On March 7, the Center for a New American Security hosted a “panel discussion on why the U.S. military needs to change how it fights to meet the challenge of great-power competition as described in the 2018 National Defense Strategy“. A notable part of the discussion was dedicated to claims tha the US should increase its military spending in order to contain Russian and Chinese threats.
According to the provided version of the events, in a simulated ‘World War 3’ scenario, the US may loses decisively to Russia and China if it engages them in reginos near their borders: like the Baltics for Russia or Taiwan for China.
“We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,” RAND analyst David Ochmanek told a security conference. “In our games, when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its ass handed to it.”
The main voiced concern is that land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace would all be up for contention in such a conflict. Previously, the US military ha an advantage in all of these fields.
According to the provided data, Russian hypersonic weapons and Chinese cyber capabilities trigger a special concern among US analysts.
If American communications satellites and wireless networks were to be taken out, “the brain and the nervous system that connects all of these pieces is suppressed, if not shattered,” Ochmanek noted. “On our side, whenever we have an exercise, when the red force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise and say, ‘Let’s restart.’”
Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense, also adressed some problems with the F-35.
“In every case I know of, the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky,” he said. “But it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.”
The analysts further claimed claimed that US forces stationed in Europe are too vulnerable to missiles, airstrikes and drone attacks.
How to solve this problem? Predictably, RAND researchers called for spending hikes.
“$24 billion a year for the next five years would be a good expenditure,” Work suggested.
MORE ON THE TOPIC: