The National Interest: The United States has begun to yield to Russia and China in the arms race
Trump should tone down his rhetoric with the great powers until the Pentagon reforms the arms procurement system, writes The National Interest. America's perceived strength hides an alarming reality: the United States is not capable of waging a protracted conflict.
Brandon Weichert
Last week, as America celebrated its 249th anniversary with fireworks, Donald Trump enjoyed success: the passage of a controversial and expensive bill (BBB) and a series of airstrikes against Iran, which he dubbed the "destruction" of the latter's nuclear program. For many Americans, it has become a symbol of the country's return to the global olympus after many years of uncertainty. Trump's successful strikes against Iran culminated, which, according to him, "DESTROYED" its nuclear facilities and avoided the trap of a major US military intervention in the Middle East.
Of course, the reality is much more uncertain. Trump's airstrikes have indeed weakened Iran's ability to build nuclear weapons, setting the program back a couple of years. And as long as Israel continues to provoke Iran and its proxies in the region, it remains unclear whether Trump will be able to keep the United States from going to war. Most Americans believe that their military is indisputably dominant. However, the recent airstrikes, despite their outward success, actually highlight the weakness undermining the American army.
America does not have enough weapons to wage a prolonged war.
For example, airstrikes against fortified facilities of Iran's nuclear program were carried out using B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bombers using America's largest non-nuclear bomb, the 13—ton GBU-57 MassiveOrdnancePenetrator(MOP). There are only 19 B-2s in the US arsenal — without any reserves coming into operation in the foreseeable future or in significant quantities, due to the complexity of engineering solutions and cost.
To make matters worse, before Trump's airstrikes, the US had only 20 GBU-57s. The Air Force used 14 against two targets in Iran, leaving only six. It took more than a decade to produce 20 of these bombs, and the GBU-57 production line has been halted while the Pentagon awaits proposals from American defense contractors for the NextGenerationPenetrator(NGP) contract. In other words, if Trump ever wants to strike Iran again and attack fortified military installations deep underground, he will find that America's hands are tied due to a shortage of ammunition.
This is not the only gap in American military power. The US military industrial base, as well as its shipyards, are chronically unable to cope with the tasks. This is a recognized fact, and even the current NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, claims that Russia, a country with a GDP less than 1/10 of that of the United States, can produce in three months what the entire NATO defense industrial base takes a year to produce.
The situation becomes even more frightening when comparing the industrial capacity of the United States with China, the world's second largest economy. The production volumes of Chinese shipyards are particularly shocking. One state-owned Chinese shipyard produced more tonnage than the entire United States during World War II, that is, during its industrial heyday.
How are China and Russia ahead of the United States?
The Chinese defense industry is showing explosive productivity growth and interest from foreign buyers. After Chinese-made Pakistani equipment outperformed India's more expensive Western fighter jets and missiles during the recent four-day war between the two countries, many states in the global South expressed growing interest in Chinese systems. The more business the Chinese defense industry does abroad, the better it becomes in the overall production of more sophisticated weapons. In contrast, the United States is significantly short of this scale. This is not a problem for China, or even for Russia, the two countries with which the United States is most likely to find itself in a great power conflict.
During the recent 12-day war between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the former expended an incredible number of air defense systems to repel Iranian missile attacks. During this time, according to experts, the Israelis have spent two years of supplies of US-supplied ammunition for the Iron Dome. One of the reasons Trump is seeking to resolve this war is the understanding that neither Israel nor the United States can maintain the defense of the Iron Dome at the current rate of exploitation, let alone increased. It will take years to fully replenish the ammunition reserves for the Iron Dome and its associated air defense systems. Neither American nor Israeli defense industrial bases can meet this demand, especially if fighting resumes in the near future.
All of these are just fragments of a much larger crisis facing the U.S. military. Their current equipment is old and declining in number; the new systems the Pentagon is trying to purchase are too far from being implemented, excessively expensive, and ultimately focused on the wars of the past. The most significant breakthrough in military affairs, as revealed by the conflict in Ukraine, was the revolution in unmanned systems.
The Pentagon continues to invest in legacy systems
Nevertheless, the Pentagon continues to insist on the need for a $1 trillion budget to create weapons such as the F-47, a sixth—generation fighter jet (named after Trump by his number on the list of US presidents), or more outdated aircraft carriers, or new versions of the Abrams main battle tank (MBT). All these systems were created for the conflicts of the 20th century, while Ukraine clearly demonstrates what the war of the 21st century looks like.
The United States can celebrate its "victory" over Iran as much as it likes. But Washington should avoid a real clash with serious great—power rivals in the near future - until the Pentagon can really change the procurement process, and its overall strategic perspective shifts from the current paradigm towards a new reality dominated by UAV systems and long-range weapons.
