilance.)
1
I’d say that Pearl Harbour was brought up as an example of US military commanders not learning - and then being forced to learn the hard way.
Stephens is right; but I believe that Trump knows it! So why does did he get Congress to spend billions after Obama mothballed 10 carriers? Answer is simple: how else can you get more beer and food into millions of unemployed voters?
How do we advance to point of saving the now array of bodies of all sexual orientations on these ships to avoid dying with the ships? Answer: get half of Americans used to living at subsistence level and be happy! Not hard to do, if you study 40% of all living in Puerto Rico paying no income tax! They just barter exchange goods and services, drink small cans of beer and eat, drink and be merry! Food stamps avoid hunger, nobody freezes, or gets too wet under trees or in concrete houses that survive hurricanes. They only need some solar power for TV and phones with better towers.
1
Finally a column from bret I can agree with. But he neglects the high price status symbol effect for generals and admirals and their expensive “toys”.
Ah, capitalism! The system that hoists you by your own petard. Since we predicate our eating upon competition, those eating well do what they can to conserve the status quo. Yet Bret, a leading proponent of being conservators, now complains that the status quo is lethal. A capital dilemma!
1
We need to add a provision to the Geneva Protocol similar to the one against poison gas. Basically, it should say that no weapon should decide to kill a human without direct intervention by another human. The AI can be allowed to find the enemy, but a human has to give the order to strike.
Once we cross the line and allow AIs to kill humans, we will not be able to step back.
1
@mlbex
If you believe that kind of ‘kill order’ restriction would be observed in a World War situation, I have a bridge to sell you.
@Victor: No law is perfect. This just sets a precedent and makes it less likely. No poison gas was used in WW2 because of that precedent.
If laws had to work perfectly we wouldn't have any.
Why is Annapolis still producing command level officers when there isn’t anything to command?
Donald Trump took time from his Easter Roll event to talk about how we are literally rebuilding our military right now. Sure, it was a complete lie, but it would have been a great idea. As Brett pointed out, the military industrial congressional complex is dedicated to making themselves rich, but are much less dedicated to making us safer. Donald Trump knows nothing about national defense, which is why he pushed for another aircraft carrier, which fits with his other "modern" idea of securing the Southern border with a wall. I don't look forward to saying "I told you so" when our navy gets literally sunk in a single day. To avoid that, we need a leader for this country, not a reality show egomaniac or the run-of-the-mill politician who just throws out platitudes for votes. Clearly congress is too corrupt to change. Maybe if we keep our presidents to a single term we can maximize our odds of finding one who is a competent commander-in-chief. Let's start in 2020 and keep our fingers crossed.
3
"A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking could change the way America prepares for the next war "
You're not asking for much, are you.
4
What is the first mission of the Pentagone and the military-industrial complex? Spend the taxpayers money.
1
Better to have thousands of bees than a few eagles. The Chinese assassin model of defense is what Mr Stevens is describing.
2
I have said for years that the Pentagon builds Cadillacs in a smart car age.
2
When will the USA stop the zero sum game of war, and devote money to peace and cooperation of countries.?
We desperately need to stop the Predatory Capitalism destroying our country for greedy profits. It is all so ignorant, and none of the so-called religions are supporting peace as # 1.
5
Just how many military platforms, drones, and autonomous systems does Mr. Stephens think we need to protect his privilege anyway?. Getting tired of his relentless barbarians at the gate arguments, frankly.
1
Americans will never feel safe enough. The spending on military defence tells the story of a national psychopathology of insecurity.
6
sorry you wasted your column...... the military is already working feverishly on drones and other smart technology. we see a lot of test flying in our area due to our proximity to the china lake weapons testing range. we see some strange things in the sky and then there are strange things we don't see until something malfunctions. two summers ago "something" crashed on a nearby mountain and started a forest fire..... actually it started coming apart and dropping pieces until the remainder cashed into the mountain. we boarded half a dozen stout horse at our place so military personnel could scour the desert for parts. others went high into the mountains to retrieve what they could from the site. all of this as hush hush as they could manage from such a public event. the crashing object was some sort of drone flying between bases when something went wrong. this incident is just the tip of the iceberg. there are many very smart physicists and engineers already doing the work at china lake and other places..... not sure if they read the NYT opinion section page....
How does a crashed drone in your backyard justify continuing building “obsolete” aircraft carriers? Wouldn’t that money be better spent on the smart people developing your drone?
@JU politics govern a lot of what gets built. the military has to walk and chew gum. the gist of this article is "blame the military". you would need to live here to know how we are intertwined with our weapons testing neighbors..... our experience is more than just a drone in my backyard.
Trump will sell us out before any of these weapons are deployed. Don't worry about it.
2
One thing the US could do to weaken a potential adversary is to kill the ruble.
Of course, accomplishing that goal involves pumping vast quantities of oil to keep the price low in order to defund the Kremlin.
But Democrats won’t allow that because of — wait for it — ‘climate change’ hysteria. Sigh...
We need more a lot more killer robots, he says, just so long as they operate “within ethical limits.” And who in the world would decide what those are? or have the power to enforce them? Meanwhile somewhere high above Afghanistan a US predator drone circles a wedding party...
2
Bret, you are missing the biggest point of all and that is that traditional warfare is going away, and will be replaced by cyber and economic warfare. Why spend trillions on ships, tanks, planes and troops when you can spend a few million on a room full of nerds and easily bring down an enemy's electric grid, nuclear reactors, banking system, social media, and elections while stealing all of a country's intellectual property, and corporate trade secrets?
We are rapidly approaching the end of the age of bullets and bombs and entering the age of electrons (digital warfare).
419
@Sparky
If hackers can bring down the grid might they be able to spoof orders to the fleet? The ultimate Jiu-Jitsu would use the vast power of the Navy against itself.
27
@Sparky While I agree such is important nothing is going to replace violence. How about lasers, rail guns, and weapons in space.
7
@Sparky There are most certainly changes to warfare, but when Russia grabbed Crimea, it was with boots on the ground, not cyber games. The disabling ease of your cyber attacks reminds me of the horror shows anticipated by Y2K.
13
In the era of nuclear armed cruise missiles that can be fired from subs hundreds of miles away, and of continuous satellite tracking, the aircraft carrier has a survival time in war of about 30 minutes. The same applies for Russia's new tsunami generating subs. After that time, these weapons will be a large hole in the ocean filled with steam.
It is also quite evident that our military's war strategy is failing on all fronts. We have not won a war outright since WWII. Say what you want about the why's and wherefore's, results are the only yardstick that matters. We have a military that we spend $ Billions per year on that cannot perform its most basic function.
Remind me again, please, why are we doing this?
2
The problem for the French at Agincourt was not just the knights, it was the way they were used. They charged the English across a muddy field with no attempt to flank, or to fight on more suitable ground. They suffered from hubris, thinking that they were unstoppable, and they paid the price.
Hubris can defeat any weapon system.
2
Perhaps it is time to revisit Paul Kennedy’s ‘Rise and Fall of the Great Powers’ where the concept of military overstretch is considered to be one of the causes of the fall of empires.
2
Mr. Stephens should understand that, in our capitalist system, the military man's desire to rationally purchase the weapons that will enable him to kill as many of the enemy as efficiently as possible must yield to the capitalist's desire to sell the weapons that will make his corporation as much profit as possible. What the soldier regards as enormous waste is, for the businessman, enormous profits. . . . The largest employer in the United States is not any industrial or service concern, but the Department of "Defense," the US military. As surely as the Roman Empire was dominated by the Roman Army, our country is dominated by the military bureaucracy and militarist attitudes.
With spending for the military currently at $800 billion annually and rising, our whole economy is geared for war and preparing for war. Like a run a way train, the system, commanded by Wall Street robot stock brokers, has acquired a mad momentum of its own and is heading straight for World War Three. The re-awakened American Socialist movement is the manual over ride necessary to stop the coming catastrophe . . . .
15
@Red Allover : If you have not, read "War is a Racket" by Smedly Buttler, a Marine General who twice won the Medal of Honor.
4
It must be terrifying to our armchair warriors, that we don't possess the the endlessly restored power of a superhero
That fear is easy to understand: if we can't bomb any and all adversaries into submission, how will we ever bring freedom and democracy to the world?
Then again, how many of our "conflicts" of the last 50 years had good outcomes, for anyone? Might not we, and the world, have done better if these wars had never taken place?
2
I'm old enough to remember the (nonexistent) "missile gap" proclaimed in JFK's time. It led to untold nuclear pollution of the planet as we racked up 1000's of missiles, never to be used as that would have been the end of us all.
Are we in another race, this time using artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons on battlefields of earth, sea and space? It's beyond time to call a truce; and stop using these phenomenal technologies in the service of war planning.
4
If Stephens actually wants a President and Congress interested in leading our military into the future, he would do well to start working toward replacing Republicans, with their amply demonstrated hatred of bipartisanship, change and facts, with a Democratic Congress and President.
2
This is human nature. And goes way back. Admirals drove big ships, but submarines were far more effective at destroying enemy ships. And submarines laying mines were more effective than torpedoes. But where’s the glory in that?
1
If Stephens actually wants a President and Congress interested in leading our military into the future, he would do well to start working toward replacing Republicans, with their amply demonstrated hatred of bipartisanship, change and facts, with a Democratic Congress and President.
1
It wasn't only the English archers that made the difference at Agincourt, Bret. The condition of the field (boggy, raining) and the nature of the terrain (French advanced into a bowl) were also influential. Could the French have prevailed? Not by picking the wrong field in the wrong weather. Moral sounds more like, "choose your battles wisely." Admittedly, any weapon that takes out an aircraft carrier is likely to cost less (a lot less) than the carrier. . .
1
Projection of power; one of several purposes of the military, other than a vast, counterproductive jobs program. To project power the weapons that work are: building railroads in the third world, supplying medical care to potential enemies, establishing attractive trade relations with pretty much everyone. We might add, in our current delicate state, that appearing to have a responsible and capable domestic government is necessary.
Carriers, ICBMs, or even drone fleets do not project power. What appears on the streets and tables of the world, the medical outreach, grain going to where it’s needed, that’s what projects. China seems to understand this, we don’t.
When there’s a screwup, like political failure or a mad dictator, the front line weapons are built out of laptops and tiny, cheap satellite fleets. Nuclear exchange only changes the distribution of habitable lands, direct involvement is a dead loss.
Pearl Harbor was the singular event that motivated an isolationist America to participate in a ‘European’ war. Had almost nothing to do with proving military strategy or weapons. Our Pearl is visible to everyone except Congress, the military, and the president.
As difficult times seem to be approaching, we are asking more probing questions centered around necessity, efficiency, simplicity, cost,
Entrenched vested interests will react. Is it the response of an immune system determining to annihilate invading viruses or is it old institutions which have served their times and are now outmatched?
Not knowing the answer (although in this case the point is made as to which case we are facing) calls for a rebalancing and reevaluating approach that we probably will not take.
Empires do tumble and seem to be doing it at faster and faster rates. As far as civilizations go, perhaps this is a plus.
So far we are keeping good records and there are always these nerds who go back and retrace our steps to see where we faltered, trying to reorient "things" in more successful directions.
The real dinosaurs are extinct and that is a good thing!
I'm no military strategist nor am I an expert on anything but in recent years it has seemed to me that our aircraft carriers would be more and more vulnerable in today's sophisticated technological environment.
The analogy to Agincout is kind of relevant. It is my understanding that the French were in a position of power (the English were in the open with no supply lines in hostile territory and greatly out-numbered). The decisive factor was that the French attacked when there was no need because war was fought to capture and ransom wealthy nobles. The desire for profit, not the longbow, was the decisive factor. We have a military dedicated to safeguarding the flow of goods, and therefore multinational profits. We have a military where allocation is based of profits for the districts of influential politicians. Providing for the national defense would mean protecting us from credible attacks, which our geography makes pretty simple. It also means protecting from cyber-attacks. Education, investment in infrastructure and technology, and training will keep us safer than hardware.
3
“It doesn’t have to be this way. A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking could change the way America prepares for the next war — to prevent it if possible, to win it if necessary.”
To prevent it if possible, but if not, to win it decisively because doing so will be an absolute necessity.
The US Navy is already investing in small drone amphibious weapons as well as drones in the air. The Navy isn’t planning around more conventional aircraft long term. Carriers are mobile bases since land bases have diminished in many areas.
A quick read of the NavyTimes before the author wrote this would have been nice.
An even more radical approach: cut the defense budget in half, decide which of our myriad strategic interests truly deserve to be funded, and then figure out the most cost-effective way to achieve that relative handful of key missions. We can then take one-quarter of our defense savings to invest in energy independence. That frees us from any involvement in Southwest Asia, and, if done properly, reduces our national carbon footprint. Reduced carbon emissions will lead to fewer causes for regional wars such as famines, floods, and economic refugees. The remaining three-quarters of our defense savings can be invested in human and physical capital so that the U.S. is so strong economically that, if pushed, we can bankrupt any nation that might attempt an arms race with us.
3
Yes, but who will employ the hordes of defense contractors and workers? Many congressional jobs depend on the employment statistics within these states.
1
It all underlines the fact that the military-industrial-congressional complex is really a socialist make-work program.
2
“It doesn’t have to be this way. A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking could change the way America prepares for the next war — to prevent it if possible, to win it if necessary.”
If that’s what it takes to modernize our military, we’re doomed.
Agincourt was a failure for the French for many reasons, reducing it to a matter of weaponry is facetious. The terrain was probably the single biggest factor the English had in their favor: a narrow field banded on either side by forest turned to several inches of mud by a recent rain, it made the French's cavalry advantage meaningless, they could not out maneuver the enemy due to the constricted field, the mud slowed their advance so no charge was possible. To make matters worse the French nobility disobeyed their commander and charged without orders, even trampling over their own mercenaries (who they had forced to march all day to keep up with the horses and then not allowed to rest), creating a chaotic mess. It turned the field at Agincourt into a shooting gallery for the English archers.
But what really made Agincourt a disaster was the ruthlessness with which Henry V gave the order to his men to take no prisoners (for he could spare no one to watch them while he retreated to Calais, for his own army was ragged after weeks of campaigning and sustaining casualties), as a result hundreds of French noblemen died that day, ripping a ragged hole in French society and crippling their capacity for war.
This situation is a singular disaster of various circumstances coinciding, it is not a result of failed policy except in the broadest (and therefore meaningless) sense.
History has lessons to teach us, but we need to apply the right lessons to the right situation.
2
Other than the obvious military complex benefits of making money for the millions of people involved, the current military exists as a force to assert our power overseas. Although we have many airbases around the world that serve that purpose, the carriers are the ultimate way to push other governments and economies around to serve the US demand for cheap labor, oil and other resources at prices we consider reasonable. We know there are no threats for global warfare of the scale of the World Wars in immediate future, it is all about keeping the international corporations that serve our demands happy and profitable.
Stephens argues that aircraft carriers have become, like battleships became in the 1930's, obsolete. Obviously, he never bothered to learn about battleships. During World War II, American and Japanese battleships fired less than 1% of their rounds in combat against enemy ships. Battleships were necessary for shore bombardment in battles Mr. Stephens is unfamiliar with, such as Tarawa, Normandy, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Without battleships, at least three of those would probably, like Dieppe, have quickly failed. In the early days of the Korean War, without battleships at Pusan we would certainly have immediately have been eliminated from the entire Peninsula. And at Inchon the Communists had set up incredible quantities of anti-aircraft artillery to fend off our carrier based air. One of the first jobs of the battleships there was to obliterate those flak fronts. And going back to World War II, many do not realize that American battleships fired 90% of their combat rounds (even those of the big guns, which were extremely effective) against enemy aircraft, protecting the fleet. Without that protection, we would have lost ships, including aircraft carriers.
There are changes we surely need to make in the Navy. Junking aircraft carriers and deploying large numbers of unmanned ships are not among them.
2
In our primal urge to be the biggest, baddest guy on the block, we humans can't help but weaponize every technology. And one of the most potentially devastating weapons which Stephens doesn't even mention are those that are deployed in cyber-space.
It's kind of a tragic irony that our drive to keep ourselves "safe" is what almost certainly will cause our destruction.
Meanwhile, Bret, you fail to acknowledge another primal urge of humanity, at least the male portion --- that big, long, wide and hard weapons (like missiles, aircraft carriers and fighter jets) are always so much better than those small, soft and squishy ones like turboprops and drones. I wonder why that is?
2
"A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking could change the way America prepares for the next war."
So what you're saying is, we're doomed, right?
2
Oh, man! This has been obvious since the War in Afghanistan began.
The super whiz-bang high tech weapons systems (Note: Not planes or tanks or guns -- systems) have been brought low by peasants with relatively simple and/or improvised weapons backed by determination and an understandable hatred of outsiders trying to tell them what to do.
At least US casualties are fairly low.
The same kind of thing happened in Vietnam, except the casualties were catastrophic, witness the black marble wall in DC.
And those were fights the peasants had no chance to win, but win they did.
I'm not saying the military needs to get smarter. I'm saying the politicians need to get smarter. They need to understand that the big, bad United States can be whupped by men and women in simple clothing because they can't believe such lack of sophisticated weapons systems is an ADVANTAGE and not a liability.
The big time adversaries -- Russia, China, Iran, even North Korea -- have potential advantages because they don't have the resources to design, build, and deploy fancy weapons but they have something much more powerful -- the need to use imagination and the ability to design, build, and deploy cheap but effective weapons in numbers sufficient to overwhelm the fancy stuff.
Imagination and creativity have become increasingly rare in our military posture. That has to stop. Now.
7
@Stephen Beard best comment of the day.
Actually I think we’re much more like the French just prior to the revolution in 1789. They went bankrupt in their attempt to maintain a huge military force while refusing to tax the nobles and the Catholic church (the two institutions which possessed the vast majority of the country’s wealth) to pay for it.
12
Those first two real carriers took their first planes on board in 1928, and the Navy was still working out what types of planes those could be. That 1932 exercise was very near the first point in time when such a thing could have been done. The ships and planes did not exist before that.
Thus, as soon as it could possibly be done, the Navy did it as an exercise, and that was the "battleship navy" that did it, with a fast carrier strike force combining all of its carriers and all of its planes.
The Navy was very professionally advanced then, and it still is today. Notice the strikes on Libya and Syria, that were done with cruise missiles, not carriers.
That picture displays the unusual sight of two modern carriers at sea together. It also displays both with air groups and deck configured for small packages at a high tempo, not for a large strike. It is Iraq and Afghanistan insurgency close air support, not a strike on a peer competitor. That looks entirely different.
The Navy's talk of longer range strikes, drone air tankers, and drones as part of large strike packages, all suggests the Navy is moving on from this picture, just as in 1932 it was moving on as fast as the technology was there.
The Navy may need some smaller escort carrier types, with smaller air groups, and not in the multi-billion dollar package of an amphib centerpiece used for a secondary task. However, large long range strikes on peer competitors do need large carriers, configured for that.
3
Brett,
I agree whole heartily with your article. We have been using drones for some time now instead of Fighter Planes. The problem is collateral damage, which is a lame criticism when you consider the damage Bombs, from Air planes & artillery does.I guess it’s time to do away with human operated war weapons, and conduct war from robotic computers from Space.
It’s time for Space wars, the advantage is obvious, we would be able to decimate entire countries with the click of a switch.Just think of it, no more humans , no more wars & no need for defense.
2
We’ve already had our 21st century Pearl Harbor: Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election on the side of Donald J. Trump. The Mueller report and other sources make that clear.
Intrusion into state voting databases, hacking of email servers, selected release of damaging emails, weaponized social media campaigns that served to divide and demoralize Americans and spread disinformation...
The original Pearl Harbor, unlike the current situation, at least did not have a major political party welcoming the Japanese attack and asking for more. (“Russia, I hope you’re listening.”)The Times reports that Trump will not tolerate any attempts to discuss Russian interference - and is taking no steps to prevent further attacks.
Mitch McConnell deserves particular condemnation for blocking Obama administration efforts to respond as ‘partisan’; a Russian oligarch is currently pouring millions into Kentucky - after McConnell voted against sanctions and allowed him in.
As for our miltary-industrial complex, it’s compromised by cyber attacks from China and others that are stealing our technology. Not just our weapons systems - anything that will give them an advantage. The companies know it - but do not act because it would drive shareholder value down to admit it.
This is where conservatism has taken us, placing personal advantage over national interest in so many ways. They wave the flag to cover their sins.
E pluribus, oligarchy.
9
The modern U.S. carrier force is a disaster waiting to happen in a major powers conflict. They are great for projecting power at smaller and less formidable adversaries who have no ability to threaten them.
We have not faced an adversary with a formidable and comparable force at sea or in the air since WWII.
Fighting the last war will not serve us in this high tech age.
4
When I was a part of the Sixth Fleet, the life expectancy of the aircraft carrier we operated with was something like 15 minutes, if war broke out with the Soviet Union, but by that time, it would have launched all its strike aircraft, and served its purpose. Much of what Stephens says here is true, but there is one factor he misses. Air superiority in any war is the only way to win, and aircraft carriers are the only way to accomplish that in remote areas when there is little time for a ground based Air Force to react. Aircraft carriers don't require air bases in friendly countries the Air Force relies on for its strike aircraft. It takes time for the logistics of the ground based Air Force to be established, but the mission ready movable platforms aircraft carriers provide give us the flexibility to bring assets to bear on a foe quickly, and in ways that the Air Force cannot.
@bacchus725 - While you logic is correct, you did not extend it to a long-term war with an opponent having similar technology. Basically, the carriers allow us one shot at our opponents before our carriers are gone and our jets have nowhere to land. What happens over the next five years? Frankly, I think the next war will be won by using a cyber attack to disrupt the banking, communication and energy systems of a country. After that, they step back and watch us kill each other and when we're done, they clean up the rest.
4
@Jim Dennis
Our carriers are not without their defenses, and i wouldn't underestimate them. The majority of conflicts we will face are not the apocalyptic nuclear exchanges we feared during the cold war, they are more like what we see in Afghanistan and Syria. Stephens also mentioned China as a major adversary, and he is correct in that, but our economic ties with them aren't served at all with a major conflict with us. They're seeking hegemony over their Asian neighbors in the same way we hold hegemony over our hemisphere, and in some ways much of Europe. Aircraft carriers are extremely mobile and flexible airfields and collectively represent the second largest air force in the world. Anyone who would underestimate what they can do would be making a huge mistake.
Stephens’ concern about our military hardware overlooks a far greater issue: the world-view that determines its use.
We presently outspend the next 6 countries, combined. And still we keep on increasing the DOD budget.
When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the decision makers reimagined our world role. Liberal hawks grasped R2P. Conservatives envisioned a world that would mirror our economic and political views. Nations that refused to submit to our leadership soon found themselves on our enemies list. Terrorism became the replacement of communism. 9/11 went beyond destroying the culprits and into transforming the world itself.
The war embraced in 2001 has shown itself to be endless—Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Africa, etc. as well as expensive.
Brig Gen Don Harvel (retired) wrote about this new world view, “…US officials can no longer operate on the assumption that every problem is the responsibility of the US military. American foreign policy must exercise more judiciousness and restraint than the peripheral distractions of the last decade and a half. If military force is indeed required, the mission must be coherent and limited to a campaign plan that makes sense. It must be guided by realistic objectives that are militarily attainable. Anything less, is a disservice to US national security, and especially to the men and women who serve in our armed forces.”
A review of our foreign policy should proceed the renovation of our military.
5
“a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking”. Quite correct. Now, Bret, when will you realize that the modern Republican Party can contribute to neither?
6
My imperfect memory informs me that the standard explanation for the demise of the Soviet Union as a superpower is that we spent them into self-destruction -- that they simply couldn't afford the money pit that the Cold War had become.
So now we are on the opposite end of the premise; we can be spent into penury by an opponent with the equivalent of English longbows. Not too hard to see where this is all going. A right-wing dream, of negligible taxes and overwhelming spending, has set us on course.
11
Yes, the French lost disastrously at Agincourt.
But they won the war.
That part generally gets forgotten, and it's one of the reasons that armchair generals are usually asked to remain seated when the fighting starts.
3
@David Gustafson
Check your history David, the English won, decisively.
“...a serious president capable of long-term thinking.”
Then, Mr. Stephens, the essays that you write until Donald Trump is removed from office—by Congress or by “We, the People”—had better emphasize the danger to America’s national security interests that he represents on a minute-by-minute basis.
Any American citizen who is anxious about our military readiness should read “At Dawn We Slept” by Gordon W. Prange. I read it many years ago when it was first published (1980?, 1981?) and it was a chilling précis of just how the Seventh Fleet at Pearl Harbor was vaporized by Japan. In short, America never thought that a rigid, insular monarchy like Japan, which was worshipped by the military, would ever dare to embark upon an enterprise that they surely understood would lead to the their defeat. Japan didn’t blink.
The South China Sea will, I predict, be the venue for America’s next nuclear event. China has aggressively deemed certain islands there as Chinese land. They have the intellectual technology and the military strategists to throw down the gauntlet and meet any challenge to what they consider their sovereignty. Donald Trump’s not the president to stand up to any strong nation—he might, instead, inquire if they have a couple of Trump Towers that he can put up.
As for the bi-partisanship that you claim would be required to recalibrate Congressional cooperation and a restructuring of the MIC, dream on. Oligarchs like Mitch McConnell will never allow it.
Money talks.
2
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18 Given China is planning to deploy nuclear power to the South China Sea it will be nigh on impossible for any conflict in that region to not include nuclear events. Unfortunately any effects are likely to fall on the nations in the area rather than the country responsible - China.
The military Industrial Complex has strategically placed one type of military related manufacturing facility or military facility in just about every Congressional or senatorial district in the country. This makes the Senators and Congressional members representing those districts beholden to the succor provided by Defense appropriations. I hate saying it, but our military has developed a bad habit of preparing to fight the last war and gets imprisoned in its own traditions. Maybe they need to go to the movies more often. It would seem the Sci Fi fiction writers are often better predictors of future weapons and tactics than our military's own extensive R&D Operations. Why, do we get hide bound by tradition, or the influence of key politicians with defense operations in home districts? Will it take a swarm of off the shelf drones taking out an F 35 or some other such event to send a wake up call once again??
1
There is a parallel in the world of computer technology. When computers were first introduced into commercial use, they were hulking monsters that filled rooms. Over time they got smaller and more powerful. Witness today’s amazing smartphones. With smaller size came greater speed and efficiency and the creation of new industries. Smaller and faster is better than huge and lumbering.
3
American military success has usually (Civil War, WW II, Cold War) come not through tactical prowess, but through overwhelming superiority in the production of war material. In conflicts where that advantage has been less important (Vietnam, Afghanistan) the results have not been as good. China and its industrial capacity should therefore be our primary concern. Advanced weaponry is necessary but should not be our only priority.
3
I totally agree. While we have the capacity to produce the high end weaponry, the logistical supply chain may be compromised by globalization of manufacturing. China has succeeded in capturing much of that. Do we have domestic capabilities to produce high volumes of weapons, clothing, footwear, and the myriad of necessities to field a large armed force on a sustained basis?
@Larry: I agree about China and its industrial capacity. If we get into a war of attrition, we lose.
Our borders are our best tactical advantage in such a conflict. China has dangerous neighbors, and we don't. But they can out manufacture us many times over.
Ceding manufacturing to China is a huge strategic mistake.
1
Worked in defense electronics before and through the Gulf War. We knew that if our High Speed Anti Radar missiles would work, Saddam Insane's massive tank force would become the "Whack-A-Mole" army. It did!
Defense is expensive. Much of it is in transistor geometries
and IT. He who has the best scientists and engineers wins.
Retired for many years, but believe that the next war might be a combo of IT attacks and conducted in space.
Agreed. Alvin Tofler writhe that information is the new power-above treasure and brute force. That was over 40 years ago and is true today more than ever.
This debate has been simmering in National Defense circles for years, I’m glad it has some broader exposure. Speaking of the Navy, and to some extent of the Marines, these maritime services are to put out fires as expeditionary forces. In a significant war with China the farthest forward our carriers could operate will be between Guam and Hawaii. The future is certainly autonomous devices; if the military can’t field them perhaps NASA can. They just maintained command and control over a spacecraft that went billions of miles past Pluto; so far it took 9 hours to send a message in one direction. Obviously the spacecraft could not be controlled by a joystick, the latency would be too great. The AI that made local decisions autonomously points the way for our new generation of smaller and cheaper weapons.
1
Good use of artificial intelligence since human intervention at nano speed levels is the coming problem.
“A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking could change the way America prepares for the next war.”
Looks like you ran out of wishes before you got to imagine a future where American business leaders put country before profit.
8
Excellent article.
Some old-fashioned weapons systems work well--such as the A-10 Warthog, introduced in 1977 (and whose design harkens back to an early German jet of 1944-45).
What work even better appear to be cheap cyberweapons. Make no mistake, we have been attacked by at least one hostile power through cyberattacks since 2014, and those attacks have given us the current "administration" through the dovetailing of Russian cyberattacks and GOP collaboration. (This makes the successful third use of the expensive Schlieffen Plan in 1940--and pre- and post-invasion collaboration in the occupied countries--look quaint indeed, as it required arms and manpower.)
Is it any surprise that Mick Mulvaney rebuffed Homeland Security's Kirstjen Nielsen's attempts to bring the threat of cyberattacks to Trump? Both Trump--and Mulvaney--are the beneficiaries of what appears to be a virtual Russian occupation.
4
Not surprising the Air Force does not want low cost dedicated ground attack aircraft. They've been trying to retire the A-10s for years. I don't know for sure what their motivation is, but I suspect the view any tactical aircraft that can't shoot down other aircraft as a waste of resources. They'd rather focus on air superiority. But they're also not keen on handing them over the Army, since they probably already view armed attack helicopters as a loophole the Army uses to get around the Key West Agreement. And they certainly don't want any more encroachment on their turf, even if it's a piece of turf they aren't especially interested in maintaining.
3
@crankyoldman don't underestimate the politicians as a barrier to the military when trying to discontinue (jobs) a piece of equipment.
A Chinese diesel-electric sub mock-sinking a US carrier is hardly news. Australian submarines routinely did it in war games 40 years ago: a diesel-electric sub on battery power is a lot quieter than a newk.
Neither is it news that the military-industrial-congressional complex resists a more nimble Navy with smaller ships. The big ships are built in southern states with Republican senators who look after their large naval contractors.
A Democratic President won't be able to increase the size of the navy because his base won't let him, and a Republican one won't build smaller ships in smaller yards at the expense of the massive ones along the southern coast. So, Cassandra-masquerading-as-Stephens, how do you propose we break this nexus? By electing a "courageous" President and a bipartisan Congress?
The generals are always fighting the last war. So are the admirals.
7
This is the military analog to the administration's approach to modernizing our energy infrastructure. Thankfully, unlike our military establishment, state and municipal governments have a say in our energy infrastructure so there is some progress despite the failures at the federal level.
1
The U.S. has not thought intelligently about war since the end of WWII. Politicians talk as if we expect another VE or VJ Day but we don't fight that way. Even when the U.S. has overwhelming superior strength of arms its does not fight as if it does. There first needs to be a discussion of the kind of wars American is willing to fight and how it will fight them. Then the weapons can follow.
2
You need to let the pentagon propose a unified 2 years ahead DoD budget for an up or down vote for 95% of it's core budget. You need to get Congressional favors of of most of the budget.
As a Navy pilot flying anti-submarine aircraft in the early 1970s, I came to the conclusion the carrier fleet was little more than a target. In an all out shooting war with an adversary like the Soviet Union they would be gone in the first 30 seconds.
I can’t imagine the situation is different today. Think autonomous miniature submarine with a nuclear depth bomb in its nose and with knowledge of the sound signature of every one of the U.S. Navy’s ships. That little drone could probably have a functional dormant life measured in decades and would cost pennies compared to the cost of its target. It would just lie on the ocean floor waiting for instructions. Our big ships—a colossal waste of money.
7
In 1941, the US economy was still partially shut down, a few factories were building aircraft carriers and making materiel for the British, but many were unemployed and factories closed.
After Pearl Harbor, US unemployment dropped below zero, factories re-opened, and production greatly increased, until the US economy was much more than twice as large as the entire Axis economy.
Today, if one measures in dollars, the US economy is twice the size of China, but if one measures in goods and services, China surpassed the US in 2014.
In terms of production, the US in comparison to China is more like the Axis in comparison to the US. There is no way the US can prepare for war with China. The only sane choice is peace with China.
4
In 1941, the US economy was still partially shut down, a few factories were building aircraft carriers and making materiel for the British, but many were unemployed and factories closed.
After Pearl Harbor, US unemployment dropped below zero, factories re-opened, and production greatly increased, until the US economy was much more than twice as large as the entire Axis economy.
Today, if one measures in dollars, the US economy is twice the size of China, but if one measures in goods and services, China surpassed the US in 2014.
In terms of production, the US in comparison to China is more like the Axis in comparison to the US. There is no way the US can prepare for war with China. The only sane choice is peace with China.
Yeah, there are some good points in the article but I don’t think there is a catastrophic to feet for the United States anywhere in the world with any adversary at this point, we win going to go to toe with any country in the world, it’s that simple
@There, We have been at war in Afghanistan for 17 plus years. We are still engaged in several other Mid-East conflicts. We are not winning " toe to toe" .
The old battle fields have moved. They are now in our places of worship,our schools , our city streets filled with suicide bombers. 9/11 was not about land ,money, or natural resources.it was about minds taught to hate. Today’s wars are not so much nations fighting but religious or ethnic conflicts. More sophisticated hardware will not change this. The disruption of climate change will not be reduced by military means. The Chinese don’t want our land ,they want economic power. Economic power,not military strength is the future. World leaders have to move past great armies but we are not there yet.
2
The defeat of the lumbering larger ships of the Spanish Armada by smaller, more maneuverable and less expensive English boats is yet another very useful comparison worth applying to this discussion.
We continue to build a navy well suited to combat the threats of mid-20th century geo-military reality. That reality is gone. The super carrier ships and their escorts are a sight to behold, but they are well past their time in the context of any strategic conflict. Nostalgia like this will send ships, planes, sailors and pilots to the bottom of the sea. Let's take more than a chance and not be so stupid.
3
Thank you, Mr. Stephens. Fascinating! And disquieting.
A while back (in company with other seniors) I visited the art museum in Philadelphia. Lotta fine stuff in that lovely beige building!
Some of it suits of armor. The craftsmanship--superb! Beautifully made! A treat for the eyes.
But most of it came from the 1500's and 1600's. When ever-more sophisticated firearms were making it useless.
Oh to be sure! on special, dress-up occasions, a king or a prince might come prancing out in full armor. But that was for show. Otherwise, it had to be impossibly bulky and heavy--to ward off ever more powerful bullets and cannonballs.
You see a tiny trace of it, do you not? In the so-called gorgets worn by 18th century officers. That last vestige of the old breastplate--the Roman lorica--the Greek thorax.
I guess the modern-day kevlar is our 21st century answer to suits of armor.
But it sure ain't armor.
Change comes hard, doesn't it?
You began by alluding to those 1932 war games which proved conclusively--oh yes! Ships are indeed vulnerable to air attack.
Was not General Billy Mitchell court-martialed for that very thing? For obstinately insisting (and flouting superiors all over the place) that the rules had changed. Those old battleships were by no means impregnable. Not any more!
No one believed it in the 1920's. December 7, 1941 was a dreadful wake-up call.
What's our own dreadful wake-up call gonna be? In 20_______?
3
@Susan Fitzwater You already got your "own dreadful wake-up call" since September 11, 2001. Which shown the vulnerability of the USA (and any other countries) to a terrorist attacks.
1
@Susan Fitzwater - It should have been Osama bin Laden. 15 guys kill 4000 Americans.
1
For naval strategic planners, the Age of Capital Ships should finally have ended in May 1982, during the Falkland’s War, when an Argentinean pilot flying a French Mirage jet fired a single French Exocet sea-to-air missile that destroyed the British destroyer “Sheffield.” Anyone who did not immediately see the long-term significance of that particular attack was either not paying attention or worked for the defense industry. The issues raised by the author of this piece are both real and are longstanding, but military history suggests that strategic innovation is often the result of tactical disasters – like the sinking of a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier with a million dollar missile or torpedo.
6
@Jason Shapiro
Take a step back - why was there a Falklands War in the first place? Because the British had sufficient naval power, including two small carriers, to create the political will to send their task force and to give them a chance to win.
Almost all of our wars have been, like the Falklands War, limited wars, and it is especially in this arena where carriers and other sea-based forces have enormous value. Such forces can get to a fight quickly with the full spectrum of capabilities and without asking permission, stay in that fight for an extended period, then withdraw on command without lowering a flag. There is no clear substitute for this capacity or the deterrence it provides.
1
@Alan
A couple of points. Without getting too deeply into the machinations of the Argentines and the Brits, the main reason for that war was intractable stubbornness - both by the Argentine military and by Margaret Thatcher. Second, if by "limited wars" you mean "asymmetrical wars," then I agree. Virtually every post-WWII war has been some form of asymmetrical war, and if there has been ONE lesson, it is that these wars are rarely lost or won according to conventional measures. Despite our vaunted carrier groups, we ultimately failed in such diverse places as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The point of the article however, is that our Navy has a strategic plan that rests upon the VULNERABILITY of capital ships, a fact that will become quite obvious in the event that we ever tangle with the Big Boys, such as Russia, China, and even Iran.
When one of our chief adversaries was able to essentially use relatively simple technologies to dictate who our president is - an incompetent fool who has already undermined our nation on a grand scale - I would say we have already lost this war and the next war.
12
@zb
Come on, don't you want a military parade?
1
The main purpose of the DoD is not what we laughingly call 'defense' - it is corporate welfare. If the most $$$ can be extracted from the public for useless junk like the F-22 then that is what will happen.
No real surprise here.
3
@Plennie Wingo
That is, until there is a crisis, and you look through your choices and fine that useless junk is what saves you. We don't have the gift of time that saved us in WW2, we have to ready yesterday.
A warship is a monument to human failure, its funding stolen from the poor. This is a race to establish which society is mature enough to save the planet, rather than destroy each other.
3
Mr. Stephens offers a false choice: either convert our military to cheap, not-yet-invented weapons or else pour more money into over-engineered, over-priced candles in the wind. The reality is that every new arm and every new system must be incorporated into our existing capabilities. When the Wehrmacht panzers stormed across France, they still had mule-driven wagons supporting portions of their logistics.
I happen to agree that we should be incorporating swarms of fighter/bomber drones, along with even greater numbers of drone decoys to overwhelm Chinese/Russian air defenses (who else are we going to fight?). We should also be building submersibles that can deliver those drones from just off our adversaries' coastline.
Mr. Stephens may take some comfort in knowing that China, the only military close to rivaling ours, is also making the same, mistaken investments in supercarriers: https://www.popsci.com/china-nuclear-submarine-aircraft-carrier-leak
I guess China will have to wait for the post-Xi era and, in the meantime, risk being on the losing side of a conflict with the US, Japan, India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Australia, South Korea, etc., etc.
69
@NorthernVirginia "I happen to agree that we should be incorporating swarms of fighter/bomber drones, along with even greater numbers of drone decoys to overwhelm Chinese/Russian air defenses (who else are we going to fight?). We should also be building submersibles that can deliver those drones from just off our adversaries' coastline."
Who else are we going to fight? Anyone but nuclear-armed rivals. Wars with Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea are not on the table for this reason, and nuclear deterrence should also inform military planning going forward.
While supercarriers may be as obsolete today as battleships were by 1940 against 'near-peer' enemies, the essential thing is to ensure that our military is never forced to engage in civilization-destroying wars with them.
14
@NorthernVirginia ... You're assuming the unthinkable, an extended limited nuclear war. In a nuclear war, it's two strikes, then everybody's out!
7
@NorthernVirginia
I'm from the southern part of a northern state, but still wonder: do nukes make conventional arms pointless, or necessary? In Britain, where guns are rare, stabbings have been in the news.
2
If you're going to make historical analogies, you should at least get your history right.
First of all, the development of the English long bowman was a cultural fluke. No one planned to have well trained archers lying around for a war with France. The longbow developed organically as young farmers learned how to make and use a bow in fields. They made bows and trained to hit targets at longer distances essentially as a hobby. The government hired them rather than train and produce crossbows to combat the French. The decision proved decisive at Agincourt.
Second of all, the US Navy was perfectly aware of the carrier's importance long before Pearl Harbor. Why else would they be playing war games using carrier tactics? In fact, the US government had been planning for a war with Japan since before the aircraft carrier existed. The origins of War Plan Orange effectively date to 1897. The airplane wasn't invented until 1901. The US Navy was continuously evaluated their utility throughout the early 20th century.
The problem of course in the pacific was always range. Fleet based aircraft didn't have the endurance to adequately meet any desired combat role. That and the Navy simply didn't have enough planes for sustained offense maneuvers. Reconnaissance was always the first priority anyway. An aircraft carrier is not use when it's sunk. That's why the Navy developed the PBYs. Which remember, recon ultimately decided Midway, the decisive carrier battle of the war.
2
There was a preview of this in the 1982 Falklands War with Exocet antiship missiles. The British lost several ships from Argentine air to ship missiles.
We always fight the last war. And we can’t spend ourselves out of our addiction to expensive military systems that never use soft power.
360
@Mark Dobias
It would be nice if other countries would not attack each other until our newest weapons are deployed. Unfortunately, one has to fight wars when they happen, and modern ships and planes are so expensive and robust that they operate for a few decades.
The British prevailed in the Falklands in part because some of the missiles purchased by their opponent were diverted and because several bombs that hit ships failed to explode. That said, without their carriers, odds are the British would never have tried to fight in the first place and that the Argentinians would have taken the islands back much sooner.
One might say the lesson is that the carriers were both a strong deterrent to war and pivotal to victory. That's a lot of value.
9
@Mark Dobias
December 7, 1941.
September 11, 2001.
November 8, 2016.
10
@Mark Dobias That's not because carriers are a bad idea. It's because the UK had outsourced its need for carriers to the US as part of the NATO strategy thgat did not envision this war.
9
Let's declare to the world that the greatest threats facing us are artificial intelligence and climate change. These are both existential threats that could easily wipe human life off the planet.
To avoid being wiped out by AI, we need an international treaty to limit the development of autonomous weapons systems, with worldwide inspections. To avoid being wiped out by climate change, the world's largest economies need to agree large cuts in carbon emissions and possible geo-engineering solutions.
Sure, this is Utopian. But sometimes a clear threat from a mutual enemy is the one thing that can make different nations cooperate. A clear-eyed future President should do everything possible to awaken planet-wide awareness of the emergencies we face, and invite other great powers to cooperate with us against those threats.
If we naively persist in believing that the greatest threats we face are the Chinese or the Russians or some terrorist movement, we will eventually fall into war with them. Any new world war will more or less guarantee that the human race will be wiped out by AI and climate change.
2
The value of the hyper expensive weapons systems was as much to quell disorder and instability world wide as to actually defend the American nation.
If we are truly getting tired of extending the American Century, it really does obviate the need for allllll thiiisss. Maybe defense that acknowledges the changing nature of our vulnerabilities is in order.
And he hasn’t even brought up cyberwarfare. A North Korean computer virus that hobbles military command and control could win a war today.
2
so long as there are military contractors, congress stands in the way
providing funding for jobs - many of which are less skilled, but still important, manufacturing and assembly positions - gets them votes
anything that gets in the way of votes also gets in the way of change
we will be fighting past wars while our adversaries are preparing for the future congress apparently can't envision
3
Isn’t this what always happens when a spoiled child gets everything it wants all the time ? The Pentagon needs to be put on a budget that forces it into a habit of rigorous thinking and planning rather than throwing money at incoming problems and uncertainties as a matter of habit— at a rate greater than our next seven adversaries combined ! Our military is being ruined by largest. No oversight, no imagination, no need to be answerable for one disaster after another (Vietnam, Iraq — both born of too much money ready for war), how can Agincourt possibly be avoided ?
1
This is good news for world peace.
After all, aircraft carriers are not used for defense.
2
@SKK
Intimidating potential adversaries by projecting strength is defense.
It is 2019, not 1415 AD.
Stephens warnings are mis-calibrated, just like Churchill's before the WW2, arguing for rearmament against a rising Reich, even as Bismarck sunk the flagship HMS Hood with a single shell to its deck, and the entire Home Fleet had to be scrambled in response to one battleship, ultimately sunk by one airplane from one aircraft carrier, the Ark Royal.
that still didnt prevent the battle of the Atlantic when a not very new technology - the German U-boat - nearly shut down all Allied shipping.
Churchill's speeches were cute, but what really turned the tide in the Pacific was the U.S. Navy's aircraft carriers which trapped and sank almost all of Japan's fleet at Midway - The Pacific Ocean has become an American lake for over 70 years since - and even today worldwide shipping commerce is implicitly guaranteed by the US Navy - and paid for by the world (yes, China too) buying US Treasury bonds at the world's lowest interest rates.
And the war in Europe would not have been won if it were not for, er, Stalin's Red Army which overextended the Wehrmacht before crushing it.
There is going to be no clear battleground like Agincourt for the US to lose. Tomorrow's battles are going to be in cyberspace or outerspace, with fast shifting alliances among potential friends or enemies - May the most adaptive country win.
If a person really wants to see the future of warships watch the amazing display of drones over the Chinese city of Xian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mHDDG3FCjs
Almost 1400 drones were flying in formation and creating beautiful representations of Chinese words. As you watch the clip consider what would happen to a carrier task force if a hostile government launches twenty to thirty thousand small drones, each carrying a couple of pounds of powerful plastic explosives, against the ships. There is no possible way that our defenses could repel ALL the drones, and we would lose the entire task force. And I am sure that similar underwater drones are being developed as well. In fact, it would be possible to seed ocean bottom locations with these inexpensive weapons which would just quietly wait for our ship to sail near by. They would rise up and destroy the fleet from below. Unfortunately, the modern navy is obsolete.
3
How curious, then, that the Chinese are opting for aircraft carriers too now.
2
The concern of Brose has worried me for years. The F-35 fiasco is unfolding before our eyes, but too much money and pride is sunken into too many Congressional districts for that idea to go where it belongs. Stealth fighters under the right conditions at fabulous 24/7/365 cost. A nuclear force still predicated on the idea that our atomic opponents want to survive in this world as much as we do, and not joyously proceed to paradise.
Read “Neutron Tide” (1970) by Arthur C. Clarke, his briefest short story, which ends in a memorable pun summarizing the cost of military acquisition pride.
Question as always about he current mindset, "Qui bono."
Answer: Follow the money.
There are powerful vested interests in the United States that have enormous stakes in our current military strategy and assets.
First, there are the monied interests who own defense companies and their layers of contractors. Wars and defense spending have always benefited this interest group.
Second, there are the people in communities in which US defense contractors are located, and where US military bases are located. Millions of jobs depend on these entities.
Third, we have the politicians for whom jobs translate into votes.
Fourth, there are thousands of lobbyists in DC who are paid hundreds of millions of dollars to keep things the way they are.
Fifth, there is the conservative mindset. For conservatives, change is threatening. Best to simply pile on more money and keep things as they are.
Sixth, there is the mindset of at DOD. This is the mindset of big iron, not insurgency. The reality of the market is that insurgencies beat big iron every time out. To wit, Mao, Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan. Big iron mentality also includes the Dr. Strangelove beliefs the there will be an ultimate war in which the major nations will be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust, and that this is an acceptable outcome given certain assumptions and lines of reasoning.
Finally, we come to the Trump administration and the Republican Party. These people learn noting and forget nothing.
3
Bret risks societal atrophy if he doesn't radically lose his infatuation w/ war.
Marine Corps General Smedley Butler served for 33 years and led many interventions in Latin America. He later wrote,
“I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."
$1.5T for the nuclear triad, $1.5T for the F-35, now they want to procure funds for a new bomber. Eleven carrier groups (China has two regional carriers) all way-over-the-top. Praise be to the oligarchs.
We become much weaker because of our lack of infrastructure - we need improvements in roads, bridges, electrical grids, education. What a waste!
The game has changed long - small ball, a walk, a bunt, and a bloop and play good defense. Look what North Korea did to Sony!
3
The problem is worse than you imagine. We have known about carrier obsolescence since Operation Crossroads in 1946, when the Air Force dropped a Nagasaki bomb on a surplus fleet anchored near Bikini Atoll. The Navy brass wanted to prove all those brand, spanking new fast carriers that they just bought to beat the Japanese were survivable in the atomic age. They proved just the opposite.
Everyone but the American public knows this. Why do the Iranians want nukes, for example? It has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with the USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian Airliner in 1988 and killing 300 civilians. One way to make sure that never happens again is to deny the US Navy access to the Persian Gulf. A dumb nuke on an IRBM does exactly that.
well done. writing about something meaningful.
If an Agincourt helps to deflate America's ego, maybe it's for the best, if not for America than for the rest of the world.
@Matthew M
I’m more concerned about my country; less about the thugocracies that make up much of the rest of the world.
The restart of the star wars program is a prime example of the military industrial congressional complex run amok. 911 made it abundantly clear that a space based anti missile system does not address asymmetrical warfare in the 21st century. A
FEDEX plane loaded with a nuclear weapon would be unrecognized as a threat as would a cruise or commercial ship or general aviation aircraft.
A well aimed missile or torpedo will do the trick every time.
A swarm of them is even better.
And they are cheap...
This lesson is coming, and it’s overdue. It’s first port of call is likely in an engagement with Iran. Are Americans prepared to see an entire carrier group sunk in an afternoon? Not even remotely, but it’s almost inevitable.
That’s over ten thousand casualties...
1
SOOOO nice to have Mr. Stephens giving a useful bit of advice, and a warning. Hard to justify ANYTHING sinkable that costs $13 billion, but I think a less expensive platform for jets will still be useful. The notion that the Pentagon tries to close useless bases and is prevented by Congress tells you all you need to know about problems changing the current system for running and "right-sizing" the US military. The only good news is that the "waste, fraud,and abuse" mostly keeps the domestic economy humming...
It always struck me that an aircraft carrier was a sitting duck. But what do I know?
Bret Stephens is likely correct
at a time when China shoots down satellites and has developed
laser and sound wave guns-----and AI capabilities to render aircraft carriers ducks that are just sitting paralyzed in the China sea.
When Bret Stephens come really clean about what he wants all those "autonomous" fighting units to do in the Middle East and elsewhere, I'll try to believe him. The absurd notion that God gave America the task of patrolling Iraq and every other place that evokes Mr. Stephens' ire and anxieties is, in fact, absurd. Mr. Stephens wants an American military that is prepared to do Israel's bidding in the Middle East. I don't want any such military. My nephews spent years of their lives getting mangled and and deployed on missions to destroy Israel's enemies. We need to wake up and realize that Israel really isn't our friend, then evaluate who our friends and enemies really are.
4
We continue to build a Navy to chase the Japanese fleet. Aircraft carriers are tremendous for power projection until the flight deck is fouled....given our threats, that would not be difficult to accomplish. At the core of this problem is a Military Industrial Complex rooted in the Cold War.
I remember the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam that was going to sweep the skies with Air to Air missiles which worked great until they failed or ran into more mobile enemy aircraft...the F-4 turned into a target rather quickly.
Excellent article but sadly it will fall on deaf ears...not only in the current administration but clearly past and probably future.
8
I think at a strategic level if the US is facing more threats, it represents an ironic longer term strategic failure on its part, which suggests a needed change in course, I think.
Because the countries challenging the US now are precisely being “American” in trying to “win.”
Perhaps, the US when it was better able to influence the world, should have promoted a more equitable capitalistic system, say, the Scandinavian system.
You can’t have a world where everybody behaves like Americans! Bigger cars, everybody in their own car, more emissions etc etc, there’s just not enough to go around this way. We need to be a bit more egalitarian.
Instead, I think, the US too often, especially through its corporations, which have taken over US government, promotes an unsustainable brand of social-economics. So, now, the US has taught the Chinese to do the same ironically, due to the excessive pursuit of profit and individualism. This it seems is a trap that comes back to bite the US itself because it’s unsustainable.
What if the US promoted a more humane equitable global system, then, it would face lesser pressures itself from the rest of the world when those populations finally develop industrially or financially, so the US would stop chasing its own tail trying to constantly build bigger guns and fight adversaries it itself teaches to “compete.”
It seems like an ironic failure of leadership to influence the world for the sustainable benefit of all, including the US.
2
@Frea Come to think of it, if we were to go the route of, you know, sharing everything, helping one another, smoothing the inequality curves, coming to one another's assistance during calamities, and all that, why, couldn't we just do away with war altogether? Has anyone considered this approach?
Defense spending is really your jobs program. Nobody cares of the weapons really work as long as it supports jobs. Congressman love something with they can spend money and nobody seems to mind.
4
The French lost at Agincourt because they were more concerned about profiting from ransom of captured English nobles, and attacked when they could have just waited, as the English were in the open with no supply lines. Our military seems to function to ensure that multinational trade routes function. The mission has strayed so far from providing for the national defense, which, given our geography, should be relatively simple.
1
With the state of the art technology, the most vulnerable targets will be the aircraft carriers, whose location can be determined within inches by a sattelite, and are too slow to escape gps guided incoming low flying hypersonic missiles. They are sitting ducks in a conflict! (Russia alreay publicly showed their SS missile capability, and very likely China and NK either developed one or are working on one).
The right answer is to retire the fleet of carriers and the slow moving big ships. Shrink the Navy and spend the money on hypersonic guided missiles instead. We can easily fund other much needed domestic programs in education, healthcare, renewable energy, etc with the left over money!
188
My goodness. Your comment IS the solution to the whole mess ! And we can house the homeless on those no longer needed aircraft carriers. In fact one of the carriers can be moored of shore at 1100 South Ocean Boulevard, Palm Beach, Florida !
14
@Chin Wu
...and what would the targets of all those hypersonic missiles be?
3
@Chin Wu
Russia showed a really poor quality computer animation of a missile. It is properly viewed as a public embarrassment, but no doubt they military/industrial complex will view it as an excuse for more spending.
6
If we hadn't wasted $4 trillion in the war in Iraq which was orchestrated based on lies, we would be much better prepared.
1
Could not have said it better myself. Our military has forgotten what the phrase cost efficiency means. Why does every war plan need stealth technology? Last time I checked isis didn't exactly have a sophisticated anti-air defense system. Even if we do fight a near peer enemy, the only aircraft who will need stealth are going to be the first wave of plans, the spearhead if you will. After that cheaper and more numerous aircraft can handle cleanup. Our Navy has to be among the worst developing a stealth destroyer. Seriously, why? If you want to hide from radar, build a sub, or even a uboat. Don't waste billions on stealth technology that can be easily defeated. This issue alone is why I support deep and broad cuts to our defense spending. The Pentagon's budget must be reigned in.
1
Yes, the risk of future Pearl Harbors is there. The military has no General William Mitchells. And a congress controlled by the allies of the defense contractors is no better. After all, the current Republican ethos is to blame it all on liberals.
2
The problem with the author's rationale is that the USA is a capitalist society. It needs to patrol the seas in order to secure the flow of goods coming in and out of the country.
Russia and China are in a defensive position, so they can rely on assymetric warfare. They can rely on just sinking ships, not building new ones (at least for now).
Therefore, the American Navy is not only to confront China and Russia: it must also keep its allies and the other Third World countries in line.
1
Our endless quest for world supremacy will bankrupt our country. We are near the point of no return and no-one in power seems to even be aware.
287
@Maureen Steffek
It is greed for more profits of Predatory Capitalism.
9
@Maureen Steffek
George Washington warned about foreign entanglements in his “Farewell Address”. The Senate gives it lip service every year with a reading with only a couple of Senators present:(
8
@Maureen Steffek
That is a quote from a Chinese citizen.
1
Anyone who sinks a US carrier is asking for total destruction. Red China and Russia would never dare. However, their proxies like Iran and North Korea would... if pushed too far. Even they know the consequences so the chance is very small. But it will take such a horrendous act to change the minds of the
military-industrial complex. By then it will be too late!
2
@JAB Thank goodness that deliberations and choices in war are fundmentally logical.
Amidst the Vietnam debacle, the Navy and its members of the US Congress wasted millions, millions, returning a battleship to active duty to attack Vietnam. The Navy loves to play WWII be it with battleships or aircraft carriers.
Truman got it wrong changing 'Department of War' to Department of Defense'. Spending on boys toys trumps defense spending. Fifteen years and over $400 billion to get an F-35 that works? We have 13 aircraft carriers and the rest of the world 4?
3
@stewart bolinger
"Amidst the Vietnam debacle, the Navy and its members of the US Congress wasted millions, millions, returning a battleship to active duty to attack Vietnam."
After the USS New Jersey arrived in Vietnam, all enemy activity ceased within 25 miles of the coast. U.S. soldiers and marines were very happy to be able to call for support from sixteen-inch guns.
Her sister ships, USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin pounded the Iraqis in the 1991 Gulf War.
Look back to Vietnam, where we were bombing the NVA supply lines with B-52 bombers, the targets and supplies coming in on bicycles and primitive trucks. Hardly cost effective.
3
Krups built superior German tanks in WW2. Ford built inferior American tanks at a ratio of 10 or 100 to 1 (American-German). We know how that turned out.
3
@Ben Franklin
Yes, quantity has its own quality. That's why we developed the MOAB.
I doubt Bret Stephens knows much about Agincourt. He relies too much on Shakespeare who wrote Tudor propaganda not history.
Agincourt (and Crecy) makes for a nice metaphor that could have been expanded on, as it wasn't so much the longbows as the mud, the heavy armor and the subsequent mob rush as flow was stopped that defeated the French. Plus the avarice of nobles wanting to be first in line, instead of experienced soldiers, so they could capture Englishmen for ransom. So, yes, we need a new administration, a sober congress, and most of all an adequately informed public. Given the combination of Citizens United, and the interests of the donor class, aint gonna happen.
1
I hate to break the bad news to Bret Stevens and NYT readers, but with the exception of WWII (an allied victory) and a bloated skirmish-style victory in the 1st Iraq encounter, the U.S. hasn't actually won a war in modern times. Yes, we have a huge military and lots of expensive hardware and we're very good at manufacturing reasons to shoot off our toys, but what great victories have we achieved? What lands have we annexed or wealth taken? What real goals have we actually accomplished" Sure, all those fancy Army tv recruitment commercials make war look slick (like a video game) and promise that we are "united," but the truth is much, much different.
4
Well said, and appropriately highlighted.
Our technical leadership in autonomous systems and sensing technology should allow us to cut the military budget and get much more cost-effective defense.
I suspect we have the way if not the will. For that, we may need a President Biden, who had advocated the tripartite division of Iraq and a counter-terrorism, not nation-building approach to Afghanistan....
2
Mr. Stephens, you point out that we continue to spend billions upon billions of dollars on a military force that hasn’t adapted to the real world problems that our young men and women (largely poor and without better options) continue sacrificing their lives for. Yet, those who support ever increasing the military budget, go ballistic (pardon the pun) if spending more on education, healthcare, support for children is proposed. What a country....what a world.
The extent of your criticism toward Trump and his rudderless administration is: “we’ll have to wait for a future administration”? Mr. Stephens, you are good at stating the case, but why you fail to criticize this incompetent president and his bumbling ship of fools is hard to understand.
3
Forewarned is not always forearmed indeed. The French had suffered defeats at Crecy and Poitiers long before Agincourt, but the proud French knights were still unwilling to take those sweaty English varlets with longbows seriously.
154
@Thomas
Agreed!
And I would note that the vast technological superiority in heavy weapons did not result in the US prevailing over the Viet Minh and the NVA.
14
@Tom Clifford Or Iraq or Syria
8
@Thomas
The French army also needlessly suffered horrendous casualties during the first 2 years of WWI.Their generals weren't afraid of entrenched german machine guns because the French troops had "elan."It took a mutiny within the ranks for the generals to realize that "elan" doesn't count for much against machine guns and such. Even more stupid were the American generals who refused to learn from the French and used the same tactics the French did early in the war.
10
So we have two existential crises: environmental collapse and a military with the potential of collapsing, both with a total meltdown going on in the White House and Congress. Swell.
1
This is an extremely timely article. While we agonize through another day of this president our adversaries are gaining strength. As other commentators said, the US continues to develop new weapons to maintain superiority. But as a nation we are desperately divided and psychologically unready for conflict. Our troops are battle hardened, but probably battle worn. Rebuilding, refreshing, and refitting are timely as is strategic and logistical rethinking. The best example that Bret Stevens brings to mind is the British offensive
At the Somme. Efficient new weaponry and antiquated strategy and execution.
Arguably, the primary mission of the defense budget is no longer national defense. The PRIMARY mission is to serve as a jobs program to prop up the economies of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida. The defense budget is the United States' brand of socialism.
9
Agincourt ? It is Azincourt 1420. The British forget 1453 the battle of Castillon where the English were definitely beaten and kicked out of France and ended the hundred year war and the middle ages.
The battle of Castillon is the subject of a reenactment show every year with hundreds of horses, cavaliers, volunteer actors, fire power in the middle of summer. Thousands attend every year in that beatiful region of Aquitaine near Bordeaux, on the side of the Dordogne river . Country of great wines, good food and birth of the philosopher Michel de Montaigne.
Americans have the ridiculous biggest army of close to 1 million soldiers in 2019 and an annual budget of 750 billion $.
China 300 B$ , Russia 160 B$, France 100 B$, UK 140 B$ , but Americans have not understood the challenge of the future which is ecology and they cannot even create a global health insurance system. They invade the world with their bad products, bad food, tobacco, fertilizers, herbicides , petroleum that destroy the earth resources,
They have the most violent society by far at home and the highest ridiculous incarceration rate by far . 650 per 100 000 capita . France has 100 .
Still the USA have not abolished the barbaric and crime producing death penalty.
3
@JPH
Dear JPH,
I was about to concur with you, since every French pupil knows about "la bataille d'Azincourt".
Turns out Stephens is correct : weirdly enough it is called Agincourt battle in English.
Even more confusing is the fact that Agincourt is also the name of an unrelated village in the Moselle department...
@SHA because the British cannot pronounce " Z " does not mean that it should be Agincourt .
Enough colonialism.
it is a French town .it is Azincourt .
People forget what the Bourgeois de Calais by Rodin even meant . Today.
Hard to change strategies when the current President is still thinking that castles and moats sound like a good defense system and can’t decide who he likes more Putin or Kim Jong Un. At least, the most dishonorable man can’t ever say “Peace with Honor” without being laughed at.
Hard to change strategies when ex-military men go to work for military contractors and roam the world looking for the best financial opportunities for them, with the country’s interest a distant second.
Hard to change strategies when proponents of new ideas and technology are deemed traitors by the entrenched politicians who receive generous donations from the weapons makers.
2
Since 9/11/01 a mere 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to wear the military uniform of any American armed force. And they have been ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments in foreign ethnic sectarian civil wars that have no military solution.
While the rest of us pretend to be brave honorable patriots by rising to sing the national anthem and saluting the American anthem at sporting events.
America spends as much annually on it's military as the next eight nations combined. Including 10x Russia and 3x China. America lost in Vietnam and is losing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, South Sudan, Ukraine, Crimea.
Don, Jr., Eric Trump, Jared Kushner, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bret Stephens and Sean Hannity are not as patriotic as Bayard Rustin, Elijah Muhammad, Muhammad Ali and Colin Kapernick.
5
@Blackmamba
errata 2nd paragraph ...saluting the American flag...
Maybe ten or fifteen years ago the US military ran war games simulating an Iranian attack against the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. The US admiral in charge of the “Iranian” forces threw away the playbook and opted to attack using high speed suicide boats, and crippled the US forces. The Pentagon was furious at him, but I wonder if they learned their lesson.
Mr Stephens might want to read John Keegan's "The Face of Battle" before using Agincourt again as a metaphor for the effect of changing technology in war. Keegan writes that it wasn't the English longbowmen's arrows that defeated the French, it was the fact that they were peasants, yeoman, and not nobleman, like the knights, and so, when they'd shot off their arrows, to little effect, they then picked up weapons dropped by the French dead and hacked away at the French columns from the side, something no English nobleman/knight would have done. (They were still fighting in columns then, as they had since Roman times.) It wasn't superior technology that won the day, it was a new level of savagery, or a change in tactics to put it more politely. So whatever the merits of Mr Stephens' larger point, he can't really make it by referencing Agincourt.
3
@AW That’s part of the story, as is the brilliant generalship of Henry V, the English commander, and the recent rain and consequent mud. But the decisive factor (as I seem to recall Keegan acknowledged) was the press—men so jammed together they could hardly move and were easily cut to pieces. I make that point in my own comment below.
The A-10 is the best ground support fighter ever made and the Army loves it. But it is being replaced by the F-35, which doesn't do the mission as well and costs $100 million. The Army officers don't even want the F-35. But they are getting it because Republican congressmen owned by Lockheed Martin are determined to fund the F-35 despite its absurdly high cost.
4
@Tom
Even the A-10 is gross overkill for ground support in the conflicts we have been engaged in for years. A Vietnam-era prop plane with updated electronics would be the ideal. This has been rejected by our "leaders" for reasons having nothing to do with effectiveness.
We have met the enemy, etc.
4
Please add the Trump Administration's renewal of a nuclear arms race costing trillions of dollars to the profligate and strategically worthless assortment of military industrial congressional boondoggles cited in Mr. Stephens' column?
Mark Muhich
Sierra Club Nuclear Free Core Team
4
No question DOD has become more and more a federal jobs program and a mechanism for supporting a small number of major military contractors. Virtually every congressional district has some interest maintaining the status quo.
Nonetheless, the Navy has been thinking along the lines Stephens recommends. A concept called distributed lethality aims to move more combat power to smaller, but more numerous platforms. I would caution, though, that reliance on unmanned systems makes us increasingly dependent on satellite communications. How confident are we that China/Russia cannot hack or destroy our satellites? I, for one, am not.
1
Forget history your future in doomed. No greater analogy of Agincourt is needed. Swarms of cheap unmanned aircraft will doom our billion dollar shields.
1
You make a fair point. I hope someone equipped to make decisions is listening.
Perhaps the Commander-in-Chief.
I doubt it. He thinks Agincourt is a French designer.
5
What is the threat and what is our defense?
How many carriers do we need to effectively fight cyberwarfare, domestic terrorism, malicious nanodevices controlled via the Internet of things, infiltration of the Democratic process, disruption caused by climate change, and angry young men in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, whose employment and family prospects are best met by Al Qaidah and Isis?
How many tanks, B2 bombers, submarines, helicopters, Rangers, SEALs, and Marines do we need to intercept these adversaries and neutralize them?
286
@Paul DeGroot
You're discounting the need to (potentially) overcome near-peers, i.e. China and Russia. No one ever wants this to happen, but those are still the greatest threats to a loss of sovereignty, when conventional warfare is taken into account. Cyberwarfare and ridding the world of poverty, U.S. meddling and religious-inspired terrorism is another and just as important topic, however.
9
@Paul DeGroot
Paul, lumping special operations in with the author’s argument is a mistake. Precision and surgical use of force, along with other clandestine operations are the best approach to physically challenging terrorists and other non-state actors. Imagine how different the world could be now had we kept a small footprint approach in reacting to 9/11.
Rangers Lead The Way!
5
@Paul DeGroot But the idea is to not fight, but deter. It seems to have worked for many years.
5
Thank you Mr. Bret Stephens. I never really liked your critical editorials before. But this one is spot on. Love your Agincourt reference.
Much as I don't like the draft, I think our military would be better served with a forced conscription. I served in the volunteer military, and I think you get a better cross section of skills and abilities, with a draft.
The US military are no win the business of spending their budget, not of defending the nation.
Every carrier and airplane and expensive weapons system contributes to a deficit of money (and thinking and common sense) so every carrier and airplane and weapons system brings us closer to defeat —financially and in the field.
1
It is easy to try separate war against near peer states and everything else, but long-term planning requires flexibility and is more complex than "missiles can sink any surface ship" and "fast jets are too expensive to use".
Carriers and manned airplanes are extremely flexible platforms. If the latter must be purchased for near-peer conflict (at least for now), it makes sense to use them in other conflicts as a form of training, to gather data about operations, and to simplify supply chains while reducing the need for specialist personnel.
If carriers are big targets that are almost hopeless to defend against a missile barrage, it feels like we can say the same of both more modest surface ships and any land-based airfields outside North America. The USN can move a carrier into a region as needed and, also as needed, rotate ships to create a permanent presence, which seems like a far better approach than pretending to like to every corrupt government so they let us operate (and pay for) a base in their country. The latter is a very self-weighting strategy (forces are spread out, with an uncertain ability to concentrate them rapidly in any one area), while the former allows for very intense concentration of forces where they are needed. This may be the best way to achieve long-term efficiency and, more importantly, ensures a predictable level of effectiveness when every war will be an ocean away.
1
Stephens' penultimate paragraph noting the qualities we would need in our decision makers to address this issue is a great cause for pessimism.
1
I suspect there are advances in US technology that will negate some of the technological advantages our expected adversaries appear to have at this time.
The public and Mr Stephens, for obvious reasons, just doesn’t know about them yet. Of course, we might slip backwards with Democrats in charge of R&D funding yet again...
4
@EGD
I suspect that if some future adversary knocks out half of our carrier fleet in a few hours you'll be singing a less partisan tune....
1
On target! Well written as usual. Eisenhower also warned of the military-industrial complex in his farewell address. Nothing has changed other than the power of this complex. And control of our foreign policy.
Jim
3
It’s not just the cost of the aircraft carrier. A whole battle group is positioned around the carrier for screening and protection. And then there is the enormous supply train to keep the battle group supplied. I expect when considering the above, the cost of the carrier will be a pittance.
Back in the 80’s I saw a cartoon of a young officer briefing an Air Force General on a new airplane. The briefer stated the aircraft had the greatest defenses ever assembled on a weapons platform. It had parts assembled in every Congressional District.
And there you have it.
5
Fortunately, Trump has not shown a willingness to enter new wars. For all the insanity of this administration, that is the saving grace. I hope Trump doesn't overreact on Twitter to the latest Kim missile launches.
1
The French were devastated at Agincourt - but that was hardly the last military catastrophe in France - and yet the French and their wonderful language and culture and form of government are still with us. Too much worry.
Spending trillions on military hardware may not even be all that important anymore. Let’s also discuss the insidious power of information warfare. If a nation’s population can be attacked cheaply by a small army of trolls, bots, and generated memes — and that population can be persuaded that the enemy is benign or friendly — it’s game over. War is to gain power over a population. If you can neutralize a nation, maybe win elections, without firing bullets, why would you? This realization needs to be a key part of our defense. Countering information warfare is essential for democracies in this age.
5
"We are burning through trillions." Mr. Stephens seems to think this a a problem. No, it's the main purpose of the DOD. Rather than defend America, our armed forces are really a cash cow for politically connected defense industries. Nobody cares if we win wars or not. It's all about the money. In fact the type of low grade endless war we are currently stuck in is the best possible military strategy for the military industrial complex because it ensure high profits forever.
38
Looking at the comments here it seems most readers have a dim view of the effectiveness of carrier aviation and the carrier strike group. As a carrier aviator myself, I do not speak for the military or the US government. However, I do believe people have some misconceptions that I think I can help clear up.
Commenters have mentioned cheap long-range cruise missiles and the Falklands War multiple times in reference to the vulnerability of carriers. Let me start off by saying that carriers have always been exceedingly vulnerable. Also while cruise missiles can have fantastic range, that doesn’t matter if they don’t have a valid cue to fly towards that gives them a reasonable chance of finding a target. A platform with sophisticated sensors needs to provide that cue. While the missile may be cheap, the platform is not. And if the platform providing the cue can see the target, the target can probably see the platform too and shoot back.
The Exocet cruise missiles used by Argentina during the Falklands War were launched by land based strike aircraft. The British naval command of the Falklands War stated that their biggest limitation was not having airborne early warning radar that could see threats over the horizon. In addition, he always worried about the vulnerability of his carriers because they were also mission essential. If one of the carriers had been hit, the war would have been over as Britain had no other way to support combat operations that far from its shores.
2
As another arm chair strategist aircraft carriers make sense in a world which often involve small conventional interventions. Remember the Falklands war couldn't be fought without the two carriers sent down to the Southern Atlantic to provide air cover for the other ships. But it surprises me that the American public are happy with the high levels America's military spending. The USA still seems to be in a permanent war like state ready to fight wars on two or even three fronts at the same time. Also worrying for all countries in the world are America's continual development in nuclear armaments and its failure to take a lead in removing these weapons.
1
Whether it was Adm. Yamamoto at Pearl Harbor or the CSS Merrimack in the Civil War, we always seem to prepare to fight the last war and have paradigm-shifts forced on us in a bloody manner. In part, because our military-industrial-congressional complex both is embedded and benefits from perpetuating the status quo. That isn't the case for our adversaries.
