Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super
New York Times ^ | April 27, 2003 | GREGG EASTERBROOK

Posted on 04/26/2003 5:22:02 PM PDT by Brandon

The New York TimesSponsored by Starbucks

April 27, 2003

American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super

By GREGG EASTERBROOK

Stealth drones, G.P.S.-guided smart munitions that hit precisely where aimed; antitank bombs that guide themselves; space-relayed data links that allow individual squad leaders to know exactly where American and opposition forces are during battle ó the United States military rolled out all this advanced technology, and more, in its lightning conquest of Iraq. No other military is even close to the United States. The American military is now the strongest the world has ever known, both in absolute terms and relative to other nations; stronger than the Wehrmacht in 1940, stronger than the legions at the height of Roman power. For years to come, no other nation is likely even to try to rival American might.

Which means: the global arms race is over, with the United States the undisputed heavyweight champion. Other nations are not even trying to match American armed force, because they are so far behind they have no chance of catching up. The great-powers arms race, in progress for centuries, has ended with the rest of the world conceding triumph to the United States. 

Now only a nuclear state, like, perhaps, North Korea, has any military leverage against the winner.

Paradoxically, the runaway American victory in the conventional arms race might inspire a new round of proliferation of atomic weapons. With no hope of matching the United States plane for plane, more countries may seek atomic weapons to gain deterrence. 

North Korea might have been moved last week to declare that it has an atomic bomb by the knowledge that it has no hope of resisting American conventional power. If it becomes generally believed that possession of even a few nuclear munitions is enough to render North Korea immune from American military force, other nations ó Iran is an obvious next candidate ó may place renewed emphasis on building them. 

For the extent of American military superiority has become almost impossible to overstate. The United States sent five of its nine supercarrier battle groups to the region for the Iraq assault. A tenth Nimitz-class supercarrier is under construction. No other nation possesses so much as one supercarrier, let alone nine battle groups ringed by cruisers and guarded by nuclear submarines. 

Russia has one modern aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, but it has about half the tonnage of an American supercarrier, and has such a poor record that it rarely leaves port. The former Soviet navy did preliminary work on a supercarrier, but abandoned the project in 1992. Britain and France have a few small aircraft carriers. China decided against building one last year.

Any attempt to build a fleet that threatens the Pentagon's would be pointless, after all, because if another nation fielded a threatening vessel, American attack submarines would simply sink it in the first five minutes of any conflict. (The new Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarine is essentially the futuristic supersub of "The Hunt for Red October" made real.) Knowing this, all other nations have conceded the seas to the United States, a reason American forces can sail anywhere without interference. The naval arms race ó a principal aspect of great-power politics for centuries ó is over.

United States air power is undisputed as well, with more advanced fighters and bombers than those of all other nations combined. The United States possesses three stealth aircraft (the B-1 and B-2 bombers and the F-117 fighter) with two more (the F-22 and F-35 fighters) developed and awaiting production funds. No other nation even has a stealth aircraft on the drawing board. A few nations have small numbers of heavy bombers; the United States has entire wings of heavy bombers.

No other nation maintains an aerial tanker fleet similar to that of the United States; owing to tankers, American bombers can operate anywhere in the world. No other nation has anything like the American AWACS plane, which provides exceptionally detailed radar images of the sky above battles, or the newer JSTARS plane, which provides exceptionally detailed radar images of the ground.

No other nation has air-to-air missiles or air-to-ground smart munitions of the accuracy, or numbers, of the United States. This month, for example, in the second attempt to kill Saddam Hussein, just 12 minutes passed between when a B-1 received the target coordinates and when the bomber released four smart bombs aimed to land just 50 feet and a few seconds apart. All four hit where they were supposed to.

American aerial might is so great that adversaries don't even try to fly. Serbia kept its planes on the ground during the Kosovo conflict of 1999; in recent fighting in Iraq, not a single Iraqi fighter rose to oppose United States aircraft. The governments of the world now know that if they try to launch a fighter against American air power, their planes will be blown to smithereens before they finish retracting their landing gear. The aerial arms race, a central facet of the last 50 years, is over.

The American lead in ground forces is not uncontested ó China has a large standing army ó but is large enough that the ground arms race might end, too. The United States now possesses about 9,000 M1 Abrams tanks, by far the world's strongest armored force. The Abrams cannon and fire-control system is so extraordinarily accurate that in combat gunners rarely require more than one shot to destroy an enemy tank. No other nation is currently building or planning a comparable tank force. Other governments know this would be pointless, since even if they had advanced tanks, the United States would destroy them from the air.

The American lead in electronics is also huge. Much of the "designating" of targets in the recent Iraq assault was done by advanced electronics on drones like the Global Hawk, which flies at 60,000 feet, far beyond the range of antiaircraft weapons. So sophisticated are the sensors and data links that make Global Hawk work that it might take a decade for another nation to field a similar drone ó and by then, the United States is likely to have leapfrogged ahead to something better.

As The New York Times Magazine reported last Sunday, the United States is working on unmanned, remote-piloted drone fighter planes that will be both relatively low-cost and extremely hard to shoot down, and small drone attack helicopters that will precede troops into battle. No other nation is even close to the electronics and data-management technology of these prospective weapons. The Pentagon will have a monopoly on advanced combat drones for years. 

An electronics arms race may continue in some fashion because electronics are cheaper than ships or planes. But the United States holds such an imposing lead that it is unlikely to be lapped for a long time.

Further, the United States holds an overwhelming lead in military use of space. Not only does the Pentagon command more and better reconnaissance satellites than all the rest of the world combined, American forces have begun using space-relayed data in a significant way. Space "assets" will eventually be understood to have been critical to the lightning conquest of Iraq, and the American lead in this will only grow, since the Air Force now has the second-largest space budget in the world, after NASA's.

This huge military lead is partly because of money. Last year American military spending exceeded that of all other NATO states, Russia, China, Japan, Iraq and North Korea combined, according to the Center for Defense Information, a nonpartisan research group that studies global security. This is another area where all other nations must concede to the United States, for no other government can afford to try to catch up.

The runaway advantage has been called by some excessive, yet it yields a positive benefit. Annual global military spending, stated in current dollars, peaked in 1985, at $1.3 trillion, and has been declining since, to $840 billion in 2002. That's a drop of almost half a trillion dollars in the amount the world spent each year on arms. Other nations accept that the arms race is over.

The United States military reinforces its pre-eminence by going into combat. Rightly or wrongly, the United States fights often; each fight becomes a learning opportunity for troops and a test of technology. No other military currently has the real-world experience of the United States.

There is also the high quality ó in education and motivation ó of its personnel. This lead has grown as the United States has integrated women into most combat roles, doubling the talent base on which recruiters can draw. 

The American edge does not render its forces invincible: the expensive Apache attack helicopter, for example, fared poorly against routine small-arms fire in Iraq. More important, overwhelming power hardly insures that the United States will get its way in world affairs. Force is just one aspect of international relations, while experience has shown that military power can solve only military problems, not political ones. 

North Korea now stares into the barrel of the strongest military ever assembled, and yet may be able to defy the United States, owing to nuclear deterrence. As the global arms race ends with the United States so far ahead no other nation even tries to be America's rival, the result may be a world in which Washington has historically unparalleled power, but often cannot use it. 

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraqifreedom; newnwo; superpower
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last
To: David1
At this point the Space Based Laser is clearly still in the research stage. I don't think it'll be ready before the Airborne Laser, and the ABL itself might have to wait until 2010. Granted, it's the best defense against emerging ballistic missile threats, but supposing it enters service in the 2020-2025 timeframe, the bigger powers will have had plenty of time to work on countermeasures. I don't expect today's ICBM technology to be militarily useful in 2020.

Control of space will be key to control of the ground in 21st-century warfare, and all the major powers are aware of it, but how soon, if ever, space weapons render all land-based missiles obsolete is anyone's guess. Major technical hurdles must be overcome. The biggest issue at present is how to generate sufficient energy to ensure a kill. It might have to be done with nuclear power.

