Gee, is The Atlantic advocating an arms build-up?
It would CERTAINLY be the first time.
After the Kenyanesian Usurpation the Republic created by the Constitution ceased to exist.
BOTH parties cooperated to violate the Constitution.
The invasion sponsored by both parties of fraudulently documented foreigners will soon mean we don’t have a country, so why would we need a military?
The B-21 is getting ready to fly, if not already flying. And according to some tankers that was a M1A3. The original M1A1 has has been upgraded so many times it has little in common with the M1A3.
B-52s are being completely redone with missiles and intel packages that were not even a glimmer in a Scifi writer’s eye in the 1950s and will continue to fly well into the 2030s, while the newer B-1s and B-2s will be retired.
Democrats do not care about national defense as it is a waste in their ‘minds’ nor do they care if some other country controls the US via a superior military as long as they remain in power so they can lead lives of excess, luxury, debauchery and so on.
If our military can’t OR won’t protect our borders they’re useless...
They protect everyone else...
We pay to protect our competitors in Europe & the world - then to add insult to injury we protect every corrupt hellhole in the Middle East. Guess the Pentagon, State Department and Intelligence thugs like getting their butts kissed... by giving away what the American People own...
During the 24 years before President Trump, we had 16 years of Democrat Presidents who saw no political benefit to them or the Democrat Party by spending money on defense, so they didn’t spend money on defense.
The second President Bush spent defense money on buying armored trucks. They were prioritized because that is where we were suffering casualties.
How much should we spend on defense?
“One dollar more than what it costs to keep anyone from attacking us.”
When you are fighting the Taliban and the ISIS insurgents you don’t need to best equipment. What we have “in the shed” will do.
It would probably do against the “A” teams of the day. I don’t see us in a land war anywhere but Korea. I think we can handle them.
The “new” weapon systems discussed in the article had very long lead times. As a practical matter, the choices a President has for immediately impacting the inventory are few. This President inherited multiple disasters in acquisition. His inclination is to simplify. But, among the many missions of the Department of Defense, are to fight both existential wars against comparable or near comparable opponents (in which numbers is paramount), as well as wars of choice against second and lower-class opponents (in which reducing casualties is paramount).
President Trump jaw-boned down the price per plane of the F-35. Also, we are already working on its replacement. As a result, I stopped criticizing that program.
Regarding the USN Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier, I am halfway thinking Trump is going to order its electric catapult to be ripped out.
Regarding the USN Zumwalt class “destroyer,” I doubt we’ll see any more than the three produced or in production. It is such an embarrassment. The Navy has “re-purposed” the thing.
Regarding the Littoral (Non-)Combat Ship. Like the Zumwalt, the Navy has re-purposed whatever you want to call this thing. It’s too vulnerable to be placed in a high-intensity environment. I guess that makes it a minesweeper costing 7 times the cost of the minesweepers it’s to replace.
Regarding the M-1 tanks and M-2 fighting vehicles: the M-1s have been upgraded several times, e.g., reactive armor. I doubt that it will have the tank-on-tank advantage it enjoyed during the Persian Gulf War or the invasion of Iraq, but it still is an awesome monster. It has a shortcoming in being as heavy as it is, so it’s not easy, at the strategic level, to deploy.
The M-2 fighting vehicle is also quite large and its anti-tank missile system might not be effective against tanks with reactive armor. The big problem with replacing the M-2 is nobody has come up with something that does the job the M-2 does, without also being big; and, smaller or lighter armored vehicles don’t have its capabilities.
I’m open-minded about a true light tank or a platform such as the Stryker, but I haven’t been convinced our inventories of M-1s and M-2s have to be replaced by “new” just because those armored vehicles are “old.”
The article did note the shift to unmanned drones and electronic warfare. Such things may make what we currently think of conventional weapon systems obsolete. Yet, how do incorporate such things into a parade or a static display?
The Atlantic rag is just spewing talking points and regurgitating narrative.