Combat Power, Conflict Resolution, and US Economy

[AmericanPride]

Hi OTT,

I don't think 10000 aircraft in 1973 have greater combat capability than 4000 in 2009.

You are right, according to the DoD/NATO definition of combat power: "The total means of destructive and/or disruptive force which a military unit/formation can apply against the opponent at a given time." During a speech at Harvard University this month, General Dempsey stated:

What truly concerns me as chairman is that these lethal and destructive technologies are proliferating in two directions. They’re proliferating horizontally across advanced militaries in the world, and they’re proliferating vertically, down to nonstate actors, especially insurgents, terrorist groups and even transnational organized crime. As a result, more people have the ability to harm us or deny us the ability to act than at any point in my life [my note: Dempsey was born in 1952]. And that’s the security paradox.

His assessment about the proliferation of threats is shared by the intelligence community:

Although I believe that counter-terrorism, counterproliferation, cybersecurity, and counterintelligence are at the immediate forefront of our security concerns, it is virtually impossible to rank - in terms of long-term importance - the numerous, potential threats to US national security... Rather, it is the multiplicity and interconnectedness of potential threats 0 and the actors behind them- that constitute our biggest challenge.

Clapper's testimony continues with listing every conceivable threat to US national security, from Al-Qaeda and Afghan instability to China and Iran. Realism is the dominant frame of thinking US policy circles, and one of its core assumptions is that "relations between states are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities." In other words, power is relative; therefore, the absolute number of aircraft in the US inventory is not as important as how many aircraft we have relative to our adversaries (it is also important to note that studies indicate that operator efficiency is a better predictor of combat performance than technological advantage). As noted by both Dempsey and Martin, the amount of threats are proliferating.This will be examined later on when I look into US combat power and conflict resolution.

An problem underlying this trend is the congressional testimony I cited in the first post that identifies drastically slowing US procurement vis-a-vis military expenditures. In sum, military equipment is taking longer and more cash to develop and are procured in fewer numbers with higher maintenance cost per unit; in other words, inventories are shrinking and aging and this trend is not a function of decreased spending.

i thought there were way more sm 1991 than what's reflected I could be wrong

My numbers were from the Office of Personnel and Management's federal employment statistics, which says there were 2,040,000 uniformed military personnel in 1991.