“US would likely run out of some
munitions such as long-range, precision-guided munitions in less than
one week in a Taiwan Strait conflict. War in Ukraine has also exposed
serious deficiencies in the US defense industrial base.”
With
this introduction the report ‘Empty
bins in a wartime environment; the Challenge to the U.S. Defense
Industrial Base’ by Seth G. Jones of the CSIS think tank on
military affairs was launched. It added to the strong language here
and there
on the need for a
stronger defence industry. In clear wording it formulates the
demands by the Military Industrial Scientific Complex (MISC) for more
support both organisational and resource wise, although the gigantic
US military budget is already larger than China, EU and big spenders
Saudi Arabia and India combined*.
Two major wars
While supporting a major war on the
European continent, the US (and NATO) looks also towards
China, which threatens Taiwan** as well as Washington’s global
economic domination, and in the longer run might endanger the USA’s
geopolitical position. In the CSIS report it is pointed out that the
current war in Ukraine is also fought to show China that aggression
comes with “costs and risks”. Echoing a policy of
the past, the report states that the US must be able to fight at
least one major war, better two. You get the impression the report is
inspired by the Churchillian adagium ‘Never waste a good crisis’.
The Ukraine crisis is used to increase arms production and break down
arms controls.
Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars US
military budget the CSIS report points at shortages of several types
of projectiles, like 155mm grenades. Ukraine uses thousands of 155mm
grenades every day. Washington has send
the country already one million of this ammunition and has
increased its production with 625% from 14,400 to 90,000 shells a
month. Recently
France and Australia announced to create a common 155mm shells
production line especially for Ukraine.
Offensive
strategy towards China
A war in the Pacific might be even more
demanding than the Ukraine war, because of geographical differences
between the Ukraine and Taiwan. While Ukraine shares an open border
with Western Europe, Taiwan is an island and hard to supply. The US
would run out of long-range precision-guided munitions in a week when
in military operation against China in support of Taiwan. Part of the
military efforts in the Pacific is major industrial power Japan,
which
is
strengthening its domestic defence industry
and
arms
export
market. In case of a war in the Pacific the US (and Japan) would
focus on a strategy to overcome
the
Chinese
defence, a strategy called A2/AD (anti-access/areal denial) which
would enable them to fight on Chinese territory. The high cost this
would bring for Beijing should then destabilize CCP rule. It is an
offensive strategy as well as an expensive one, defence is less
demanding than the employment of offensive military technology,
weapons and troops. With such a policy the demand on the defence
budget will have no limits.
Long term fixed arms contracts
The industry wants guarantees for
steady government investments to keep business healthy. That means
long term, fixed contracts, building stockpiles, and less red tape.
Export regimes such as Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) and International
Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) must be more nimble (as if the
industry has anything to complain; US arms exports soared
49.1 % to nearly $205.6 billion in 2022). According to the
military industry, the emergency wartime situation must be used to
streamline production, acquisitions, replenishment and other policies
and procedures, including structural change for the years or even
decades to come. Well informed observant William Hartung noted
recently: “inflating the size of the defence-industrial
base in anticipation of a future conflict with China would lead to a
permanent expansion, since, for example, local politicians will argue
to protect the jobs at new weapons factories.” Author Miriam
Pemberton in her recent book ‘Six Stops on the National Security
Tour; rethinking warfare economics’ shows how hard it is to bent
the military industrial complex back to normal once it is at wartime
high.
Back to Europe
Europe is not the US. But rising
military budgets are not limited to Washington alone. The Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) recently published
a report on how to pay for increased military expenditure. The
report gives three possibilities: tax, loans or revenue from the sale
of natural resources, eventually all at the cost of civil
expenditure. European military industries are putting pressure on the
financial sector to include military industries into sustainable
investment funds. Europe is also creating new production lines
such as German
Rheinmetall’s new plant in Hungary. Restructuring and
militarisation takes place on national and European
level. Arms export policies, hard-won over half a century, are
under
pressure even in Germany. In the Netherlands the arms industry
lobby organisation NIDV
aims to increase the export share of Dutch arms production (at
present 55%) with an appeal on the present security climate. But if
we create a war industry, how do we get rid of it when the war is
over?
The sooner the Ukraine war will end the better.
Diplomatic steps are a better road to peace that expanding the arms
industry. It is too easy to give in to the demands of the military
industrial complex. As UN
boss Guterres said: “I fear the world is not sleepwalking
into a wider war. I fear it is doing so with its eyes wide open. But
the world needs peace and peace in line with the United Nations
Charter and international law. We must work harder for peace
everywhere.”
Written for Stop Wapenhandel
Notes:
* Often Russia
is added to this comparison, but at present it is unclear how much
the Russian military budget has grown for the war in Ukraine.
Moscow’s military budget may
have doubled.
** US Air Mobility Command chief General Mike
Minihan stated that he foresees
a US-China war in 2025. Minihan’s words were reported for days
on the internet. When asked for a an appreciation by Defense News of
this time frame it was downplayed
by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Colin Kahl.
