There is so much to unpack here, but it is worth doing so since humans have a hard time avoiding conflict. But having sufficient manufacturing capacity is one of the things that stand out the most. That, along with creative solutions that use AI and new technology, like laser defenses against drone swarms. While playing catch-up, the US certainly has the capability to remain the world's one great superpower, but a serious commitment is needed, particularly in resupply of all kinds of ammunition, to keep that true. These charts also expose Europe's weakness, which uses its disdain for President Trump as an excuse not to modernize its military forces or the organization of its own defense. They have neither the will, the means, nor the capability to defend themselves in the face of inevitable Russian aggression in the East.
Have often wondered of the Faustian bargain of enabling China’s industrial rise these past 4-5 decades.
On the one hand, trading partners don’t usually wage war on each other. That was the theory. China’s inevitable rise would be blunted because…you don’t bomb your customers.
On the other hand, we surrendered our industrial base and shifted to services - assuring our demise if the theory wasn’t right.
On balance - was enabling China’s economic rise good or bad for world security these past decades? Did we avert nuclear disaster by integrating them and encouraging them to act responsibly? North Korea shows how China MIGHT have become (but with exponentially greater resources) had we suppressed their “peaceful rise”.
Did we make the right decision / now that we’re confronted with this near hegemon? Wasn’t this moment ALWAYS part of that post Cold War calculation by the Clinton-Bush-Blair west?
Overall, a very good piece that highlights a lot of changes.
A few thoughts:
1) I'd say "Batteries" for the graphic (like you said in the paragraph) instead of "Electricity". Oil and nuclear also produce electricity. It's the small battery that things like drones possible.
2) I think the asymmetry on weapons is only temporary. We're going through a transition from reusable & expensive platforms to cheap, disposable weapons systems. It will take time but it's happening. Also, everyone is building or using cheaper systems to shoot down inexpensive drones.
3) The advantage on the offense that is mentioned I believe only applies to deep strikes against infrastructure like we're seeing in the Middle East and Ukraine. In the tactical arena, drones have favored the defense. They've made it impossible to carry out large maneuvers on the battlefield in Ukraine. Drones have made it essentially like WW1 trench warfare because if you're exposed, a drone will find you and kill you. That's why there is a stalemate in Ukraine.
Overall, great piece, like all your pieces. Just wanted to share a few thoughts.
Puts Trump's preoccupation with manufacturing into perspective and casts doubts on the wisdom of those who dismissed the loss of "antiquated, low-paying jobs" to other countries...
Mr Mehlman- Thank you for this easily comprehended picture explanation. Some other “substacker” suggested your site to me and I look forward to it every week.
There is so much to unpack here, but it is worth doing so since humans have a hard time avoiding conflict. But having sufficient manufacturing capacity is one of the things that stand out the most. That, along with creative solutions that use AI and new technology, like laser defenses against drone swarms. While playing catch-up, the US certainly has the capability to remain the world's one great superpower, but a serious commitment is needed, particularly in resupply of all kinds of ammunition, to keep that true. These charts also expose Europe's weakness, which uses its disdain for President Trump as an excuse not to modernize its military forces or the organization of its own defense. They have neither the will, the means, nor the capability to defend themselves in the face of inevitable Russian aggression in the East.
Great interview and very much enjoy the weekly content.
Please keep up the great work.
Now, time to add Chokepoints to my shopping cart.
Thanks Bruce.
Have often wondered of the Faustian bargain of enabling China’s industrial rise these past 4-5 decades.
On the one hand, trading partners don’t usually wage war on each other. That was the theory. China’s inevitable rise would be blunted because…you don’t bomb your customers.
On the other hand, we surrendered our industrial base and shifted to services - assuring our demise if the theory wasn’t right.
On balance - was enabling China’s economic rise good or bad for world security these past decades? Did we avert nuclear disaster by integrating them and encouraging them to act responsibly? North Korea shows how China MIGHT have become (but with exponentially greater resources) had we suppressed their “peaceful rise”.
Did we make the right decision / now that we’re confronted with this near hegemon? Wasn’t this moment ALWAYS part of that post Cold War calculation by the Clinton-Bush-Blair west?
Overall, a very good piece that highlights a lot of changes.
A few thoughts:
1) I'd say "Batteries" for the graphic (like you said in the paragraph) instead of "Electricity". Oil and nuclear also produce electricity. It's the small battery that things like drones possible.
2) I think the asymmetry on weapons is only temporary. We're going through a transition from reusable & expensive platforms to cheap, disposable weapons systems. It will take time but it's happening. Also, everyone is building or using cheaper systems to shoot down inexpensive drones.
3) The advantage on the offense that is mentioned I believe only applies to deep strikes against infrastructure like we're seeing in the Middle East and Ukraine. In the tactical arena, drones have favored the defense. They've made it impossible to carry out large maneuvers on the battlefield in Ukraine. Drones have made it essentially like WW1 trench warfare because if you're exposed, a drone will find you and kill you. That's why there is a stalemate in Ukraine.
Overall, great piece, like all your pieces. Just wanted to share a few thoughts.
Puts Trump's preoccupation with manufacturing into perspective and casts doubts on the wisdom of those who dismissed the loss of "antiquated, low-paying jobs" to other countries...
Mr Mehlman- Thank you for this easily comprehended picture explanation. Some other “substacker” suggested your site to me and I look forward to it every week.
Larry Carpenter
Little Rock AR