The Davidson Window opens in two months. The DoD, Congress, and Industry must radically change course if we hope to deliver capabilities within the next two to four years to effectively deter China.
I’m wondering why China would risk interrupting the commercial flow of goods from Chinese manufacturers to the American market. After all the US is one of the largest retail markets in the world. Why would China screw that up? And if they do take over Taiwan, who would buy any of the products they would then be producing? Especially after a war to claim the island.
"Most of the major weapon systems to deter China won’t be delivered until the 2030s."
Then maybe DoD and the nation should find better approach to countering Chinese aggression. One that focuses less on U.S. military superiority in force projection and more on building partnership capacity, and developing diplomatic and economic levers to punish bad behavior.
The current plan makes the naive assumption that deterrence is only achieved by buying military hardware and fails to take advantage of a host of other options. This path imposes large costs on the U.S. to preserve the sovereignty of, in this case, a small island. Resources and attention are drained away from national security planning. This lack of focus results in continued failures to maintain U.S. infrastructure (water, rail road, healthcare, public health/pandemic, social safety nets) leave the country as a whole weaker and less resilient. It also leaves a military more and more dependent on exquisite weapon systems that are being fielded half-baked and are unaffordable to operate. This is exactly how China weakens the U.S. resolve before the battle.
Matt - Thanks for the comments. Military superiority is the best deterrence in my opinion. That's not to say we can't also focus on diplomacy and economic levers to complement that strategy. We absolutely need to strengthen relationships with Allies and partners to demonstrate a strong coalition, not to mention achieve greater speed, scale, and cost efficiencies with many involved in development and production of military solutions. This is not purely a defense vs domestic debate. Yet if we cut the defense budget in half to fund more infrastructure (which just got >$1T) and social services (which is a majority of the federal budget these days driving a $1.7T deficit this year), we should not be surprised when our enemies are at our shore or pouring across our borders.
I’m wondering why China would risk interrupting the commercial flow of goods from Chinese manufacturers to the American market. After all the US is one of the largest retail markets in the world. Why would China screw that up? And if they do take over Taiwan, who would buy any of the products they would then be producing? Especially after a war to claim the island.
"Most of the major weapon systems to deter China won’t be delivered until the 2030s."
Then maybe DoD and the nation should find better approach to countering Chinese aggression. One that focuses less on U.S. military superiority in force projection and more on building partnership capacity, and developing diplomatic and economic levers to punish bad behavior.
The current plan makes the naive assumption that deterrence is only achieved by buying military hardware and fails to take advantage of a host of other options. This path imposes large costs on the U.S. to preserve the sovereignty of, in this case, a small island. Resources and attention are drained away from national security planning. This lack of focus results in continued failures to maintain U.S. infrastructure (water, rail road, healthcare, public health/pandemic, social safety nets) leave the country as a whole weaker and less resilient. It also leaves a military more and more dependent on exquisite weapon systems that are being fielded half-baked and are unaffordable to operate. This is exactly how China weakens the U.S. resolve before the battle.
Matt - Thanks for the comments. Military superiority is the best deterrence in my opinion. That's not to say we can't also focus on diplomacy and economic levers to complement that strategy. We absolutely need to strengthen relationships with Allies and partners to demonstrate a strong coalition, not to mention achieve greater speed, scale, and cost efficiencies with many involved in development and production of military solutions. This is not purely a defense vs domestic debate. Yet if we cut the defense budget in half to fund more infrastructure (which just got >$1T) and social services (which is a majority of the federal budget these days driving a $1.7T deficit this year), we should not be surprised when our enemies are at our shore or pouring across our borders.