I beg to differ with your basic premise. The past 77 years of “surprise” conventional warfare have demonstrated that the U.S. needs to be prepared to do more than simply push hulls thru the water. Based on how stripped down we were in onboard munitions in the late 1970’s (from auxiliaries to combatants), I doubt that average Navy task force today sails with full magazines. Yes, that was several decades ago, but the thought process behind our logistics posture has only gotten shakier with time. Given an only a semi-competent preparation phase by the PLAN, I have to sadly say that I doubt that any of our PACFLT carrier groups could survive a full 72 hours of war. And, given the deplorable state of our strategic petroleum reserves, I have doubts about our shoreside munitions dumps as well.
Wars like the invasion of Ukraine (a) point out U.S. logistic chain gaps, and (b) are historically the prelude to much greater suffering. That suffering doesn’t always happen “locally”. WWI began in the Balkans, but then exploded in Western Europe. The West’s response to Ukraine is being avidly watched by China, which is actively evaluating its odds of taking Taiwan.
There has been no war between major powers in the last 77 years. There has never been a full out war between nuclear powers. It is entirely unclear to me that nuclear weapons have not forever changed the nature of war between great powers. This is why it's important to specify the conflict for which you want the military to prepare.
Several smaller proxy wars have occurred over the last 77 years (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc...) but you can't expect WW2 levels of production for those kinds of wars. No one is trying to reindustrialize United States economy to fight the Ukranian war and that makes sense because the war is reasonably low stakes for us.
Just MHO but think the Biden Admin is trying to completely hollow out the military, completing what started with the Clinton Admin & accelerated under Obama.
When your defense industry (including everything from chips to ships to ammo for them to shoot), and your food production , have been off-shored to save a rasbucknik or two, they you have let someone else hold your sovereignty hostage. When it becomes expedient for said holders to keep it, what in hell do you propose to do about it? The keepers of the purse are derelict in their duty.
There's gotta be inventory somewhere, maintained in deep storage quietly by a long chain of astute master chiefs, of USN M1917(M1941) Boarding Cutlasses, right?
I think the issue with this article is that it doesn't clearly enough outline what war you imagine as the threat.
1) Large wars between major powers will have nuclear weapons at play; there is every reason to believe that they will be 72 hour wars.
2) Wars like Ukraine don't involve mass industrial mobilization so you shouldn't expect weapons to be producible in large quantities on short notice.
I beg to differ with your basic premise. The past 77 years of “surprise” conventional warfare have demonstrated that the U.S. needs to be prepared to do more than simply push hulls thru the water. Based on how stripped down we were in onboard munitions in the late 1970’s (from auxiliaries to combatants), I doubt that average Navy task force today sails with full magazines. Yes, that was several decades ago, but the thought process behind our logistics posture has only gotten shakier with time. Given an only a semi-competent preparation phase by the PLAN, I have to sadly say that I doubt that any of our PACFLT carrier groups could survive a full 72 hours of war. And, given the deplorable state of our strategic petroleum reserves, I have doubts about our shoreside munitions dumps as well.
Wars like the invasion of Ukraine (a) point out U.S. logistic chain gaps, and (b) are historically the prelude to much greater suffering. That suffering doesn’t always happen “locally”. WWI began in the Balkans, but then exploded in Western Europe. The West’s response to Ukraine is being avidly watched by China, which is actively evaluating its odds of taking Taiwan.
There has been no war between major powers in the last 77 years. There has never been a full out war between nuclear powers. It is entirely unclear to me that nuclear weapons have not forever changed the nature of war between great powers. This is why it's important to specify the conflict for which you want the military to prepare.
Several smaller proxy wars have occurred over the last 77 years (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc...) but you can't expect WW2 levels of production for those kinds of wars. No one is trying to reindustrialize United States economy to fight the Ukranian war and that makes sense because the war is reasonably low stakes for us.
POTUS needs to use the War Powers Act to replenish inventory. But POTUS is no FDR or HST so he'll find a way to make things worse not better.
Just MHO but think the Biden Admin is trying to completely hollow out the military, completing what started with the Clinton Admin & accelerated under Obama.
When your defense industry (including everything from chips to ships to ammo for them to shoot), and your food production , have been off-shored to save a rasbucknik or two, they you have let someone else hold your sovereignty hostage. When it becomes expedient for said holders to keep it, what in hell do you propose to do about it? The keepers of the purse are derelict in their duty.
There's gotta be inventory somewhere, maintained in deep storage quietly by a long chain of astute master chiefs, of USN M1917(M1941) Boarding Cutlasses, right?