- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,035
- 8,718
- 136
New technologies enable Russia and China to destroy U.S. bases and logistics networks—including those on the homeland.
Read the article for those details. I'll just post what we can do to counter the threat . . . and why we may not:
"Instead of waiting for wars to break out and then surging vulnerable aircraft carriers and armored brigades overseas, the United States should preposition missile launchers and armed drones on allied territory and merchant ships in potential conflict zones. For wars against Russia and China, that means near the Baltics and in the East and South China seas. These missiles and drones would act as high-tech minefields. They could destroy Chinese and Russian power projection forces but would be difficult for either country to eliminate and would not require large crews or logistics tails. This approach capitalizes on a fundamental asymmetry in the war aims of the United States and its adversaries; whereas China and Russia need to seize control of territory (for example, Taiwan or part of the Baltics) to achieve their main objectives, the United States just needs to deny them that control, a mission that modern missiles and drones are well suited to perform.
The United States has the technology to make this strategy work, but powerful domestic players are hesitant to commit to it. The Navy wants big warships, not missile barges. The Air Force favors manned aircraft, not autonomous drones. Defense contractors want to build expensive power projection platforms, not cheap munitions; and many members of Congress share this preference because fancy platforms and decades-long procurement cycles produce jobs in their districts. Cutting through this logjam and updating the American way of war for a new technological age will require a strong commitment from top officials in the Defense Department and steady pressure from an educated public. Historically, the United States has overhauled its military posture only after suffering a major shock. It would be tragic if the next shock involved losing a war to a weaker but more technologically savvy opponent."
Read the article for those details. I'll just post what we can do to counter the threat . . . and why we may not:
"Instead of waiting for wars to break out and then surging vulnerable aircraft carriers and armored brigades overseas, the United States should preposition missile launchers and armed drones on allied territory and merchant ships in potential conflict zones. For wars against Russia and China, that means near the Baltics and in the East and South China seas. These missiles and drones would act as high-tech minefields. They could destroy Chinese and Russian power projection forces but would be difficult for either country to eliminate and would not require large crews or logistics tails. This approach capitalizes on a fundamental asymmetry in the war aims of the United States and its adversaries; whereas China and Russia need to seize control of territory (for example, Taiwan or part of the Baltics) to achieve their main objectives, the United States just needs to deny them that control, a mission that modern missiles and drones are well suited to perform.
The United States has the technology to make this strategy work, but powerful domestic players are hesitant to commit to it. The Navy wants big warships, not missile barges. The Air Force favors manned aircraft, not autonomous drones. Defense contractors want to build expensive power projection platforms, not cheap munitions; and many members of Congress share this preference because fancy platforms and decades-long procurement cycles produce jobs in their districts. Cutting through this logjam and updating the American way of war for a new technological age will require a strong commitment from top officials in the Defense Department and steady pressure from an educated public. Historically, the United States has overhauled its military posture only after suffering a major shock. It would be tragic if the next shock involved losing a war to a weaker but more technologically savvy opponent."
Facebook
Twitter