I was in the Navy ROTC program in the seventies and recall official fretting about Soviet ship launched cruise missiles being aimed at our fleet carriers by USSR small platform ships. I imagine the technology to kill carriers has only advanced since then and coupled with the element of surprise, makes a military disaster easy to imagine.
These articles always dismay me, because I wonder if the defense people have actually thought through who would attack the US and why would anyone be so foolish. It is easy to brush this aside as coming from a Utopian quack, but perhaps now for the first time in history, the merit of armed conflict is fading into history. As China is so ably displaying, global trade and economic prosperity are far more important that territory gained through attacking ones neighbors. Sure the days of the aircraft carrier are passing, but not so much because of technical obsolescence but human advancement.
3
A rare breath of fresh air amid stultifying military planning. Every great military power ultimately failed by underestimating a changing world. While the US spends trillions to bulk up its military, it underestimates the growing threats of climate change, inequality, poverty, mass migration ... the roots of terrorism.
10
History is repeating itself and the end of it all will be yet one more ugly, bloody repeat of the past.
There is only one way to fix this issue and many of our other issues. We will never take the profit motive out of the MIC complex, or any other industry for that matter.
We need to change the basic motivational structures. We need to align profit with what is best to solve any given problem and in this case that which is best for the defense of the nation.
That means changing the quid pro quo with weapons suppliers so the end result is a better defense posture while the same entities make their money.
This can only start if the nation offers defense contractors the opportunity to maintain their positions but only if they change.
The traditional manner in which industries wax and wane is not acceptable when the safety of the nation is at stake.
3
this is not so much about large v. small weapon systems as it is about motivation of a society - autocratic or democratic. we beat the british in our revolution because we were wanted victory more than them. north vietnam used essentially the same strategy against us. both victors in those wars had large, motivated allies that helped tip the balance. frankly it's a disgrace that we spend more on the military than the next 10 or so countries and still want more - yet have difficulty defeating small, well motivated enemies. i for one tire of that waste and think the money would be better spent building relationships than destroying people and property.
4
China & Russia can or will defeat us in the first 24 hours simply by hacking most of our infrastructure. They can already do it ... but are just holding off until they need to.
8
Put this idea on the shelf to age for awhile.
"A Pentagon with a visionary and independent leader, a Congress ruled by a non-parochial and bipartisan spirit, and a serious president capable of long-term thinking could change the way America prepares for the next war — to prevent it if possible, to win it if necessary."
BTW - Whose notion is this anyway, Bret's or Mr Brose? The column seemed to be a recitation of the latter's writings.
1
Do we really want to continue this war mentality with ever more lethal technology on the ground, the sea and in space? And surely we don't want someone sitting in Florida and conducting world war by robotic automatons.
Ask the American people, ask the Europeans, ask the Russians and Chinese. We don't want this technological race to the next level of war. We want to live in peace.
3
Yawn. The same old stuff about not needing ships that has been peddled by some from Gen. Billy Mitchell to Mr. Stephens today. A few observations.
1. The is the old saw about the President asking about the whereabouts of the nearest Battle group in any breaking crisis.
2. Out of a $650 billion plus budget we sure seem to pay for a lot for Special Forces & Drones.
3. Why is it that the Chinese are building carriers for themselves and learning how to use them. No small feat.
4. Just how do you plan to project power with out the carriers.
5. Much like our own anti-ballistic missile defense system the Chinese have a variant on the old Soviet SS-9 in regular service. But neither system has really been flight tested and never very successfully. Hmmmm.
As to the Kitty Hawk incident...................please. Mr. Stephens. Talk to real Sailors first. Not some think tanker with a cushy office job.
2
Well, we lost in Vietnam to an army of dirt farmers who were willing to fight to the death to throw off the yokes of corrupt leaders and corrupt, incompetent, bloodthirsty American might. (And that comes from a Vietnam Veteran, by the way).
You bet it doesn't have to be this way. We could eliminate war in two generations if we built a new UN, one that had a true International court. We could help eliminate war by returning to the draft, and making all children of the rich, including women, serve. War is too easy, too efficient, to button friendly as it is.
Our wars since the 1950's have been cruel exercises in murderous power. Not sure I care that much if, in our next war, the war lovers have it together to invade and destroy Iran or wherever we decide to invade next.
Hugh
8
A recent NATO war game had a Danish diesel submarine sink a US carrier; this has been happening for the last fifty years. Ask US submarine captains how many carrier prop pictures they have taken during war games; ask carrier captains how many times they have gotten those pictures. Carriers have a place, but they can no longer be considered the lynch pin for our defense at sea. This opinion piece and the related essay should be mandatory reading for Congress. You might want to point it out to your Representative and Senator.
3
I hope Stephens realizes that for his second to last paragraph to happen the Republican party has to be cast on the dust heap of history.
6
@Edward B. Blau
You know, because Democrats have always been about robust military preparedness such that no adversary would dare attack us, huh...
Money and profits limit America's ability to think strategically and long term on EVERYTHING. Defense. Infrastructure. Healthcare. Energy. Education. You name it. What a waste of resources and potential. Such a profound disappointment.
12
The United States truly is a great country in terms of economic power with an industrious, capable workforce and I expect the future to be good in economic, financial, business terms.
But in areas which require government action in Washington, D. C., don't expect anything good. This country desperately needs an upgraded infrastructure -- highways, bridges, rail lines and tunnels in our large cities, airports, etc.
And we need a coherent foreign policy and defense policy which would lead to a rational plan for military weaponry -- planes, tanks, other military hardware. One of our problems is that we don't really understand our strategic situation and our military and defense needs which flow from that strategic situation. The Vietnam war was a terrible and costly mistake in terms of both deaths of people and treasure expended. The Iraq War in 2003 was a terrible mistake with huge expenditures which have probably made us worse off. The same could be said for Afghanistan.
We don't seem to know what we want to accomplish with foreign policy and defense policy.
15
@Aubrey The basic cause of many of our problems is that the Congress is ruled by lobbyists. We can't have a rational defense policy because the Military Industrial Complex is calling the tune. We can't have a rational healthcare system because Big Pharma, the health insurers, Medical equipment makers, hospitals, etc. rule the roost.
Why is this true in this country? Lobbyists don't rule the British parliament or the EU parliament. What is it about the U. S. Congress that gives them so much power?
8
@Aubrey. I think you don’t follow the British or European Parliaments if you believe that.
@Traymn Probably all parliaments have lobbyists -- but I wonder if they have them to the extent that we do. Our lobbyists must have more power than those in other countries.
And not just military policy (determined by Military Industrial Complex), healthcare (by the Healthcare Industrial Complex), farm policy (Agricultural lobbyists) and on through the economy. I read the other day that TurboTax wants Congress to make it illegal for the IRS to develop a system where by citizens could electronically file their taxes directly with the IRS without using turbotax. Accuweather would also like to make it illegal for the Weather bureau to make forecasts available to the public. Accuweather would like to get them and sell them.
Thanks for you comment and best wishes.
2
It's because special interest lobbies carry more weight than millions of voters.
Said in another way, it's the way that voters are disenfranchised and democracy is shelved in favor of big money interests.
This is so obvious and out front that no one recognizes that it is ruining our country.
Britain used to control 1/4 of the earth.
It's now a small island that can't bear even being in association with their European counterparts.
Empires fade away and there comes a new kid on the block
That new kid is going to be the authoritarian nation of China.
Just the way things go. Nothing last forever.
16
Truer words were never spoken. I fear that the careerists in the Pentagon, aided and abetted by defense contractors, will only be held to account after the fact when our servicemen and servicewomen are dead and entombed in sunken ships.
I served on aircraft carriers. They are just the thing for driving the USSR into the dustbin of history.
I got more done carrying a M16A4 rifle, especially when I left it in my humvee, and then speaking with the locals on ways to collaborate on security.
3
The weakness you describe increases the risk of nuclear conflict as a near military defeat would surely lead to the temptation to use nuclear weapons.
6
Agree 100% with Bret on this one. The history of naval warfare is replete with large ships (relatively speaking) heavily armed being sunk with heavy loss of life. A lot of the time it was other large ships doing the damage (such as at Jutland) or aircraft carriers such as Midway and other battles of WW2. But since the age of the airplane it has been the airplanes that do the damage. The Bismark was sunk because a bomb from a single plane disabled its steering mechanism and made it easy prey.
For all their firepower, carriers carry a huge risk of loss of life - and an instantaneous loss of military capability. The Japanese never recovered from losing four carriers (and pilots) at Midway.
Aircraft carriers exist because historically warplanes could not fly that far. Having a few aircraft carriers might be reasonable under certain circumstances but it would be better to have widely dispersed land airbases where possible, planes with longer ranges, etc. And missiles can be launched from a variety of platforms and deliver quite a blow.
And let's not forget submarines. So a navy consisting of perhaps a few carriers for special situations, lots of dispersed air bases with planes capable of long flights,
lots of light fast missile carrying cruises and destroyers and submarines, and perhaps a modern battle ship or two, highly automated, fast, few crew members, but capable of intimidating/ and destroying coastal cities.
3
@Ralphie I pretty much agree, though I think aircraft carriers are still quite useful, though I wouldn't build any new ones. Carrier tasks forces are a good way to put substantial force in far flung theaters like the Persian Gulf or South China Sea during peacetime. We just need to recognize that they are now forward scouts and pickets that may be wiped out quickly by a full assault. I hope someone at the Pentagon is planning the defense in depth.
1
Years ago when I was in the US Air Force, we studied something called "asymmetric warfare." Our scenario was a cyber attack by a foreign power that paralyzed the United States economy and rendered communication to expensive weapons systems difficult. This was decades ago. Fast forward to a successful Russian multi-pronged cyber attack on the US election in 2016 in an effort to politically destabilize the United States. We have already lost the first round of modern warfare.
12
Even updated old style weapons like the AC-130, a four-engine turbo prop gunship called the "Angel of Death" are not the answer. We deployed this weapon in the early days of the Afghan War and the enemy just waited us out in caves. The Air Force has more than a few pilots sitting at a computer consoles piloting unmanned drones, one of the few effective weapons systems in taking out the opposition's leadership. I am certain we can build cheaper and more effective weapons systems, but the real question is - can we offer a reason for our adversaries to lay down their weapons and build societies? Because the "prevent it if possible" is the clearly preferable alternative. And America is not offering a reason to join us, unless of course you like sticking your neck out only to be sacrificed on the alter of American expedience. See 'Kurdistan'.
16
In The Utility of Force Sir General Rupert Smith noted the transition from WW2 industrial war to "wars among the people". While conflict with Russia and China must be planned for America's conflicts from Vietnam on have been in failed states. Sec Def Robert Gates called for a "new analytical toolkit" to confront conflicts which were sociological and not kinetic. America's generals have not developed this toolkit. The failed states whether Iraq or Afghanistan and now Syria have failed to establish their legitimacy and become democratic states. They are rule by force and not consent. The Fragile State Index shows that democratic states are the success stories in the world. How does the American military support those transitions? As the military now practices "joint operations" it must now develop sociological theories operations which support democratic development. Nations are not built. Democracy is not imposed. It is a learned social behavior as demonstrated in the book Why Nations Fail. American military forces are tactically adept at killing ants with a hammer. How long have our forces been in Iraq and Afghanistan and what have the generals accomplished? America needs sociologists and social workers for generals who understand the limitations of force. The EU and NATO have brought democracy and stability to western Europe from the ashes of fascism. It is a zone of Democratic Peace per Kant. What are the lessons to be learned from there?
4
"and a serious president capable of long-term thinking could change the way America prepares for the next war — to prevent it if possible, to win it if necessary."
Is the expectation that the war of future, as pictured by Mr Stephens, will be fought "over there" or on some neutral territory? That our enemies of choice, Russia and China, will forgo attacks on our homeland as we wreak death and destruction on theirs?
It wouldn't be our robots against their robots. It would be our tin autonomous monsters against their flesh and blood, and vice versa. If we use the 9/11 event as a unit measure of death and destruction, the war we assume we'll win (if we spend enough) might include a few dozen, maybe a few hundred 9/11s.
I would hope that a "serious president capable of long term thinking" takes into account the "over here" consequences of a war with our weapon systems peers, and works day and night to earn a Nobel Peace Prize.
4
Hopefully, the military has war gamed this, and have found if we field cheap, unmanned weapon systems, as suggested by Stephens, then during a crisis, it would be very tempting for an adversary to destroy one of these systems, to send us a message.
Maybe "we" don't want to give our adversaries that option.
Maybe we want our adversaries to have to decide it is all out nuclear war, or peace. And only a crazy person would choose all out nuclear war. This, of course, would be an extension of the MAD doctrine.
Mr. Stephens always is entertaining, his "beyond the horizon" take on tomorrow's navy and air force is on target.
For the current state of readiness of the US Navy read ProPublica's in depth reports on the Seventh Fleet. The MIC is all about profit. The brass wants a good job after retirement. Neglected maintenance, poor or no training on new systems, ridiculously long work schedules, the recipe was all there for the two deadly disasters that killed more than a dozen sailors in the last couple of years. There's more than equipment problems in the US Military these days.
4
"Big Think" Bret Stephens doesn't really care if we remember Agincourt. What he really wants us to do is "Remember the Maine!"
Well written, sometimes small is better.
Countries like Israel, Britain, even Russia etc. with a relatively small military budget do it the smart way, efficient, attune to the modern threats of the day.
I think America is suffering from the fallen power syndrome. What I mean by that is that by various measurements like life expectancy, infant mortality rates, gun violence, drug deaths, average standard of living we are fallen behind and suffer from the macho neurotic syndrome.
We must prove ourselves by an insane military budge that is not needed and cannot protect ourselves from modern threats like terrorism, cyber attacks etc.
7
Mr, Stephens, for once in quite a long while, I agree with you. I’m surprised you didn’t mention (explicitly) the F-35 fighter program, the poster child for wasteful spending on a massive military hardware project that was doomed from the outset. Why? There are plenty of reasons, but #1 is a sufficient condition: We’re very close to having “pilotless” automobiles; why do you even need a pilot in a mid-century fighter jet? The (human) pilot is the weakest link, as well as the most expensive component in the whole design, construction, and operation of the system.
I’m not at all arguing in favor of fully-robotic killer drones, let alone fighter jets, but still, let’s start with the obvious: The F-35 will likely never be a major player in any international conflict, yet we’re spending away the national treasure to build them anyway. Why? The model the military-industrial complex has built over many decades of spreading out the contracts ,sub-contracts, service contracts, and support contracts so that a majority of Congressmen/women have part of the largesse in their own district guarantees that it’ll never be cancelled.
14
Read Robert Drews, The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. Drews writes about how the development of the javelin and its tactical use spelled the end of Bronze Age cities and the chariot-based armies that defended them.
1
How about preparing NOT to have any more wars? We have enough defensive weapons to keep us safe. Spending 3.2 billion dollars each on destroyers that break down in the Panama Canal is insane and driven by people without the viewpoint expressed in this article will break us financially and the ships are worthless for dependability.
6
Developments in military reality may indeed be so that carriers are not so much easy targets as irrelevant ones. Better to spare them. That will bind precious forces in their protection and they are military useless for the US because of the fear of losing them.
I think you're right, but I also think you're asking the impossible with regard to a responsible and bipartisan congress and with regard to a grown-up and educated presidency . . . oy vay!
This is an important essay. The worst attacks on the US since Pearl Harbour, 9/11 and the Russian attack on our election, were done on the very cheap. Our power grid is under constant threat of Russian or Chinese blackmail.
Sadly, we have a blusterer in the White House, who likes the big and ridiculous. There is no hope for true national security until he is gone.
5
Mr. Stephens left out DDG-1000 and LCS programs. And the problem identified is not new. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/03/opinion/a-runaway-pentagon.html?searchResultPosition=12 .
The point made should be something about which both parties and most people should agree. But politicians of both parties, are committed to the status quo. Which in large part is defense spending that benefits their constituents. And senior military officers who, in part, drive force structure and weapons decisions, are incented to support what wins with politicians.
Not what I expected from the headline. Actually Mr. Stephens is still a step behind. He's right about some of our largest ships and fastest planes, but he's not even talking about cyber control systems. Our fancy tools may never get into the battle.
3
Mahan’s “The Influence of Sea Power on History” taught us an important lesson about where our strategic priorities, i.e., resources needed to go. We need to start looking at “sea power” as the power of climate change upon the sea. While bad guys may lurk beneath the surface and pop up undetected, the existential threat lies in directing resources to the military-industrial complex for the latest toy as our cities flood, power grids fail, cybercrime proliferates and we all go for each others’ throats.
3
What about spending that obscene amount of money to promote peace and defend the environment? As a continental power facing no military land threats our primary self-defense need is against long range weaponry, yet we maintain hundreds of military bases around the world, presumably to support our allies. We can support them in many other ways, by helping create financial security and humane societies by peaceful means. And we can all make the world safer by facing up to our environmental challenges.
4
In purely technical terms Stephens is right. But recently President Carter made a comment that should be part of any discussion of our future military. He rhetorically asked how many wars China had been in over the last 40 years?
With the exception of a short border skirmish with Vietnam the answer is none. In contrast during that same period the US has actually fought wars in Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Serbia, just to name a few.
We have nearly 400 bases along the Asian rim and at least another 400-600 scattered across other parts of the globe. We build fighter jets to intercept and defeat similar enemy planes that don't even exist.
In contrast China has an armed forces that is essentially a land and coastal defense force. Even their nuclear arsenal while potent, is designed as a last ditch retaliation, not a first strike weapon.
They have taken the trillions we have spent on the military and instead used it to launch the country into the 21st century with infrastructure and technology.
The military is an extension of a nations outlook on itself and its world view. China has sent technicians and builders all over Africa and Latin America. We've sent Special Forces advisors who are now in 146 countries.
My point is that reforming our military must begin with rethinking our role in the world. As we all cascade toward global warming catastrophes a new outlook and new spending priorities becomes even more imperative.
107
@Drspock
Yes, and if we look back more than forty years, we get some insight as to how, and why, the Chinese have reshaped their modern thinking. The Chinese were our nemesis in the Korean Conflict and again in Vietnam. They, as a result, ended up with Kim and his mess on their border while learning, later from the Vietnamese, a lesson about trying to worm ones way into other people's business via military means. That said, you are correct about them using strategic economic alliances as their new power grab. To that end, we are losing in that arena.
3
@Drspock Grenada?
2
I hear defense defense defense, adversaries adversaries adversaries, weapons and more weapons. What I don’t understand is why there’s so many adversaries all the time. And then I see a president who’s turning away from partners and friends with despots.
It seems strange like on the one hand the country seems to be creating more enemies and on the other complaining that it needs to fight more enemies.
It would seem like chasing one’s own tail. Isn’t the answer to change and be more inclusive, so one doesn’t always have to have to keep building bigger and bigger and bigger guns? And running around all the time fighting and forcing? Is that sustainable?
So you get more technical/AI weapons that need less humans. That seems like not solving the underlying problem of needing to create more friends than foes. Instead it suggests a cheaper easier way to fight the more foes that are going to be created. It doesn’t seem sustainable either, it simply makes it seemingly “easier” to have more wars.
So now you have more drones or robots etc, you kill more efficiently, and this time you kill from an even greater distance and with less accountability, often nobody knows who you’ve killed why you’ve done so, whether they were even really the right targets, and the targets are elsewhere in foreign lands. So you don’t really know what you’re doing, and you’re probably even causing greater alienation.
All this seems like madness I think. It just seems like avoiding the real problem.
4
Very rarely do I waste time reading columns by this writer but the title intrigued me and the article was worth reading. Wow, someone on the right seems to have noticed even before mainstream Dems that we are headed to bankruptcy while contracting for useless hardware in a world that will be controlled by those with the best cyber defenses and cyber offenses. Instead of wasting trillions in the last 20 years on more planes, ships, tanks etc we could have been spending far far less on full college reimbursement for those majoring in IT and computer science and related subjects who would commit to two to four years of service for defense research. We also could have spent far less in lives, dollars and wasted diplomatic capital by not engaging in losing and amoral military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and continuing bombing and drone campaigns in as many as 14 countries in recent years. We have lost or been stalemated in every major military conflict since WW II. We only “won” WW II because of the sacrifices of Russia and England. We have abandoned diplomacy. We do not have,as politicians, generals and pundits love to say “ the greatest military on Earth etc” - but we do have the most expensive. Our Waterloo is coming at a great cost to us and the world. Read Maj. Danny Sjursen, West Point , Afghanistan, Iraq, history teacher at West Point, now retired writing frequently in Truthdig.com and The Nation - he offers too much truth about our military for the MSM.
15
I wish we could focus on soft power and ensuring the peace exclusively, but that is unrealistic in a world of human beings, overpopulated and under-resourced.
It's a bleak future that contemplates extremely violent robotic "warfighters" on the one hand, and Xinjiang-style surveillance-state techno-authoritarianism on the other.
What's sad is humanity has the power to NOT usher in a world of autonomous war machines and pervasive face recognition, Big Brother Alexa devices, and other 24/7 surveillance, but we probably will act as though it's all inevitable.
Having many platforms make a lot of since. Our adversaries are acquiring the ability to successfully attack our ships. The US needs a 1000 ship Navy maned and unmanned.
3
This is one of the rare instances where I agree nearly completely with your article. But the military is the tip of the iceberg.
The larger issue is that since Reagan, the US has greatly scaled back investment in education (eg student debt), infrastructure (take a quick drive to anywhere), and scientific research. The US cannot and will not stay on top as this continues.
One very common cause for the decline and fall of empires is over spending on a military that is untenable and way out of proportion to the economy behind it (eg empires: Great Britain, Soviet Union, etc). The US appears to be next. This 'phenomenon' is captured nicely in Paul Kennedy's book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers
33
I agree with Mr. Stephens, and would add that there are parallels with the fossil fuel industry vis-à-vis our need to confront climate change. In so many ways, our nostalgia for 20th century solutions in the face of a changing world is killing us.
12
This is a great article, we should dwell for a moment on nearly 90 years of carrier preeminence! More than that we should look at the timeless truth that communication wins wars. The real issue now is cyber security and dependable comms.
2
Can't disagree with the need for a more nimble armed forces, but as mentioned, the MIC, Military Industrial Complex is alive and well.
Take the aircraft carriers. There's only one place in the U.S. where their built, Newport News, Virginia. Shutdown that shipyard, and the entire Tidewater area will go bankrupt. And try and get Senators Kaine and Warner to agree to go along, and their Democrats.
The solution has to be, replace the Military Industrial Complex as it is today with something else. And i have no idea what that is.
9
It's an enormously complex issue but there is probably a lot of truth in this. Over the last 60 years the US has essentially been defeated in three insurgency wars and won one essentially colonial war where the adversary deployed a traditional armored military that was highly vulnerable to anyone with air supremacy. And even the build up to achieve this success took months. In a conflict with Iran they intend to deploy hundreds of small high speed craft in confined waters against a US battle group. Some will get through. The good news is there is considerable evidence that both the Russians and the Chinese share a similar addiction to expensive military hardware.
5
@John Don't think I'd want to be sailing through the Strait of Hormuz at the moment.
Interesting piece. Weren't the Russians adept at making relatively unsophisticated, inexpensive yet highly effective and easy to repair weapons (e.g., the T-34 tank in WWII and the MiG fighter and AK 47 rifle afterwards)? I often wonder how many resources over the millennia have been diverted to making weapons and supporting armed forces, and how different the world might be today if those resources had been used for more productive purposes.
Wouldn't it be nice to think that instead of spending trillions on making weapons of war against each other we could use those trillions on fighting mankind's real enemy - global warming?
2
The longbow at Agincourt, of recourse. But Shakespeare and Bret Stephens ignore the fact that French commanders were at odds with each other. Powerful Dukes snubbed the weak king, who had to cede power to England's Henry V--not just because of Agincourt but because of an English sweep through northern France. It was agreed that an English king would take the French crown on the death of the ruling French monarch. But Joan of Arc intervened, Henry V died of dysentery, and his son was too weak to withstand renewed French efforts. Those efforts succeeded even when the Duke of Burgundy captured the Maid of Orleans and sold her on to the English and her death. Is America so divided that its massive weaponry is as vulnerable as Stephens says it is? I fear it is. Trump is more interested in joining forces with foreign enemies than in withstanding them--because what matters to him is his own fate and not that of all Americans. Arguing weapon systems is important, but as the defeated Irish said at the Boyne, when James Stewart had fled leaving the field to William of Orange: "change leaders, and we'll fight you again."
3
@Des Johnson
Heated agreement in general but current historical commentary on the battle of Agincourt credits the outcome more to the folly of using heavy armor both on foot and horseback in a very muddy field against light infantry (the archers).
Here's a radical idea. Let's take the money that would be spent on one aircraft carrier battle group and outfit a fleet of hospital / emergency response ships. Have them on standby in ports around the world, ready to respond to earthquakes, tsunamis, and epidemics. The next time a major disaster strikes in, say, Madagascar (or Puerto Rico or Houston) let the first vessel into the harbor nearest the devastation be a bright white U.S. flagged ship with a red cross on it's side. Let it begin unloading emergency shelters, water purification plants, generators, mobile hospitals and food.
Consider the effect on our reputation abroad of investing a modest amount in this kind of peaceful endeavor. Everyone knows we can deliver death from the skies. But when it comes to wining hearts and minds we seem to be unarmed.
Bret is right about our military. We continue in the tradition of preparing to fight our last big war all over again. Autonomous weapons systems offer so many advantages that, for better or for worse, they are in our future. But when it comes to promoting international cooperation, whether for trade, or to confront climate change or terrorism, military efficiency is nowhere near enough.
In our relations with foreign nations and peoples, Trump limits us to two tools: military force and economic coercion. He loves the latter because he can use it against our allies as well as our enemies. Soon we will have no allies.
31
@writeon1. Like your idea, and with global climate change I believe the military's purpose will shift to humanitarian missions. But a big red cross on the side of an American ship is the wrong symbol. We certainly won't win hearts with it.
The world doesn't want terrible American healthcare anymore than they want American world police.
1
In 2017, over a two-month period, two U.S. destroyers (the USS Fitzgerald and the USS John S. McCain) collided with large cargo ships resulting in the deaths of 17 U.S. sailors. The explanation: undermanned and inadequately trained crews and outdated computer software. Stephens makes the argument for battleships with even smaller crews or no crews at all and which rely entirely on technology. I'm no Luddite, but reliance on technology to fight and win our naval battles seems overly optimistic on what technology alone can accomplish.
3
I have been thinking the same thing for some time now Bret.
These, hugely expensive to build and operate, aircraft carriers are impressive to see but are a thing of the past. Admirals love them because they are so big and can deliver so much death and destruction on an enemy and it gives them there own fiefdom to run as they see fit.
In reality they are a very big moving target with over 1000 lives at stake. But it seems like republicans are always ready to build another one so they can name it after a republican president.
Go back to 1944 - The English navy could not stop the V-2 attacks and our navy will not be able to stop cyber attacks or super sonic rocket attacks.
Time to get grandpa out of the Pentagon thinking.
14
@USMC1954 we used to see aircraft the carriers Coral Sea and Enterprise go in and out of the golden gate. one day in the 80s while eating my lunch at china basin I saw the enterprise come under the bay bridge...... it quit moving just as it came under..... oops! low tide. it sat there until the tide turned just enough that the tugs could free it! if the admiral had used one of the many bar pilots or perhaps had listened to one? he could have saved his rank!
Agincourt was not just about technology. Terrain and weather played decisive roles. Heavy rains had turned the open battlefield into a sea of mud. Heavy calvary (knights) could no operate in the mud, nor could heavy infantry.
7
@Garak The US Navy will have difficulties operating when Norfolk, already submerging, goes under water. And not from heavy rains.
Just heavy melting.
in 1951, Arthur C. Clarke in a short, science fiction story, "Superiority," analyzed the problem Mr. Stephens raises. The story has long influenced the way I think about the world.
2
This is a symptom of the larger disease. Complete lack of vision, representatives in cahoots with big money lobbyists, a president who is allergic to the future, and prefers the past. It’s not just the military, but education, health care, the environment. Meanwhile China LLC can map out its corporate planning years in advance. They can address issues, and plan for the future. Americans love to profess their love of country, but conservative market based policies are what have created many of these problems. Government is the referee, but Republicans are eliminating all the rules and appropriate changes for a better outcome. Reagan saying government is not the answer, but the problem has destroyed our ability to effectively legislate and regulate the future. Good government is the solution, corporate self regulation is the problem.
51
By all means reform the military. But also reform the State Departmemt and cultivate allies to use soft power to shape the world we’re moving into.
Strategic allies and strength in numbers can go a long way towards keeping all the various pots from boiling over.
9
The Chinese seem eager enough to try to emulate the U.S. in building Aircraft Carrier. The launch of China's 1st Carrier was the cause of much pride and celebration among the Chinese citizens. Yes, Aircraft Carriers are big behemoths which are vulnerable to being destroyed by less expensive weapons systems. However, unless and until they are sunk, they function effectively as big behemoths, allowing the U.S. to easily project its force around the glode. Of course, the U.S. military should begin to hedge its bets, and the Navy should make plans to be an effective fighting force even should the carriers be destroyed of neutralized. Certainly, it does not make sense to invest in new Carrier group, given the trend lines.
6
@Outerboro
If we consider China an economic adversary we should welcome the diversion of their wealth to building relatively useless aircraft carriers and sell some stealthy non-nuclear submarines to China’s threatened neighbors.
@Outerboro the future of war will be smart swarm technology. thousands of semi autonomous devices will overrun defences and even if the strike rate is low, if the cost is lower and the number greater the attacker is assured of victory. If you want another historical example, look a the German v Russian tank battles on the Eastern Front in WW2. German tanks were much better designed, better built, better gunned and better manned ( and more expensive) than the Soviet ones.The Soviet ones however cost less in resources, time and money to make, so it didn't matter if they sustained high losses, the Germans wound up being overrun by the sheer numbers soviet tanks.
“Early on a Sunday morning in 1932, a fleet of some 150 fighters, dive-bombers and torpedo planes struck the naval base at Pearl Harbor. “
I’m I missing something? I thought it was 1941.
The Air Force is well ahead of the game. In my days in research we had largely out-done pilots with advanced missile systems; and, drones were becoming more effective as AI caught up.
The solution isn't so much AI as it is smooth operation of AI-human. We see the same thing in industry as company managers understand that AI-human interaction is greater than the sum of its parts. Machines are decades away from taking over. Humans are frail, they get bored, but are decisive: far more able to see through the fog of war and see solutions even before their conscious brain sees it completely. AI can't duplicate that.
I think you missed these fine points in your article.
8
At last, a common-sense take on US military strategy!
The United States has the world's best naval defenses, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. US Navy battle groups of preposterously-expensive aircraft carriers and fighter aircraft are superfluous to our national defense.
Our navy battle groups are foreign policy tools for projecting military power beyond our oceans to countries that lack nuclear weapons. The battle groups invite meddling in the internal affairs and civil wars of foreign lands halfway around the world, just the sort of regrettable ventures that destabilize the Middle East and exaggerate our quibbles with North Korea and Iran.
To our nuclear armed competitors, Russia and China, American and British aircraft carriers are merely big, beautiful targets for a few ICBMs.
The trillions of dollars we spend on building and maintaining our navy battle groups would be better spent on domestic infrastructure, education, and social support.
25
Each day in the NYT, there is an op-ed column pointing out, whether in domestic or international affairs---particular problem areas in the military, in health care, in criminal justice, in infrastructure, in our alliance system..I could go on, but, each of these problem areas have a great deal of research on directions we should be taking in these areas and possible solutions. But, no, is Congress studying these problems, is our President even aware of these problems..Instead Congress argues over whether any of these problems even exist or in fact pass legislation to make them worse, and our President spends a hour with the CEO of twitter fuming over lost of followers.
9
Maybe, instead of trying to build better guns, the US should invest in creating more friends and peace around the world.
I think this starts with having a fairer world economically and socially. What is happening now I think is there’s an out of whack economic and social system, which I think creates more enemies than friends. And this system isn’t just in the US, but is being exported across the world where it will cause more instability.
Maybe if the US promoted a fairer more equitable system, it would need less guns. If people have fairer economies that don’t create extreme social inequality and promote more humane values then they’re likely to be more cooperative I think. Instead I think what we have now is we allow fewer people to thieve and corrupt and amass while most go with lesser.
It seems to me like building better guns is ineffective and provides a lesser incentive for creating peace and calcifies the current destabilizing social economic systems we have in place.
Wouldn’t the world be a safer place if we invested more in more humane values instead of continued theft by fewer, guaranteed by force? It seems unsustainable in the end, because people will not rest if they’re in pain. It seems like plugging holes in a sinking basket, more guns more killing more and more and more.
It seems better in the longer term to invest in fairer capitalism, more humane schools, more humane health etc. how about making lesser but more sustainable profit with less bloodshed?
6
@Frea we do and we can do both. Perhaps you've heard of the State Dept? US Aid?
1
@Keith Siegel i have heard of the State Department. In fact, I am friends with a former US ambasador to somewhere around the world. my views are certainly not his. and i've dealt with the state department for years as a traveler. so i know it perhaps more than the average american.
i think these diplomats are not really doing as much as they could in that direction. they try but their main effort is to promote the US corporations, which in many cases want things that dont really comport with the values the state department might wish to share with the world. but these corporations control government and the department through say ambassadorships and the chief executive ofcourse who are elected. they want profit. sometimes indeed many times profit may be counter to the values the department is trying to share.
its not just abroad, but in the US itself too. when you have the sort of social inequality here that gives rise to anger such as brought Trump into office, you cant gun your way out of it at a global scale, or a national scale. i think we need a more measured system that also benefits americans. indeed americans themselves are complaining because all their industries have been shipped abroad. this system is not sustainable. its creating too much human suffering. we need to moderate it, control it better so that we can limit human misery. we cant completely kill our way through the global misery of billions of people fighting like rats to live.
The misconception surrounding the Pearl Harbor attack often cite "lessons not learned" from past exercises or simply racism, but the reality is much simpler. The Japanese had learned that the US Navy was able to track the location of its fleet and so devised a plan where the main fleet continued to broadcast in home waters while an attack carrier fleet approached from little used sea lanes and maintained radio silence until the attack when the planes signalled "Tora, Tora, Tora," to indicate the attack was a surprise.
A more relevant example of the risks to our Navy are in lessons that have been learned from the Falkland War.
There, after the British, in 1982, had torpedoed and sunk the Argentine light cruiser ARA General Belgrano (built in 1938 for the US Navy) , the Argentinians sent two French Super Entendards armed with Exocet Anti-Ship sea skimming missiles one of which struck the HMS Sheffield, commisioned in 1975, eight feet above the waterline, disabling it which eventually led to its sinking.
It's that vulnerability to missile attack that our carrier battle groups are exposed to. Both the Russians and Chinese have developed a range of missiles such that our carrier groups must now operate at the limits of their plane's ranges to try to reduce that threat.
As a consequence, our carrier battle groups today largely operate in uncontested water. If attacked, for any reason, and sunk the loss of the 5000 personnel would likely mean a major war.
4
Not that it takes away anything from the force of Brose’s and your argument, but it wasn’t the English longbow that snatched victory from what would have been certain defeat by an overwhelmingly more numerous and more powerful French army (of which heavily armed cavalry was only a part). It was the tactically intolerable chaos that resulted from confused leadership. As an attacking wave drew back it would meet head-on and be smothered by another coming forward. The English long-bow (an old weapon, of course, not a new one) was indeed effective, but the French fell for the most part like crowds in an over-packed theater or night-club trying to escape from a fire. An eye-witness described them as dying “in heaps.”
8
You'll need to wait not just for a future administration, but for a new Constitution. The real problem with America right now is that its system of government doesn't work. Those of us who live in parliamentary democracies know that divided government is a bad thing. When a majority holds all legislative and executive power two benefits ensue:
First, government can implement effective, coherent policy
Second, government is accountable because it's absolutely clear which party is in control and the voters can reward or punish them accordingly at the next election
In the US, divided government means gridlock and incoherent policy. Just as bad, it allows elected officials—particularly in the legislature—to hide from accountability as someone else (the President, the other chamber, the opposing party) can always be blamed for anything bad that happens.
In part because the government is so divided and ineffective, the US is rapidly devolving into authoritarianism where government is conducted by executive fiat, and Congress (and the partisan Courts) are mere subservient enablers of the executive. Eventually we may have a more effective military strategy similar to the strategies of Russia and China . . . but only because we may also soon have a government similar to theirs as well.
14
@617to416 Our system of gov't works, thank you. I'll keep the Constitution I have. You are not a student of history whatsoever.
@617to416 ... Right! Federal government divided into 3 branches, an interstate nation burdened with 50 quarrelsome, ill-proportioned states, an electorate split into thousands of gerrymandered districts, and winner-take-all elections that stiff-arm minorities.
Our divided government can fund more and bigger bombs but can't address pressing national issues.
1
Thank you, Bret, but of course we will have to learn the hard way and it won't be pretty.
2
The more fundamental question is whether we want a department of defense of a department of offense?
One of the unplanned (at least at first) but ultimately successful 'strategies' that the US realized as the Soviet threat crumbled in the Cold War was that the USSR could not financially support the highly expensive military force it was trying to maintain. Their emphasis on military spending was a major contributor to the collapse of the entire Communist system.
That strategy is no longer viable. The Chinese are probably positioned to finance a large and highly capable military without overly crippling their economy. If they are as wise as Mr. Stephens mentions, they will not lock themselves into ultra-expensive machines as the US has done; after all, they have no lobbies to kiss up to, no corporations that run their country. US capitalist democracy as a political organization is on the verge of collapsing, much as Communism did in the 1980s. Except we may do so through a more direct adversarial act...Russia did not experience having missiles shot down, or a Navy decimated.
4
@Aaron Taylor you are one step away from the truth. We are now playing the role of the Soviets while the Chinese play the role of the Cold War USA - The fundamentals of their economy are stronger so we will loose a spending race, they are egging us on because they expect the outcome to favor them.
1
Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks, their most effective defense is that they're such high value targets that to sink one would effectively be a declaration of war on the United States. I think Admiral Hyman Rickover, upon his retirement in 1982, was asked how long aircraft carriers would last in a real war. As I recall his answer was something succinct like, "about 2 days". So, it isn't that we haven't known for a while now.
30
@Ronald B. Duke aircraft carriers are useful for gunboat diplomacy...
2
A reasonable argument, but lost in this well thought out piece is the benefit to diplomacy and economic engagement, soft power. At every turn, the US seems to escalate the likelihood of violence, to make the volatility of the situation worse. Granted, there is a reasonable amount of defense needed, but how much of this is the result of pseudo-warriors unable to deal constructively with other countries thereby escalating tensions thereby by increasing arms.
5
@James Igoe I am surprised to read it here, but the words “preventing war” are actually in the conclusion of this piece. Presumably that means diplomacy and economic engagement, and I agree with you that we need to focus here and reduce violence. We are a scourge of the world and need to be citizens of the world.
1
@James Igoe
Thank you James. Now go send your comment to General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc. As long as they're making a buck and funneling cash to stooge politicians US military strategy will not evolve. As for diplomacy – that's never been our strong suit. Our culture is greed and aggression based.
1
In the 1920's Billie Mitchell claimed that air power made conventional armies and navies obsolete and that an air force alone could win wars. He was partially correct and air power was critically important in World War II. But as the Strategic Bombing Survey done after the war showed, air power alone was insufficient. German war production continued and German soldiers fought until V-E day despite a massive bombing campaign. It took boots on the ground - both in Europe and the Pacific - to win the war.
I think there is a similar comparison today. The vulnerability of large aircraft carriers to much cheaper missiles is real. But what this really says is that defensive weaponry is dominant today. China may be able to defeat aircraft carriers - and even aircraft - with inexpensive missiles, but they cannot defeat the US with those same weapons. Of course it is the US that deploys its military around the world so we are most vulnerable to other countries defensive weapons.
Finally, I would note that the military may not be as far behind as it seems. The use of unmanned drones is already extensive and I believe the Navy has experimented with drone ships.
5
@J. Waddell I think a fair statement is that Airpower wins battles but occupation wins wars*.
* - as as aside this is only because while we live in a world dominated by offensive weapons MAD, a sense of proportional justice and a measure of empathy prevents their deployment.
1
This opinion piece, like so much of the political conversation, nibbles around the edge of the larger meal. Mr. Stephens observes about the consequences of automation and technology in the arena of the DOD, and the pushback from Congress and Corporations. This observation is offered by many on all aspects of our society. Usually, it is applied in the form of defining the Trump Voter, or the Red State problem, the hallowing out our of manufacturing jobs etc. So few are offering insight and alternatives to the main course challenging us. What does it mean to be human if we are not simply a unit of production alternating with being a consumer? The former identity is being irretrievably replaced. The latter is responsible for our burgeoning climate disaster. The implications are not just in farming or trucking or mining but here, as Mr Stephens observes, even in defense. What does it mean to be Human if we no longer have “work?” All the candidates at this point just nibble. Ok. Maybe Andrew Yang (who?) speaks directly but few are speaking into the void. Does a conservative have a voice on this basic of all challenges?
2
How about thinking of war as “something to be avoided unless absolutely necessary to repel an attacker”? You know, like the Constitution dictates.
We could reunite hundreds of thousands of military families and save trillions of dollars over the next decade. And we could eliminate Al Qaeda’s primary recruitment tool: US military aggression in the Middle East.
10
@Charles
The Constitution doesn't dictate anything of the kind. It allows the President to take action to repel an attacker but otherwise leaves it a Congress' discretion.
2
@Charles
Al Qaeda’s primary recruitment tool is American political support for oppressive regimes, which has been going on for far longer than the Iraq War and continues with Trump doing sword dances with the leaders of the country that provided most of the 9/11 attackers.
3
Indeed, it’s not just submarines, it’s also drones.
The Navy’s mission is to project power, keeping the shipping lanes open. We need to fight smarter using drones in place of piloted weapon platforms.
As the days of wooden ships and iron men have passed, so too has that of the super carrier.
Unfortunately, Naval aviators may have to learn the lesson the hard way, as did the battleship drivers.
2
Such simplistic analogies to the tech sector are disingenuous at best.
Disruption is not in and of itself something to be emulated. The harmful effects of Uber and Lyft are just becoming clear after numerous years with no oversight whatsoever.
4
I've recently been wondering about the environmental impact of the sinking of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I hope we don't find out the hard way.
6
We have this problem because the rich are in control having divided the people and subdued the democracy with their money. Unless or until the people learn to work together in a democracy, the rich will keep us in a posture that of ignoring reality to keep them getting richer and our country out of date.
12
The analogy (other than Pearl Harbor, which Bret nails) that comes to my mind is not Agincourt but rather the Maginot Line. Our defenses may well be, in and of themselves, strong, but they are easily outflanked and rendered irrelevant.
We have not come up with an answer to asymmetric warfare even though it has been used against us since the early 1960s. We do not seem to have any strategy to combat cyberwarfare. And still we spend untold trillions of dollars on weapon systems that will probably never be used.
Unfortunately, it seems that our future will be either a Supreme Leader who wants nothing more than a grand military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue or someone who would try to reduce the size of the military without enhancing its capability.
What we need in the White House (and in the Congress) are leaders who are veterans, who have been there, and who know what is needed.
27
The technological imperative drives many large institutions including health care of which I was a part for my career.
I saw the rise of increasingly sophisticated diagnostic machines like CT and MRI scanners and designer drugs to attack previously untreatable conditions and increasingly complex surgeries to treat previously unreachable areas like fetal surgery in utero.
At the same time, I have watched the emergence of new pathogens poised to drive us back to the pre-antibiotic era with the return of scourges such as extremely drug resistant TB, HIV and even rampant MRSA. Our gut bacteria betray us, sharing drug resistance information more frequently than we share selfies.
We are in for a medical Agincourt as well. All behemoths become vulnerable.
20