Not conjecture. Military capacity does not equal military capability - so while absolute US military capability increases with the introduction of every new weapon system (at least that's the assumption and I'll stick to that for now), it does not necessarily mean US military capacity is improving or even sustaining. By capacity, I mean the culminative capability to wage war effectively. The F-35 and F-22 programs are perfect examples. I discussed in this thread how US purchasing power for military capabilities is actually degrading US military capacity. From that thread in 2012:
The sequester has only intensified this problem because the cost per unit for weapon systems is increasing faster than the anticipated DoD budget, which means the absolute number of dollars (and therefore the purchaseable combat capacity) is decreasing. This has been partially offset by trimming personnel benefits but since operations and maintenance already consumes approximately 50% of the DoD budget and I think personnel takes about 10% in comparison (I'll have to double check), there's only so much that can be cut. And there's the added problem of increasing, not decreasing, security commitments.Originally Posted by AmericanPride
The other problem is that in recent history the US has not been able to effectively tie together political aims with military means - so while it's awesome to have a handful of high powered combat systems, we don't know how to employ them in a way to achieve our political ends. We can debate if this is a political problem or military one but since some weapon systems now take upwards of 40 years to develop and field, I lean towards our inability to properly forecast threats and to synchronize long-term strategy with military development.
Are the Russians better? Depends on the metrics. If we compare conflict outcomes between 1991 - 2014, the Russians have won 7 of 11 conflicts (63.6%) with 2 on-going, and only one defeat (First Chechen War). In the same time period, the US fought in 8 conflicts with 5 clear victories (62.5%), one on-going and at least won I would argue is a defeat (Iraq). The on-going conflicts for Russia are Caucaus insurgency and eastern Ukraine insurgency, while the US conflict is Afghanistan. We know how Afghanistan is going to end, so it appears that in the near future, Russia will keep the better track record in conflict outcomes.
And here's the last problem: one of perception of relative power. Sure, there's concern about China's rapidly growing military capabilities, which implies that US military capabilities are not increasing fast enough (and they're not). Russia is also on the ascendent, flushed with confidence in the stability and limited achievements of the Putin administration. Even if Russia is a mile away in absolute capabilities, that's less important than if their relative power or growth of that power is increasing compared to the US. A survey came out today that stated a record 60%+ of Americans feel the US is headed in the wrong direction. Perceptions matter. Relative power matters. And Russia's relative power is growing. That's a problem.
Bookmarks