Our Military Is Weak. That Should Scare You

[Vambram]

Our Military Is Weak. That Should Scare You.

America's military struggles with readiness to face global adversaries, The Heritage Foundation's Index of U.S. Military Strength details.

www.dailysignal.com

Our government isn’t serious about defending the United States and its interests. In fact, it has fallen woefully short in carrying out this sacred obligation. I know this sounds harsh, but as we’ll see, the government’s own numbers prove the point.

That our military is weak is not an indictment of the men and women who have volunteered to serve. It is an indictment of a system largely defined by the government and those elected to high office.
That includes senior military officers whose primary obligation should be to ensure that our men and women have what they need to win in war—which is, after all, the primary purpose of our military.
Yes, many people will say the purpose of a strong military is to deter war, but deterrence derives from the belief of the enemy that they would be defeated in battle. So if our military is at great risk of not being able to win … well, it doesn’t have much deterrent value.


Our potential enemies can see this; the American public, not so much.
At present, the U.S. military is roughly half the size it needs to be. Moreover, most of its primary equipment (planes, ships, tanks, etc.) is 30 to 40 years old. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardsmen are training only a fraction of what they should to be competent in battle.

Yet senior leaders in the Pentagon, White House spokespersons, and even members of Congress who have access to the facts (and should know better) continue to say that we have the best military in the world, as if saying so makes it so. It does not.
Let’s look at the numbers, using references from near the end of the Cold War, when the U.S. last confronted a major competitor on a global stage. Recall that until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the U.S. maintained forces able to compete with the Soviets in many regions at once, primarily in Europe (in land and air) but also across the seas where naval power was essential.

Back then, Washington had to focus only on one capital and the ambitions of one authoritarian regime. Regardless of where military actions occurred, the signals reverberated to Moscow.
Today, the U.S. must account for regimes in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang, and a host of smaller powers and terrorist regimes that challenge U.S. interests. They have different objectives and possess different cultures, values, and networks.

 

[rambot]

Yeah sure.

Your defence budget suggests otherwise.

You're fine.

And if some country's crazy enough to Invade you im sure dems and republicans gets on the same team pretty quick in those circumstances.

 

[Vambram]

Yeah sure.

Your defence budget suggests otherwise.

You're fine.

And if some country's crazy enough to Invade you im sure dems and republicans gets on the same team pretty quick in those circumstances.

Our defense budget is HUGE. Of that fact, we cannot dispute. However, what is also a fact is that we don't have enough servicemembers in the military and we do not have enough modern ships, planes, tanks, armored equipment, ammunition, etc., to adequately defend our Allies or American interests around the world.

US Military ‘Weak’ in Facing China, Russia, Iran Threats

The gap between the Chinese and American militaries "could narrow” and China may surpass U.S. capabilities, The Heritage Foundation reports.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[rambot]

Our defense budget is HUGE. Of that fact, we cannot dispute. However, what is also a fact is that we don't have enough servicemembers in the military and we do not have enough modern ships, planes, tanks, armored equipment, ammunition, etc., to adequately defend our Allies or American interests around the world.

US Military ‘Weak’ in Facing China, Russia, Iran Threats

The gap between the Chinese and American militaries "could narrow” and China may surpass U.S. capabilities, The Heritage Foundation reports.

www.dailysignal.com

Then where is all that money going?

 

[Vambram]

Then where is all that money going?

That is an excellent question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then where is all that money going?

Apparently the Heritage Foundation thinks we need to fight all the enemies at once. (I'm almost shocked they noticed Moscow was an adversary.)

 

[Vambram]

Apparently the Heritage Foundation thinks we need to fight all the enemies at once. (I'm almost shocked they noticed Moscow was an adversary.)

Considering that the USA has enemies all over the world, and considering that a lot of those enemies have allied themselves with each other, then it only makes sense for the US military to be able to defend our nation against them all at once. In other words, the military should be prepared for a worst-case scenario.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Considering that the USA has enemies all over the world, and considering that a lot of those enemies have allied themselves with each other, then it only makes sense for the US military to be able to defend our nation against them all at once. In other words, the military should be prepared for a worst-case scenario.

And in what sense are americas enemies organized to act together to attack us?

 

[Richard T]

Our Military Is Weak. That Should Scare You.

America's military struggles with readiness to face global adversaries, The Heritage Foundation's Index of U.S. Military Strength details.

www.dailysignal.com

Our government isn’t serious about defending the United States and its interests. In fact, it has fallen woefully short in carrying out this sacred obligation. I know this sounds harsh, but as we’ll see, the government’s own numbers prove the point.

That our military is weak is not an indictment of the men and women who have volunteered to serve. It is an indictment of a system largely defined by the government and those elected to high office.
That includes senior military officers whose primary obligation should be to ensure that our men and women have what they need to win in war—which is, after all, the primary purpose of our military.
Yes, many people will say the purpose of a strong military is to deter war, but deterrence derives from the belief of the enemy that they would be defeated in battle. So if our military is at great risk of not being able to win … well, it doesn’t have much deterrent value.


Our potential enemies can see this; the American public, not so much.
At present, the U.S. military is roughly half the size it needs to be. Moreover, most of its primary equipment (planes, ships, tanks, etc.) is 30 to 40 years old. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardsmen are training only a fraction of what they should to be competent in battle.

Yet senior leaders in the Pentagon, White House spokespersons, and even members of Congress who have access to the facts (and should know better) continue to say that we have the best military in the world, as if saying so makes it so. It does not.
Let’s look at the numbers, using references from near the end of the Cold War, when the U.S. last confronted a major competitor on a global stage. Recall that until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the U.S. maintained forces able to compete with the Soviets in many regions at once, primarily in Europe (in land and air) but also across the seas where naval power was essential.

Back then, Washington had to focus only on one capital and the ambitions of one authoritarian regime. Regardless of where military actions occurred, the signals reverberated to Moscow.
Today, the U.S. must account for regimes in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang, and a host of smaller powers and terrorist regimes that challenge U.S. interests. They have different objectives and possess different cultures, values, and networks.

On the bright side the US Navy looks pretty good. China has more ships but half the tonnage of the USA, Russia has about a fourth of the USA tonnage. The USA Air Force is similar. (Some figures are shown below) The question is what will a WWIII look like and is the USA prepared for cyber attacks, pipelines and electric grids, EMP's etc? If the enemy can exploit the vulnerabilities the size may not matter so much. What you can produce and how fast you can make it counts too. China and Russia are gearing up. The USA? I'm not sure? I am thinking we might be stupid. I see the Remington factory in NY is shutting down and relocating. Why are we not lining up extra capacity from these skilled workers and plant. retool it and produce something for the military? During the pandemic ammunition was in short supply among other things. I worry about what a first strike could do too. What the response would be if there is a draft? The USA public is mentally unprepared. Look at GOP politicians who are against more aid to the Ukraine. At least one Senator is saying the war is unwinnable. Reagan won the cold war by Russia being unable to keep up. It would be winnable if we sanctioned India and China for using Russian oil and took the 300 billion or so in funds that are stored in Western banks. We are slow playing everything like it does not matter. The stock market at all time highs with a geo-political situation close to melting down. Too many just thinking it will be like Iraq, with life in the USA going as usual unless you were a reservist being called up. When the grid is down and gas is rationed I guess they will realize they are wrong.

• United States - 20 (11 aircraft carriers, 9 helo carriers)
• China - 5 (2 aircraft carriers, 3 helo carriers)
• France - 4 (1 aircraft carrier, 3 helo carriers)
• Japan - 4 helo carriers (two of which are being converted to light aircraft carriers) Australia - 2 helo carriers
• Egypt - 2 helo carriers
• India - 2 aircraft carriers
• Italy - 2 aircraft carriers (one specialized for submarine hunting)
• South Korea - 2 helo carriers
• United Kingdom - 2 aircraft carriers
• Brazil - 1 helo carriers
• Russia - 1 aircraft carrier
• Spain - 1 aircraft carrier/helo carrier
• Thailand - 1 helo carrier
• Turkey - 1 helo carrier

What is the ratio of military aircraft between the U.S. and China?

Jen DiMascio, Aviation Week Executive Editor, Defense and Space, responds:

"The U.S. military operates 13,319 aircraft—about three times as many manned aircraft as the Chinese military, which operates 4,519. But the ratio is not even across all types of aircraft, according to Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN) data analysts Dan Urchick and Michael Tint.

When it comes to combat aircraft, the ratio is more narrow: The U.S. operates 3,435 aircraft while China operates 1,943. For now, the U.S. has a qualitative edge—with 586 fifth-generation combat aircraft to China’s 38."

 

[7thKeeper]

On the bright side the US Navy looks pretty good. China has more ships but half the tonnage of the USA, Russia has about a fourth of the USA tonnage. The USA Air Force is similar. (Some figures are shown below) The question is what will a WWIII look like and is the USA prepared for cyber attacks, pipelines and electric grids, EMP's etc? If the enemy can exploit the vulnerabilities the size may not matter so much. What you can produce and how fast you can make it counts too. China and Russia are gearing up. The USA? I'm not sure? I am thinking we might be stupid. I see the Remington factory in NY is shutting down and relocating. Why are we not lining up extra capacity from these skilled workers and plant. retool it and produce something for the military? During the pandemic ammunition was in short supply among other things. I worry about what a first strike could do too. What the response would be if there is a draft? The USA public is mentally unprepared. Look at GOP politicians who are against more aid to the Ukraine. At least one Senator is saying the war is unwinnable. Reagan won the cold war by Russia being unable to keep up. It would be winnable if we sanctioned India and China for using Russian oil and took the 300 billion or so in funds that are stored in Western banks. We are slow playing everything like it does not matter. The stock market at all time highs with a geo-political situation close to melting down. Too many just thinking it will be like Iraq, with life in the USA going as usual unless you were a reservist being called up. When the grid is down and gas is rationed I guess they will realize they are wrong.

• United States - 20 (11 aircraft carriers, 9 helo carriers)
• China - 5 (2 aircraft carriers, 3 helo carriers)
• France - 4 (1 aircraft carrier, 3 helo carriers)
• Japan - 4 helo carriers (two of which are being converted to light aircraft carriers) Australia - 2 helo carriers
• Egypt - 2 helo carriers
• India - 2 aircraft carriers
• Italy - 2 aircraft carriers (one specialized for submarine hunting)
• South Korea - 2 helo carriers
• United Kingdom - 2 aircraft carriers
• Brazil - 1 helo carriers
• Russia - 1 aircraft carrier
• Spain - 1 aircraft carrier/helo carrier
• Thailand - 1 helo carrier
• Turkey - 1 helo carrier

What is the ratio of military aircraft between the U.S. and China?

Jen DiMascio, Aviation Week Executive Editor, Defense and Space, responds:

"The U.S. military operates 13,319 aircraft—about three times as many manned aircraft as the Chinese military, which operates 4,519. But the ratio is not even across all types of aircraft, according to Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN) data analysts Dan Urchick and Michael Tint.

When it comes to combat aircraft, the ratio is more narrow: The U.S. operates 3,435 aircraft while China operates 1,943. For now, the U.S. has a qualitative edge—with 586 fifth-generation combat aircraft to China’s 38."

I wouldn't even count Russia's carrier, considering the shape that thing is in...

 

[Hazelelponi]

Our Military Is Weak. That Should Scare You.

America's military struggles with readiness to face global adversaries, The Heritage Foundation's Index of U.S. Military Strength details.

www.dailysignal.com

Our government isn’t serious about defending the United States and its interests. In fact, it has fallen woefully short in carrying out this sacred obligation. I know this sounds harsh, but as we’ll see, the government’s own numbers prove the point.

That our military is weak is not an indictment of the men and women who have volunteered to serve. It is an indictment of a system largely defined by the government and those elected to high office.
That includes senior military officers whose primary obligation should be to ensure that our men and women have what they need to win in war—which is, after all, the primary purpose of our military.
Yes, many people will say the purpose of a strong military is to deter war, but deterrence derives from the belief of the enemy that they would be defeated in battle. So if our military is at great risk of not being able to win … well, it doesn’t have much deterrent value.


Our potential enemies can see this; the American public, not so much.
At present, the U.S. military is roughly half the size it needs to be. Moreover, most of its primary equipment (planes, ships, tanks, etc.) is 30 to 40 years old. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardsmen are training only a fraction of what they should to be competent in battle.

Yet senior leaders in the Pentagon, White House spokespersons, and even members of Congress who have access to the facts (and should know better) continue to say that we have the best military in the world, as if saying so makes it so. It does not.
Let’s look at the numbers, using references from near the end of the Cold War, when the U.S. last confronted a major competitor on a global stage. Recall that until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the U.S. maintained forces able to compete with the Soviets in many regions at once, primarily in Europe (in land and air) but also across the seas where naval power was essential.

Back then, Washington had to focus only on one capital and the ambitions of one authoritarian regime. Regardless of where military actions occurred, the signals reverberated to Moscow.
Today, the U.S. must account for regimes in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang, and a host of smaller powers and terrorist regimes that challenge U.S. interests. They have different objectives and possess different cultures, values, and networks.

Honestly, I don't think this is the kind of stuff we should actually talk about. We can't have open and honest conversations without risking national security.

I personally don't like that people like Carlson have no issues going overseas talking about American military preparedness because talking about our weaknesses to our enemies only emboldens them, and they are plenty emboldened already with our now systemic weakness in American political leadership.

To me, I think it should be said we need to beef up our ability and as Americans we should support that, but little more than that needs said publicly.

That's just my opinion on it though. I can't help cringing every time I see articles like this.

 

[Fantine]

We left Afghanistan/Iraq after 20 years when one brave man was willing to take the flack of the process being imperfect--it would have been for Trump and Obama, too, but they feared the polls.
So you would think we could lower our outrageously outsized military budget a bit to focus on domestic priorities and deficit reduction.
Instead, the defense budget grows, and rogue governors are trying to keep the troops busy defending themselves against "invaders." SMH.

 

[Paulos23]

For what it does, our military is very good. It projects force across the world and we have a navy that is second to none. On top of that we have the advantage of geography with to oceans and fairly good neighbors.

