Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Voluntary Involuntary Disarmament
For those (like me) who have concerns about what American interest is served by our financial and military material support for Ukraine, there is a theory that the American arms establishment is pushing the conflict and looking to goose their bottom lines by selling the US government arms to replace those sent to Ukraine. But what if that isn’t so?
There is a Powerline post out today that raises questions about the ability of arms providers to rearm America. Quoting from the Wall Street Journal:
[T]he largest ground war in Europe since World War II isn’t translating into boom times for U.S. defense contractors. Hobbled by supply chain disruptions, a tight labor market and a Pentagon procurement process that can take years, arms makers have been struggling to respond to the soaring demand. . .
When the Pentagon ordered new Stinger antiaircraft missiles—widely used in Ukraine—in August, it was the first U.S. order from Raytheon for the weapons in 18 years. By December, Ukraine had burned through 13 years of production, said Greg Hayes, chief executive of Raytheon. Five years worth of Javelin missiles had also been used in the conflict.
Raytheon was still making some Stingers for an overseas customer before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but found some suppliers had gone out of business and had to redesign parts to boost production.
Couple that with the chart from Center for Strategic & International Studies and you begin to wonder whether arms merchants really are behind Biden’s actions or whether they are untethered from reality:
When they say “follow the money,” whose money should you be following? If the cupboard is bare and it will be a while before you can fill it up again, how are the arms merchants profiting in the near term from sales that can’t be completed for months/years? If America is to avoid a nuclear exchange with Russia, the theory is it is because the Russians know that we could defeat them even with just conventional weaponry. But what if the Ukrainians have already thrown our conventional arms at the Russians? What is the deterrent then?
I once had a boss that said, “Don’t let your mouth promise something my *ss can’t deliver.” If arms producers are pushing this conflict, has the sales department been talking to manufacturing? Russians have spreadsheets, too. They can calculate the tipping point where either we, or the Ukrainians, don’t have enough armaments to finish the job.
And don’t take your eyes off the CCP.
Published in General
I agree that is a good side benefit if we learn lessons and take them to heart. In many ways I am not against what we are doing in Ukraine. I think we were going to face a threat to a NATO country if Russia had crushed Ukraine quickly. I am relieved that that possibility seems less likely now. I just have zero confidence in our existing leaderships ability to either learn the important lessons from this conflict or manage things appropriately to keep from a major catastrophic escalation.
Two points on that. I think it takes longer because we are downgrading the Abrams to the export version. Also we are trying to make sure the Ukrainians are trained on how to use them. Finally the US doesn’t really want to do this so like every other thing Biden has done in this war we are slow walking it.
As for the logistics tail of the Abrams. American philosophy of war is that very capable highly survivable platforms are the key for success. We are extremely good at logistics and have no concerns about using that capability to solve problems. It makes sense because losing aircraft or tanks doesn’t bother American citizens losing lives does. Also I think it is a better strategy in the long run. It takes 18 years to replace a US soldier it takes 18 weeks to build a new M1. America is wealthy enough to be able to afford technology to solve problems and good enough at logistics to be able to keep complex systems fighting in the field. The way to beat the US military is to inflict enough human losses that it saps the political will for the fight.
This.
Thanks for the comments. I was hoping somebody who knew more about American military matters than I do would comment, and someone did! If you aren’t so concerned about fragile, overly-complicated logistics for the Abrams tanks, then maybe I don’t need to be, either.
I suppose there are multiple reasons that Poland is trying to become less reliant on American military technology, so is making a major investment in tanks from South Korea, and in in-house facilities to maintain and even do part of the manufacturing of those tanks. I hope that turns out well, and it kind of gives the lie to those who say the war is driven by American munitions makers. At least it isn’t driven by the makers of Abrams tanks.
Actually to be clear on two points. First I have no direct knowledge of the American military I am just a student of history and a lover of war games. Second I am concerned about the overly complicated logistics for the Abrams in the context of Ukraine. I just understand the complicate logistics of the Abrams within the framework of the American Military and why I don’t worry about it when we deploy them. Ukraine will have to learn how to keep the Abrams fighting. The real challenge is keeping it in fuel.
True. I think the major attraction for both Poland and South Korea is the licensing deal. The US licenses M1s as well but they are expensive to manufacture. South Korea is happy to license to Poland because it may open up the European market to their platforms. Maybe a really wise move on South Korea’s part since a lot of European countries maybe looking into rearmament in the near future.
We don’t have enough airlift and sealift. Some things require special transportation.
Poland is also buying M1s.
Yes, we need more sealift. But we also preposition quantities of combat equipment sets overseas. Plus parts and other supplies. Some sets are even afloat.
Ideally we would have more heavy airlift but in the opening phase of a conflict, we need, and rely on, civilian aircraft to deploy soldiers.
True. I think the plan is to use them as a reserve force and to have them guard some high value approaches. The bulk of Poland’s tanks will be a locally produced derivative of the South Korean tank.