CSBA "Third Offset" paper

Status
Not open for further replies.
Report doesn't capture quite a bit from the video on the same topic. At a point, the retired colonel who also hosts the debates even suggested use of tactical nukes instead of conventional munitions in a show of how desperate the gap is between the numbers required and capabilities available.
 
I suspect that this will be yet another dead end.
 

The report contains the hopeless requirement of winning a two-front war. That would be equivalent to asking the US to defeat the Soviet Union in Europe and stop China + North Korea from invading South Korea. The only way that would have been possible is canned sunshine.

However, it does raise the double issues of:
1. The US is utterly unprepared for a war that lasts longer that (I guess) 20 days. Note the Bloomberg article also raises the question of longer wars.
2. We've reached a point where the defense requirements are so overwhelming relative to the resources that some civilian leadership has to override the services and dictate investments and emphasis.

That civilian leadership has to be supported by Congress and the President and have enough authority to command the services and the Joint Chiefs. This, incidentally, is why the 'Raider' fund will fail. The services aren't being forced to play nice.
 
 
 
 

A professional Navy anyone?
 
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom