Back to news

November 19, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

Why the U.S. could lose the next big war - and what that means for Canada

Murray Brewster · CBC News

It was more than the usual sky-is-falling rhetoric we're used to seeing in national security reports out of Washington.

It came from some pretty sober, respected voices in the defence community.

A special commission report, presented to the U.S. Congress this week, delivered one of the most stark — even startling — assessments in the last two decades of the limits of American military power.

The independent, nonpartisan review of the Trump administration's 2018 National Defence Strategy said the U.S. could lose future wars with Russia or China.

"This Commission believes that America has reached the point of a full-blown national security crisis," reads the 116-page document written by 12 leading defence and security experts and released Wednesday.

"If the United States had to fight Russia in a Baltic contingency, or China in a war over Taiwan, Americans could face a decisive military defeat."

Those are sobering words for Canada, in light of this country's contribution of over 450 troops to the NATO-led deterrence mission in Latvia.

Time for a defence policy rewrite?

And it has prompted a call from at least one Canadian defence expert for a re-assessment — perhaps even a full-blown rewrite — of the Liberal government's own defence policy.

More than simply another rote, boilerplate plea for fatter U.S. defence budgets, the commission's report lays out in precise detail the kind of geopolitical threats Washington — and, by extension, other Western capitals — are facing from rivals and enemies at many levels and in multiple spheres.

"The security and well-being of the United States are at greater risk than at any time in decades. America's military superiority — the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security — has eroded to a dangerous degree," says the report.

"America's ability to defend its allies, its partners, and its own vital interests is increasingly in doubt. If the nation does not act promptly to remedy these circumstances, the consequences will be grave and lasting."

The report acknowledges that the U.S. and its allies may be forced to fight a localized nuclear war in the future, given how Russia has restored the once-unthinkable concept to its military planning and training exercises.

The commission also paints various grim scenarios that could confront Western allies between now and 2022, including an invasion of the Baltics under the guise of a "peacekeeping" mission to protect Russian minorities:

"As U.S. and NATO forces prepare to respond, Russia declares that strikes against Russian forces in those states will be treated as attacks on Russia itself — implying a potential nuclear response.

"Meanwhile, to keep America off balance, Russia escalates in disruptive ways. Russian submarines attack transatlantic fibre optic cables. Russian hackers shut down power grids and compromise the security of U.S. banks."

The consequences, said the report, would be severe: "Major cities are paralyzed; use of the internet and smartphones is disrupted. Financial markets plummet as commerce seizes up and online financial transactions slow to a crawl. The banking system is thrown into chaos."

While the report doesn't mention U.S. President Donald Trump by name, it notes the effect of his bruising rhetorical fights with world leaders and criticism of international institutions, such as NATO.

"Doubts about America's ability to deter and, if necessary, defeat opponents and honour its global commitments have proliferated," said the report.

Cautious optimism

At this weekend's Halifax International Security Forum, Canada's marquee defence conference, some leading experts struck a less pessimistic note and suggested that the West still has a major technological lead on Moscow.

"Russia is a great country. It is a great country, historically. But Russia is also a failing country," said Peter Van Praagh, president of the Halifax Security Forum, at the opening of the event on Friday.

"Russia does not have the same advanced tools that NATO has, that Canada and NATO and the American alliance [have]."

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan also expressed cautious optimism about the threat.

"In NATO we're taking this extremely seriously. We're learning from the various missions that are ongoing," he said.

A former military adviser to one of Sajjan's predecessors said Canada could learn from the commission exercise, which was meant to challenge the Trump administration's defence plans.

"It's certainly something we don't have," said Richard Cohen, an ex-army officer who served as former defence minister Peter MacKay's adviser. "Our government would never dream of inviting anyone to come and criticize its defence policy."

The current government sought extensive input before the new Canadian policy was presented 18 months ago.

The U.S. commission report calls on NATO and its allies to "rebuild" substantial military forces in Europe, among things.

Cohen said that, if anything, should trigger a fresh look at the Liberal government's own defence policy.

"Our defence policy is predicated on the kind of asymmetric warfare we have faced since the end of the Cold War and it really ignores the looming strategic threats that Russia, China and maybe some others pose as well," he said.

"At least the United States realizes this growing strategic threat," Cohen added, noting that the current Liberal defence policy makes only passing mention of China "in very gentle terms" and limited references to Russia.

"If the United States is in a national security crisis, then we're in a national security crisis."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-policy-trump-china-russia-1.4910038

On the same subject

  • DOD budget pushing house cleaning pivot to leading-edge technologies: out with the old and in with the new

    February 21, 2020 | International, C4ISR, Security

    DOD budget pushing house cleaning pivot to leading-edge technologies: out with the old and in with the new

    Budget has $9.8 billion for cyber security and cyber warfare; $3.2 billion for hypersonics; and $800 million for artificial intelligence (AI) research. THE MIL & AERO COMMENTARY – The 2021 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) budget proposal is out, and it looks like several years of consistent growth driven by the Trump Administration may be leveling off. A closer look, however, may indicate a pivot to new leading-edge technologies and away from legacy systems. DOD leaders in their fiscal 2021 budget request to Congress, which was released last month, are asking for $705.4 billion, which is down about 1 percent from this year's level of $712.6 billion. Before you conclude that the Pentagon budget has turned flat, however, take a look at where the money's going. First, the bad news: procurement. This is where big-ticket items like aircraft, combat vehicles, and ships get funding. The DOD's procurement budget request for 2021 is $136.9 billion, down nearly 7 percent from this year's level of $147.1 billion. Contained in the DOD budget for procurement, moreover, are aggressive cuts to legacy weapons systems. The U.S. Air Force, for example, will retire 24 RQ-4 Block 20 and Block 30 Global Hawk Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and Block 30 multi-intelligence aircraft UAVs next year. Related: Army researchers eye fuel cells to provide power for infantry wearable electronics on the leading edge The U.S. Navy, meanwhile, will retire four Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers. The U.S. Army plans to eliminate 13 programs involving munitions, fires, protection, sustainment, mobility, mission command, and cyber programs that no longer are priorities. Additional cuts are expected. Next year the Navy plans no additional purchases of P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft; the MQ-4 Triton long-range maritime patrol UAV; or the MQ-25 Stingray UAV. The counterweight to these procurement cuts, however, is in the DOD's budget for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). As procurement spending is going down, the research budget is headed in the other direction. The Pentagon is asking for $106.6 billion, which is up about 1 percent from this year's research budget of $106.6 billion. Revealing is money is going. The DOD next year plans to spend $9.8 billion for cyber security and cyber warfare -- up 81 percent from $5.4 billion this year; $3.2 billion for hypersonics; $1.5 billion for military microelectronics and 5G networking; and $800 million for artificial intelligence (AI) research. Related: The new era of high-power electromagnetic weapons The Pentagon hypersonics budget will pay for research and development initiatives to develop the Army Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon; Navy Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS); and Air Force Advanced Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW). Research money also would include $1.1 billion for the Navy's next-generation frigate; $4.4 billion for the future Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine; and $464 million for two Large Unmanned Surface Vessels. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is asking for $3.6 billion in 2021, a 3 percent increase from the $3.5 billion the agency received this year. DARPA has asked for $322.7 million for electronics research in 2021 -- a 1.7 increase from the 317.2 million the agency received this year. For sensors research, DARPA is asking for $200.2 million in 2021 -- a 26 percent increase over the $158.9 million the agency received this year. Related: Military researchers host industry day briefings for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning So, in short, it sounds like out with the old, and in with the new at the Pentagon. Four Navy cruisers that are at least 30 years ago are heading for retirement. Large, slow, and vulnerable Global Hawk UAVs are to be taken out of service, and Army programs no longer relevant amid today's global threats will be taken off the board. At the same time, enabling technologies considered crucial for today's military needs are on the upswing: hypersonic munitions and aircraft, cyber security and cyber warfare, 5G networking, and artificial intelligence. Perhaps the DOD has been due for a house cleaning like this for a while. Getting rid of obsolescent weapons systems makes sense because they're past the point of diminishing returns. Pumping more money into technologies for tomorrow's battlefield makes sense, too. These kinds of realignments are painful, yet essential. https://www.militaryaerospace.com/defense-executive/article/14168362/dod-budget-leadingedge-technologies-research

  • US Army working through challenges with laser weapons

    August 12, 2023 | International, Aerospace, Land, C4ISR, Security

    US Army working through challenges with laser weapons

    The Army is grappling with how to fight with laser weapons, as well as how to easily repair them in the field and affordably make the systems.

  • ‘No lines on the battlefield’: Pentagon’s new war-fighting concept takes shape

    August 17, 2020 | International, Land, C4ISR

    ‘No lines on the battlefield’: Pentagon’s new war-fighting concept takes shape

    By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — For most of this year, Pentagon planners have been developing a new joint war-fighting concept, a document meant to guide how the Defense Department fights in the coming decades. Now, with an end-of-year deadline fast approaching, two top department officials believe the concept is coalescing around a key idea — one that requires tossing decades of traditional thinking out the window. “What I've noticed is that, as opposed to everything I've done my entire career, the biggest difference is that in the future there will be no lines on the battlefield,” Gen. John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during an Aug. 12 event hosted by the Hudson Institute. The current structure, Hyten said, is all about dividing areas of operations. “Wherever we go, if we have to fight, we established the forward edge of the battle area, we've established the fire support coordination line, the forward line of troops, and we say: ‘OK, Army can operate here. Air Force can operate here,' ” Hyten explained. “Everything is about lines” now, he added. But to function in modern contested environments, “those lines are eliminated.” What does that mean in practice? Effectively, Hyten — who will be a keynote speaker at September's Defense News Conference — laid out a vision in which every force can both defend itself and have a deep-strike capability to hold an enemy at bay, built around a unified command-and-control system. “A naval force can defend itself or strike deep. An air force can defend itself or strike deep. The Marines can defend itself or strike deep,” he said. “Everybody.” That “everybody” includes international partners, Hyten added, as the U.S. operates so often in a coalition framework that this plan only works if it can integrate others. And for the entire structure to succeed, the Pentagon needs to create the Joint All-Domain Command and Control capability currently under development. “So that's the path we've been going down for a while. And it's starting to actually mature and come to fruition now,” Hyten said. The day before Hyten's appearance, Victorino Mercado, assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans and capabilities, talked with a small group of reporters, during which he noted: “We had disparate services [with] their concepts of fighting. We never really had a manner to pull all the services together to fight as a coherent unit.” Mercado also said the war-fighting concept will directly “drive some of our investments” in the future and tie together a number of ongoing efforts within the department — including the individual combatant command reviews and the Navy's shipbuilding plan. “I can tell you there's some critical components [from those reviews] — how you command and control the forces, how you do logistics; there are some common themes in there in a joint war-fighting concept,” he said. “I can tell you if we had that concept right now, we could use that concept right now to influence the ships that we are building, the amount of ships that we need, what we want the [combatant commands] to do. “So this war-fighting concept is filling a gap. I wish we had it now. Leadership wishes we had it now,” he added. “It would inform all of the decisions that we make today because now is about positioning ourselves in the future for success.” Like Hyten, Mercado expressed confidence that the concept will be ready to go by the end of the year, a deadline set by Defense Secretary Mark Esper. But asked whether the department will make details of the concept public when it is finished, Mercado said there is a “tension” between informing the public and key stakeholders and not giving an edge to Russia and China. “I think there is an aspect that we need to share of this joint war-fighting concept,” he said. “We have to preserve the classified nature of it. And I think I have to be careful what I say here, to a degree.” https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/08/14/no-lines-on-the-battlefield-the-pentagons-new-warfighting-concept-takes-shape/

All news