National Defense Report Shows Worsening Situation Under Biden/Harris

What has Trump promised to voters economically? Forget about the rest. Let's talk dollars and cents. What are you getting with him? From what I've seen thus far tax cuts for capital gains, corporate tax, and promises to the crypto community don't apply to most citizens.

As Tom said, show me the money.

~bella

Vambram said:

What do those questions have to do with the OP article about the worsening national defense report?

Click to expand...

The questions are on topic. I wouldn't do that to you V. and you know that. I'm not countering your OP.

You opened with economic conditions. It makes sense for someone weighing the pair to wonder where Trump stands on that issue.

~bella

Vambram said:

Fair enough. However, 95% or more of the focus of the article which I posted is upon the worsening National Defense report and the decline of our overall national security as seen during these last 3 years.

Click to expand...

If you're struggling to make ends meet what's your priority? Most people are more concerned about their livelihood and that comes first.

~bella

Vambram said:

Should we also be very, very concerned about the foreign policy topics which have considerably worsened over the last few years?

Click to expand...

Do I need to explain what a person prioritizes and how that differs for each? I don't like either and think they're liars and puppets. But Trump's tax breaks suit me well. That doesn't minimize my mistrust or recognition of his duplicity. It's a money play. Nothing more or less. But I recognize the majority require other things. Hence my comments.

~bella

So, I read the actual summary of the report rather than the article written by the "center for individual freedom" (an odd name for a center reporting on collective defense posture and preparedness.) Not only does it not mention the President or Vice President by name, it doesn't even mention their offices. There is a lot of discussion of defense postures and doctrines, of procurement and defense production capacity, of the investments of adversary nations and their perceived position that Congress should spend more on defense, but nothing about the actions of any particular politician.

Vambram said:

That is a fair analysis. But the National Defense Report also does show the decline and worsening Defense and National security situation over the last few years.

Click to expand...

I did see some reference (was it in the summary, or did I hit it during a quick scan of the rest, I don't know) to a 2018 plan put forward by the same commission to have a few % real growth in defense expenditure. This is not a short term issue, nor has the commission gotten less hawkish over the years.

Whenever I see Biden/ Harris administration it leads me to believe it will have right wing commentary. The NDS drew my attention so I looked it up and this is a 7/ 2024 report.


(Some points that stood out because maybe I was lying to myself about our capabilities being an Army guy and all.)

"The Commission finds that the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat. It needs to do a better job of incorporating new technology at scale; field more and higher-capability platforms, software, and munitions; and deploy innovative operational concepts to employ them together better. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the need to prepare for new forms of conflict and to integrate technology and new capabilities rapidly with older systems. Such technologies include swarms of attritable systems, artificial intelligence–enabled capabilities, hypersonics and electronic warfare, fully integrated cyber and space capabilities, and vigorous competition in the information domain"

"The consequences of an all-out war with a peer or near peer would be devastating. Such a war would not only yield massive personnel and military costs but would also likely feature cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure and a global economic recession from disruptions to supply chains, manufacturing, and trade.9 Adversaries could seek to deny the United States access to critical minerals and goods needed to run the U.S. economy and build weapon systems. They could also hold at risk U.S. space assets, which underpin much of our daily lives and are essential for military capabilities. Even short of all-out war, the global economic damage from a Chinese blockade of Taiwan has been estimated to cost $5 trillion, or 5 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP).10 War with a major power would affect the life of every American in ways we can only begin to imagine. Deterring war by projecting strength and ensuring economic and domestic resilience is far preferable to and less costly than war."

(The terrorist thing scares me because we have caught a few but it is unknown how many didn't get caught.)

We recommend that the Joint Force be sized and structured to simultaneously
1. defend the homeland, maintain strategic deterrence, prevent mass casualty terrorist attacks, maintain global posture, and respond to small-scale, short-duration crises
2. lead the effort, with meaningful allied contribution, to deter China from territorial aggression in the Western Pacific—and fight and win if needed
3. lead NATO planning and force structure to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russian aggression
4. sustain capabilities, along with U.S. partners in the Middle East, to defend against Iranian malign activities. (I guess this means Israel)

"Recent recruitment shortfalls have decreased the size of the Army, Air Force, and Navy.13" (Put the human trafficked and give them citizenship)

"Although Russia suffered an estimated 450,000 to 500,000 casualties and lost thousands of tanks and armored vehicles by April 2024, 12 it maintains and has shown the ability to regenerate substantial conventional power, and it maintains the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, additional strategic assets, and world-class space and cyber capabilities."

"Among the largest shifts in the threats to the United States is the risk of attack against the U.S. homeland. The NDS rightfully lists defending the U.S. homeland as its top defense priority and notes that U.S. competitors include threatening the U.S. homeland in their doctrine.28 In the same way that the threat of terrorism was not widely understood or appreciated before 9/11, we believe that this new threat to the homeland and its implications are not well understood by the American public, integrated into planning, or resourced adequately."

(You guys get the gist and I hope we focus on protecting Americans and that is what matters not all the other BS we here in the news. I got tired of scanning 43 pages of this 132-page report.) I blame ADD