As it is I don't expect the US to have a total monopoly in space. Unfortunately we've already wasted plenty of time and money so that the gap between us and the other big powers isn't as big as it could have been.
81 posted on 04/26/2003 10:37:33 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
For the extent of American military superiority has become almost impossible to overstate. The United States sent five of its nine supercarrier battle groups to the region for the Iraq assault. A tenth Nimitz-class supercarrier is under construction. No other nation possesses so much as one supercarrier, let alone nine battle groups ringed by cruisers and guarded by nuclear submarines.

I hate it when so-called newspapers of record cannot get their facts straight. The US now has TWELVE "supercarrier" battlegroups in its Fleet, not NINE. They forget the three conventionally powered oil-burners the Kitty Hawk, the Constellation, and the Kennedy. The Nimitz class nuclear powered carriers are not the only carrier battle groups in the US Navy.

Carrier                 Commissioning Date
------------------------------------------
Oil-Burners
CV   63  Kitty Hawk            1961
CV   64  Constellation         1961
CV   67  John F. Kennedy       1968

Nukes
CVN  65  Enterprise            1961
CVN  68  Nimitz                1975
CVN  69  Dwight D. Eisenhower  1977
CVN  70  Carl Vinson           1982
CVN  71  Theodore Roosevelt    1986
CVN  72  Abraham Lincoln       1989
CVN  73  George Washington     1992
CVN  74  John C. Stennis       1995
CVN  75  Harry S Truman        1998

Future Nukes
CVN  76  Ronald Reagan         2003
CVN  77  George H. W. Bush     2008

Point being, the US Navy sent five of its twelve carrier battle groups to the Gulf War II. THe Constellation (CV-64) retires after its last war cruise...

dvwjr

82 posted on 04/26/2003 11:55:37 PM PDT by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
I've often said that, assuming there were bases to harbor, fuel, arm and maintain them, one could have RULED THE ENTIRE WORLD(at least through proxy governments) with ONE Apache, ONE Aircraft carrier(complete with craft), one battleship and ONE B-52 if they were teleported back to 1400.

Not only would fear of a seemingly supernatural foe cow most nations and their armies, but being completely and utterly annihilated within a few hours would end all submission.

Of course, the same concept applies to an Independence Day invasion by aliens. With even a 100 year gap in technology, there would be little way to defeat them despite the movie's ending.

83 posted on 04/27/2003 12:09:56 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Amen! They'll never be foolish enough to face us with honor. Rather, they'll crawl under the tent like cockroaches and scorpions.
84 posted on 04/28/2003 3:11:42 PM PDT by Humidston (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
I'll be the first to say that we have an awe inspiring military. We spend .8% of Gross World Product on our miltary. That is greater than the GDP of many countries.

However, the author makes some mistakes and questionable assumptions.

As far as the ability to project force over long distances, no country can match us. The entire EU could not match us. However, the ability traverse the oceans is not absolute. Even if there will never be another carrier on carrier battle like Midway, there are other threats.
The English have some very nice SSN (the Trafalgars and new Astute class). The Russian Akula-IIs and Oscar-II are a threat (at least utill the Soviet era low-orbit satelite network burns up). Many countries have purchased good conventional submarines from the Germans, Dutch, Swedes, English,French, and Russians. The Russian Kilos purchased by Iran and China aren't going away any time soon. These are a threat to us in the shallow areas near these coasts. Uneven sea beds, shifting currents, and multiple thermal layers create bad accoustics for hunting submarines. As long as the Kilos are on battery power, they are hard to detect. While the Kilos might be constrained in that they too are in a fog of poor accoustics and are limited by battery power, they have some advantages. An america task group operating near Iran or China would be continuosly tracked by enemy recon and radar. The sub commanders could place their subs in front of a US carrier group and wait a few hours to strike.

Similarly, operating near enemy coasts puts our CNBG's at risk to enemy attack. As i noted before, our carriers would be painted by radar, unless we took these out. Iran and China have strike fighters and bomber carrying anti-shipping missles. The Chinese Silkworm may not be a real threat, but the Russian K-35 or Sunburns are.

85 posted on 04/28/2003 4:28:03 PM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
Contrary to the author's assertion, the US is not the only power with stealthy jets. The Saab Grippen, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Chinese J/F-10 both have some stealthy characteristics. The Russian Sukhoi bureau is working on a stealthy fighter. The US plans to sell the F-35 to a number of countries.

While no other country has the J-STARS, a lot countries have AWACS or similar airborne C4I or AEW planes. The US has sold the E-2 and/or E-3 to every member of NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan. The Russians developed their own systems based on the IL-76 and their indiginous radars. These have been sold to China and North Korea.

No other nation has air-to-air missiles or air-to-ground smart munitions of the accuracy, or numbers, of the United States.
Many of our allies produce these weaposn for us and themselves.
Based on unclassified paper specs, I would take the Russian A-11 Archer over our AIM-9. the AA-12 looks like an AMRAAM, so I wouldn't discount it.

the Russian Klub cruise missle is supposed to use GPS. They have Laser guided munitions. They are a few years behind us, not decades.

The Abrams cannon and fire-control system is so extraordinarily accurate that in combat gunners rarely require more than one shot to destroy an enemy tank. No other nation is currently building or planning a comparable tank force. Other governments know this would be pointless, since even if they had advanced tanks, the United States would destroy them from the air.

The British Challanger, German Leopard II, Israeli Merkava, and Russian T-90 are all nice tanks. Iraq had the cheap export T-72's. These lacked the good Russian optical and targeting systems, as well as the Tank lanched anti-missle systems liket he Koronet, which outrange us.

Our forces are advanced, but a smart enemy could cause real problems for us. For starters, they could hit us, isntead of allowing hte US to have operational control.

86 posted on 04/28/2003 5:04:28 PM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandon; All
Anybody out there play too much RISK as a kid?

The current situation IMHO is like the last move of the game when the victor marches around the entire globe in an unstoppable wave taking out each weakened opponent as he goes until der Welt is finally his.

Bwah-ha-ha-ha!

87 posted on 04/28/2003 5:09:58 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (.......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: konaice
Patriots are no good for Boost Phase intercepts.
The Thaad system married to the Aegis system on our ticonderoga cruisers and Arleigh Burkes are great at this. Of course, a lone destroyer, 40km off the Korean coast is also a target.
The US has also tested a 747 with a Laser ABL for boost-phase intercepts.

Personally, I would love to have a multi-layered system, including spce-based weapons. A depleted uranium dart lanuched from a satellite could do wonders.

88 posted on 04/28/2003 5:11:11 PM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Filibuster_60
Bingo.
Hence we needed a workable multi-layers SDI system last year.
89 posted on 04/28/2003 5:13:27 PM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
I, too, was looking for the hook, whatever it was that the Times was setting us up for.

By depicting the North Korean nuclear program as a reasonable defensive response against American hegemony (instead of what it really is, which is a prerequisite for continuing to threaten South Korea), the NYT is attempting to spin away one of XXX42's most obvious derelictions of duty.

90 posted on 04/28/2003 5:47:37 PM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: piasa
They must be smoking crack again at the NY Times. I am glad to hear from the esteemed Mr. Easterbrook that the dynamic upon which life on earth as operated since the dawn of time has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Where the heck is the Nobel Prize Committee when they are needed? I wonder how he plans to spend the prize money?

There is nothing more dangerous than believing your own BS. Life is conflict and nobody has conceded anything, nor will they EVER. What a crock!

There is more than one way to skin a cat and you can bet that the best minds in China, Russia, India, and everywhere else are working on the problem of skinning the US. I can think of some pretty good avenues of attack just sitting here right now. Initiative and timing belong to our opponents. It may be 5, 25, or 75 years before we can effectively be challenged, but make no mistake, we will be challenged.

Their future methods will be very unconventional and subtle, electronic, financial, religious or biological weapons are the most likely. If they can maintain operational security and and not present traditional targets all our hardware is just rust waiting to happen.

I hope that I am wrong, but I know that I am NOT.
91 posted on 04/29/2003 10:52:29 AM PDT by Agent Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson