Sal, very good point about prophets with little honor on these issues like Bob Gates. This is what happens when people with little understanding of history and economics and political economy of weapons systems become...uh...Secretary of State, or President. But they are not the exceptions, they are the norm. Best, John T. Kuehn, who is occasionally wrong about all sorts of things.
It's a bit surprising -- the "military industrial complex" should be campaigning to build more anti-air and anti-tank missiles, artillery rounds, and so on. There's money to be made here; even if an anti-tank missile isn't as 'sexy' as other high tech weapons, they're each a couple million dollars. That adds up.
So I'm wondering why the defense companies are quiet and have been quiet on the readiness gap for the past three decades. Even if Electric Boat would rather build a new submarine, and General Dynamics the new F-39, and so on, someone out there in the defense world should be saying "yeah, Stingers, we could make a MINT building those!"
I understand that politicians don't want too spend on readiness but why are defense contractors silent?
Sal, excellent. Stockpiles for real war is a significant problem. We complain, commanders complain, but it never reaches the point where it is recognized as a key problem.
It’s been clear since at least the Somme that modern warfare uses up far more ammunition than you ever expect and that lack of ammunition is one of the major factors limiting what you can do militarily. I get that the average voter doesn’t keep up on these sorts of things, but shouldn’t the professionals?
....In 1982 we bailed the UK out after they burned through most of their ammo reserves, and we restocked our supplies without even working up a sweat. But even then it was asked who was going to bail US out.
All well argued, and I don't disagree with any of it, but there's one point that isn't considered -- being prepared for a long war is ruinously expensive. The USSR tried to be continuously ready with stockpiles for WW3, and after 50 years (and in combination with Chernobyl) it broke them economically, leading to political collapse. In a sense, they were destroyed by their own arsenal. The west split the difference, allocating more money to advancing weapons technology while trying to spend as little as possible on mass production of weapons that were probably--hopefully--going to degrade or go obsolete in storage without ever being used.
My criticism of NATO countries is more that they've let a year run off the clock without significantly ramping up production to replace the weapons that are being used in Ukraine. That concern has been raised from the beginning by knowledgeable people, but the argument that there's no war on the horizon seems to have been replaced by the argument that Russia is nearly tapped out and thus there's no need at this stage to introduce wartime levels of production.
Some technologies are indeed transformative - machine guns, nuclear weapons and ICBMs - and one must adapt to that. But when it comes our core national security, is the safe bet that the next war will be mostly like that last one? Or do we just try to fight the way we want to fight and try to force the enemy to behave the way we want? I'm thinking that approach did not work out well in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq but it does seem to be an American pattern. However, in every case if there is ground combat, we need a lot of small arms ammo and we will need a lot of whatever we use against tanks - anti-tank stuff and other tanks and their ammo. If the war is across the ocean, we need big gray floaty things. Betting entire our way of life that there won't be another war, that we can "smart" our way out of it, is just stupid.
Seems as if history has plenty to teach us, no? Militaries talk about future wars but always preparing for the last war. Not tuning our radar for balloons--how many other things are missing? My fears of the big war kicking off with a Pearl Harbor event are increasing--which makes sense if you've read Sun Tzu. We should also expect to attrit a number of generals in the next big conflict (a la Fredendall, Weygand, Haig, McClellan, Fremont) after the initial string of disasters--before we find our Pattons, Grants, and Shermans.
Never seem to learn this lesson do we? The munitions plants look like they've not been updated since the 1960's. Just like the degraded condition of our public shipyards and dry-docks, sealift vessels, and on and on.
Thanks Sal.
Sal, very good point about prophets with little honor on these issues like Bob Gates. This is what happens when people with little understanding of history and economics and political economy of weapons systems become...uh...Secretary of State, or President. But they are not the exceptions, they are the norm. Best, John T. Kuehn, who is occasionally wrong about all sorts of things.
Global warming?
Rapid post WWII demilitarization left the USA wholly unprepared for the Korean War. Will we never learn?
It's a bit surprising -- the "military industrial complex" should be campaigning to build more anti-air and anti-tank missiles, artillery rounds, and so on. There's money to be made here; even if an anti-tank missile isn't as 'sexy' as other high tech weapons, they're each a couple million dollars. That adds up.
So I'm wondering why the defense companies are quiet and have been quiet on the readiness gap for the past three decades. Even if Electric Boat would rather build a new submarine, and General Dynamics the new F-39, and so on, someone out there in the defense world should be saying "yeah, Stingers, we could make a MINT building those!"
I understand that politicians don't want too spend on readiness but why are defense contractors silent?
Sal, excellent. Stockpiles for real war is a significant problem. We complain, commanders complain, but it never reaches the point where it is recognized as a key problem.
It’s been clear since at least the Somme that modern warfare uses up far more ammunition than you ever expect and that lack of ammunition is one of the major factors limiting what you can do militarily. I get that the average voter doesn’t keep up on these sorts of things, but shouldn’t the professionals?
Thank god people are starting to notice.
Been bitching this bitch for literally decades. But field grade voices aren't voices, and unconforming GOFO voices are in soundproof rooms.
I see the pic is from the Star - so, izzat the former Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant?
....In 1982 we bailed the UK out after they burned through most of their ammo reserves, and we restocked our supplies without even working up a sweat. But even then it was asked who was going to bail US out.
All well argued, and I don't disagree with any of it, but there's one point that isn't considered -- being prepared for a long war is ruinously expensive. The USSR tried to be continuously ready with stockpiles for WW3, and after 50 years (and in combination with Chernobyl) it broke them economically, leading to political collapse. In a sense, they were destroyed by their own arsenal. The west split the difference, allocating more money to advancing weapons technology while trying to spend as little as possible on mass production of weapons that were probably--hopefully--going to degrade or go obsolete in storage without ever being used.
My criticism of NATO countries is more that they've let a year run off the clock without significantly ramping up production to replace the weapons that are being used in Ukraine. That concern has been raised from the beginning by knowledgeable people, but the argument that there's no war on the horizon seems to have been replaced by the argument that Russia is nearly tapped out and thus there's no need at this stage to introduce wartime levels of production.
“You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
― Donald Rumsfeld
So, since 2004 that has become doctrine?
Some technologies are indeed transformative - machine guns, nuclear weapons and ICBMs - and one must adapt to that. But when it comes our core national security, is the safe bet that the next war will be mostly like that last one? Or do we just try to fight the way we want to fight and try to force the enemy to behave the way we want? I'm thinking that approach did not work out well in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq but it does seem to be an American pattern. However, in every case if there is ground combat, we need a lot of small arms ammo and we will need a lot of whatever we use against tanks - anti-tank stuff and other tanks and their ammo. If the war is across the ocean, we need big gray floaty things. Betting entire our way of life that there won't be another war, that we can "smart" our way out of it, is just stupid.
Seems as if history has plenty to teach us, no? Militaries talk about future wars but always preparing for the last war. Not tuning our radar for balloons--how many other things are missing? My fears of the big war kicking off with a Pearl Harbor event are increasing--which makes sense if you've read Sun Tzu. We should also expect to attrit a number of generals in the next big conflict (a la Fredendall, Weygand, Haig, McClellan, Fremont) after the initial string of disasters--before we find our Pattons, Grants, and Shermans.
Never seem to learn this lesson do we? The munitions plants look like they've not been updated since the 1960's. Just like the degraded condition of our public shipyards and dry-docks, sealift vessels, and on and on.