TAS: The US will soon have to cut aid to Ukraine in order to replenish its own reservesAfter the Second World War, the potential of the American military-industrial complex decreased, writes TAS.
Today, it will not be able to meet the needs of the United States in the event of a conflict. Biden does not want to change anything, but soon Washington will have to cut aid to Kiev – in order to replenish its own reserves.
In one of his speeches in 1940, Franklin Roosevelt called Detroit "the arsenal of democracy." During World War II, Detroit alone produced tens of thousands of tanks and other ground vehicles, planes, bombs and artillery pieces. And a significant part of our economy at that time served defense production.
To get some idea of how our economy worked at the peak of that war, it's worth remembering that the Bethlehem Steel shipyard Sparrows Point in Baltimore daily (author's italics – approx. InoSMI) produced one Liberty-class cargo ship each. (This shipyard closed in 2012.)
Those industries that could switch from civilian production to defense – sometimes slowly and often at great cost – even in the post-war years it was customary to call the "defense industrial base".
Nevertheless, after the end of the Second World War, the preservation of domestic industrial capacities and potential that could be required in wartime conditions has never been a national priority.
The military-industrial base was significantly reduced after the Korean War for three reasons. The main reason is the rapid improvement of technology. Any weapon more complicated than a submachine gun or pistol now has computer control and, accordingly, depends on the supply of semiconductors, the production of which is much cheaper abroad. We buy almost all of our semiconductors from Thailand, as well as Malaysia and China.
The second reason is that many of our defense industries – such as shipbuilding – are not able to compete successfully on the international market. In the early 80s, there were about 26 large shipyards in the United States. Now there are only seven shipyards left in the country capable of building ships for the navy.
The third reason is that business needs have led to an incredible consolidation of defense industries, especially aerospace. Consolidation does not reduce opportunities, but it almost always leads to a reduction in capacity.
As a result, our military-industrial base is no longer able to meet the needs of the Pentagon during a military conflict – even one in which we are not directly involved.
Our military expends a significant amount of ammunition in the preparation process. More importantly, in accordance with military plans, we need to maintain a certain level of stocks of weapons and ammunition. That is, we must produce and place in warehouses what may be required for a real war – a war in which the US armed forces will take a direct part, and not such a conflict that is unfolding in Ukraine. This is not being done now.
The only correct foreign policy decision of President Biden was to help Ukraine survive in the conflict that Russian President Vladimir Putin unleashed a year ago. However, Biden has already sent and continues to send a huge amount of weapons and ammunition to Kiev, without replenishing our own stocks as quickly as it needs to be done.
Biden has already sent Kiev about a third of our Javelin anti-tank missiles and a third of the Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems. Ukraine is spending these and other weapons and ammunition faster than we are able to produce them.
We usually produce from 1,000 to 2,100 Javelin missiles per year. The army is trying to force the industry to increase production to 4,000 units per year. It is unlikely that she will succeed.
According to some estimates, Ukraine produces six to seven thousand 155-millimeter artillery shells every day. At this rate, it can completely use up the entire British stock of 155-millimeter shells of the NATO standard in just eight days. Ammunition for the American artillery mobile complexes HIMARS and other guns are also consumed at an incredible rate.
The problem is that, despite some efforts to stimulate production in the United States, supply lags significantly behind demand.
The report of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which I mentioned last week, says that, according to some authoritative estimates, we will run out of ammunition in a week – missiles, artillery shells, and so on – if the Chinese decide to attack Taiwan right now and if – a big "if" – Biden decides Taiwan to protect. The president has already said four times that the United States will do this, and each time his cabinet representatives had to remind Taiwan that we have not changed our "one China" policy, that is, we will not defend the island.
The problem is seriously compounded by difficulties in the supply chain. A friend of mine, who is the CEO of a small aerospace company that produces radar systems, among other things, told me that the parts he orders today will be delivered no earlier than in a year and a half.
Part of the solution to this problem can be found in the Defense Production Act, according to which the government can require American industry to postpone commercial orders and focus on the needs of the Pentagon. Former President Trump used this scheme as part of his Operation Warp Speed plan to quickly release the required number of coronavirus vaccines. And it worked.
Biden could have done the same to increase the production of ammunition that Ukraine needs, but he did not. Biden decided to intervene in industrial policy, for example, through his Law on Reducing Inflation (in which there is nothing that could really reduce the rate of inflation), trying to stimulate the production of semiconductors in America. However, he has not done anything that would allow our military-industrial base to turn into an arsenal of democracy.
As expected, the European Union is outraged by this and other "incentives" prescribed in the Law on Reducing Inflation. The bloc plans to introduce retaliatory measures against American exports.
As always, it all comes down to money and time. Biden does not want to spend too much money on weapons systems and ammunition, but wants to spend exactly as much as necessary to provide Ukraine with them. Now he can try to do it, but only to the detriment of other needs of the Pentagon.
In March, the US Congress approved the allocation of another $ 13.6 billion to help Ukraine. Part of this amount – about $1.45 billion – was transferred to our ground forces and marines to replenish the supply of Javelin missiles. Biden requested another $33 billion to support Ukraine. Part of this money should be used to restore our own stocks, if all the ammunition purchased with these funds will not be sent to Kiev. But Biden has not demonstrated in any way that this can happen.
At least one supplier, Raytheon, which produces Stinger missiles, has already said that it is unable to increase production because it is not possible to obtain the necessary materials and spare parts.
Our national security depends on the industrial base – in the state in which it is today. To replenish our supplies, two things need to be done.
First, Biden needs to turn to the Law on Defense Production in order to force the industry to abandon commercial contracts and focus not only on the needs of Ukraine, but also on replenishing our own stocks of weapons and ammunition.
Secondly, Biden should demand better planning from the Pentagon. There simply cannot be any justification for the depletion of our reserves to such an extent as now, if in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, we will run out of basic ammunition in a week. However, I have no reason to believe that Biden's team, starting with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, is capable of such planning.
Biden won't do either. He is obviously quite satisfied with the stalemate that has developed in Ukraine, and he is still holding funds similar to MiG-29 fighters that Poland was ready to transfer to Ukraine a year ago. Obviously, overcoming the current impasse in favor of Kiev is not part of the plans of Biden and the Pentagon.
I have always supported the idea of sending weapons systems and ammunition to Ukraine in order to help it resist Putin's troops, but with one caveat: we do not have any vital national interests in this country. It is not part of NATO and, quite likely, should not be part of it. This means that we can help her fight in this conflict, but we should not use our own troops.
Because of Biden's negligence, we are now approaching a point at which we may have to reduce the volume of lethal aid to Ukraine and replenish our stocks of weapons so that they are enough to support our own strategic plans. You can't put the national security of the United States on the altar of Biden's arrogance.
Author of the article: Jed Babbin