Unless we want to take on the whole world at once, we are fine.

 

[BCP1928]

Our Military Is Weak. That Should Scare You.

America's military struggles with readiness to face global adversaries, The Heritage Foundation's Index of U.S. Military Strength details.

www.dailysignal.com

Our government isn’t serious about defending the United States and its interests. In fact, it has fallen woefully short in carrying out this sacred obligation. I know this sounds harsh, but as we’ll see, the government’s own numbers prove the point.

That our military is weak is not an indictment of the men and women who have volunteered to serve. It is an indictment of a system largely defined by the government and those elected to high office.
That includes senior military officers whose primary obligation should be to ensure that our men and women have what they need to win in war—which is, after all, the primary purpose of our military.
Yes, many people will say the purpose of a strong military is to deter war, but deterrence derives from the belief of the enemy that they would be defeated in battle. So if our military is at great risk of not being able to win … well, it doesn’t have much deterrent value.


Our potential enemies can see this; the American public, not so much.
At present, the U.S. military is roughly half the size it needs to be. Moreover, most of its primary equipment (planes, ships, tanks, etc.) is 30 to 40 years old. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardsmen are training only a fraction of what they should to be competent in battle.

Yet senior leaders in the Pentagon, White House spokespersons, and even members of Congress who have access to the facts (and should know better) continue to say that we have the best military in the world, as if saying so makes it so. It does not.
Let’s look at the numbers, using references from near the end of the Cold War, when the U.S. last confronted a major competitor on a global stage. Recall that until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the U.S. maintained forces able to compete with the Soviets in many regions at once, primarily in Europe (in land and air) but also across the seas where naval power was essential.

Back then, Washington had to focus only on one capital and the ambitions of one authoritarian regime. Regardless of where military actions occurred, the signals reverberated to Moscow.
Today, the U.S. must account for regimes in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang, and a host of smaller powers and terrorist regimes that challenge U.S. interests. They have different objectives and possess different cultures, values, and networks.

Maybe the right response would be not to go out of our way to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] so many people off with an imperialist foreign policy.

 

[comana]

Was this written by defense contractors?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Honestly, I don't think this is the kind of stuff we should actually talk about. We can't have open and honest conversations without risking national security.

I personally don't like that people like Carlson have no issues going overseas talking about American military preparedness because talking about our weaknesses to our enemies only emboldens them, and they are plenty emboldened already with our now systemic weakness in American political leadership.

To me, I think it should be said we need to beef up our ability and as Americans we should support that, but little more than that needs said publicly.

That's just my opinion on it though. I can't help cringing every time I see articles like this.

Nothing that anyone has discussed in this thread, the article that was linked in the OP, or even by nitwits like Carlson is non-public information. If you want those number posted above about the naval strength or air power you can find them on Wikipedia. It is perfectly normal to talk about such things. There are whole industries (FP/Mil think tanks) that do nothing else. If you want to know the actual top speed of the newest US aircraft carrier, that is classified, but the existence of it is not.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nothing that anyone has discussed in this thread, the article that was linked in the OP, or even by nitwits like Carlson is non-public information. If you want those number posted above about the naval strength or air power you can find them on Wikipedia. It is perfectly normal to talk about such things. There are whole industries (FP/Mil think tanks) that do nothing else. If you want to know the actual top speed of the newest US aircraft carrier, that is classified, but the existence of it is not.

Maybe it's just because I feel like America is under attack and we need to project strength not weakness.

 

[DaisyDay]

Was this written by defense contractors?

Heritage Foundation owns the DailySignal. I don't know their relationship to Big Munitions.

Apparently, they run this scaremongering bit from time to time. Here's one from 2022:

Rapidly Depleting Munitions Stockpiles Point to Necessary Changes in Policy

As the war in Ukraine continues, U.S. weapons support for Ukraine is quickly draining munitions stockpiles. Weapons manufacturers do not have the capacity to promptly meet this surging demand. After years of comparatively small annual munitions purchases, manufacturers have made the predictable...

www.heritage.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maybe it's just because I feel like America is under attack and we need to project strength not weakness.

Here's a thought...

If we show our firm backing of our allies against authoritarian invaders that would show American strength.

 

[SimplyMe]

Considering that the USA has enemies all over the world, and considering that a lot of those enemies have allied themselves with each other, then it only makes sense for the US military to be able to defend our nation against them all at once. In other words, the military should be prepared for a worst-case scenario.

Or, perhaps a better idea would be to keep our allies close -- which includes things like our continuing to aid Ukraine (as our European allies are also doing) -- so that we have friends in the "scary world" where so many are against us. By contrast, keeping our relationships with our allies (particularly those with which we have mutual protection agreements) makes it less likely we will need to defend our nation against "them all" at once.