American Think Tank: The Best Choice for the U.S. Military Is to Gradually and Sustainably Increase Defense Spending

The best choice for the U.S. military is to gradually and sustainably increase defense spending, rather than squander it recklessly.

Today's U.S. military is technologically more advanced than ever before, with professional soldiers serving an average of six years, during which they continuously improve their skills and master the operation of modern weapons. Over the past decade, as the challenge from competitors has become increasingly severe, successive secretaries of defense from Ash Carter to Jim Mattis have prioritized technological advancement, lethality, resilience, survivability, and sustainability over scale.

Certainly, a certain degree of growth on top of the current 1.3 million active-duty forces may be appropriate given today's global situation. However, most strategists emphasize that rather than pursuing the size of the force, efforts should be focused on strengthening ammunition reserves, missile defense systems, and attack submarines, as well as building more survivable command, control, and logistics networks.

The better guide for how to build national defense today is not conflicts from the 19th century, or even the world wars of the 20th century, but the defense buildup of the Reagan era. Just like today, this period also saw the United States facing serious geopolitical risks. Under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the Reagan administration increased its defense budget and spending by more than 50%—in fact, nearly 75%—in about six years. The annual real growth rate of military resources was approximately 8% to 10%. This is the scale that the U.S. defense system can effectively and efficiently absorb.

Given this, a commitment to moderately and sustainably increasing the defense budget in the coming years would benefit many improvements in defense planning. We can sign multi-year contracts with industry for all the "Patriot," "THAAD," and naval/standard missile defense interceptors needed.

We can purchase more anti-ship missiles to deal with various situations in the Taiwan Strait. We can prioritize the development of drones, not only for close combat on land, but also for maritime conflicts. By sending clear signals that the increase in defense budgets is not a one-time measure, the U.S. shipbuilding base can be significantly expanded. The procurement of long-range stealth aircraft and new long-range missiles can be increased, because if industry believes that budgets will continue to grow in the coming years, they will be more confident in expanding factory space and subcontractor supply chains.

Because the modern U.S. defense industry is different from that of World War II, when it could quickly shift from producing non-military products to military production, it needs more sustained, market-based multi-year information in order to plan and budget properly.

In terms of defense budgets, stable and predictable growth always beats fluctuating budgets. Mr. Trump, his Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Pentagon team should keep this in mind when formulating plans for the coming years. If they don't, Congress should remind them and redirect any one-time increases in defense spending proposals toward a more sustainable and strategically sound plan.

Source: The National Interest

Author: Michael O'Hanlon

Time: March 6, Washington time

Original: toutiao.com/article/1858941079194636/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.