'Eroded' U.S. Military Could Lose War Against Russia Or China

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
43,490
29,931
Toronto
#1
The United States military has “lost its edge” and could potentially lose a war against Russia or China, a report by a bipartisan panel established by Congress says.

The report by the National Defense Strategy Commission on November 14 said U.S. military superiority has “eroded to a dangerous degree” and could suffer unacceptably high casualties and loss of major capital assets in its next conflict.”

“It might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia,” it said, adding that new threats were also being realized as Iran and North Korea bolster their capabilities.

The commission was established by Congress in 2017 to evaluate the National Defense Strategy of the U.S. administration of President Donald Trump. It consists of 12 former top Republican and Democratic officials.

Congressional reports and other studies often warn of difficulties and deficiencies faced by the U.S. military, but the latest report could raise concerns in Washington given its bipartisan nature and dire conclusions.

Trump has ordered a major revamp to the U.S. military and has proposed billions of dollars in additional funds to aid an expansion that he says is designed to compete with Russia and China.

The commission said it agreed with the aims of the strategy, but it warned that Washington was not investing or moving quickly enough to put the policy into effect, which could lead to a national emergency.

“The United States is particularly at risk of being overwhelmed should its military be forced to fight on two or more fronts simultaneously,” the report said.

It warned that as U.S. policy was lagging, “authoritarian competitors, especially China and Russia," were attempting to press their influence in their regions and developing the resources to project military power globally."

It said threats posed by Iran and North Korea are intensifying as they develop "more advanced weapons and creatively employ asymmetric tactics.”

The report warned that a sense of “complacency” is undermining efforts to maintain the U.S. military’s long-held dominant position in the world.

“People have become so used to the United States achieving what it wants in the world, to include militarily, that it isn’t heeding the warning signs,” said Kathleen H. Hicks, one of the commissioners.

“It’s the flashing red that we are trying to relay,” added Hicks, a former top Pentagon official during the administration of President Barack Obama.

The panel said that despite an annual budget of some $716 billion -- at least 10 times that of Russia and four times the size of China’s -- U.S. defense development is under-resourced considering today’s threats.

The commission provided a list of 32 recommendations and called on the Pentagon to clearly set out how it intends to defeat a major power in war.

Among the conclusions, it urged the Navy to expand its submarine fleet and sealift forces to compete with Russia and China.

It said the Air Force should introduce more stealth long-range fighters and bombers. It said the Army should add more armor, long-range precision missiles, and air-defense and logistical forces.

The report also called for the United States to become more competitive in cyberspace, where portions of the next war could be fought.
'Eroded' U.S. Military Could Lose War Against Russia Or China, Report Finds

Weird... US spends what, like three times as much of its military as Russia and China combined. And still, they are now matching you guys...?

Probably part of it is the lower wages in both those countries. They are able to get more stuff produced cheaper than in America, because of that ;)

The result is that China now has MORE warships and subs, overall, than the US: With Ships and Missiles, China Is Ready to Challenge U.S. Navy in Pacific

And Russia is actually building warships FASTER than the US too, albeit smaller ones: Vladimir Putin’s Fast-Growing Navy is Meant to Fight his Kind of War, Not Washington’s

The Russians have been expanding and modernizing their submarine fleet, including ICBM "boomers", the new "Borei" class


And, they are also starting preliminary work on a new aircraft carrier too:


Russia Kicks Off Work on Engine for Nuclear-Powered Supercarrier

I am not sure whether or not that one will be completed, it is very expensive (most expensive thing they ever built over there, frankly) and highly controversial, if for no other reason than that many, including noted Admirals, don't even see why Russia NEEDS a carrier anyway...

It's not really a part of their Naval warfare strategy, certainly with regards to a confrontation with the US/NATO. Unlike the US Navy, they do not intend to fight far away from their own shores. Rather, they will be defending their own territorial waters, basically. They have plenty of land-based airfields perfectly sufficient for that.

As I remember reading one Admiral over there say in an interview: "We already have an unsinkable aircraft carrier on the shores of Europe, which we took back in 2014. It is called Crimea."


They have lots of advanced air superiority fighters there

including Su-35

It is defended with all sorts shore-based anti-aircraft and anti-ship missile complexes

including batteries of S400s


It also now hosts a base of the new Varshavyanka (improved Kilo) attack subs

armed with torpedoes

and Kalibr cruise missiles, Russia's answer to Tomahawk, which they been using extensively on Syria in recent times

Crimea also has the new Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates, which also carry Kalibrs



There are other might vessels there too, including the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, RFS "Moscow"

It is referred to as a "carrier killer", because it is armed with special powerful missiles designed back in the Cold War specifically to take out American aircraft carriers... Russia has several of these ships, in Black, Northern, and Pacific Fleets.

Their other "carrier", on the Baltic Sea, is, of course, Kaliningrad


That one now hosts, among other things, "Iskander" tactical missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads

Russia deploys Iskander nuclear-capable missiles to Kaliningrad: RIA | Reuters

Ukraine claims that Russia now has the Iskanders in Crimea also: Russia amasses 32,000 troops, Iskander and S400 systems in Crimea – Ukraine

I remember a show on BBC, I believe, in recent years, hypothesizing about WWIII, where they showed Russian forces defending Kaliningrad blowing away a US carrier with one nuclear armed Iskander...

Russia also has combat jets in Belarus

as well:
Russia Deploys First Fighter Jets to Belarus

Belarus' own military would likely also back Russia in any conflict. They are not that big, but not to be underestimated, they could inflict some damage of their own on small neighboring countries, like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia.

Anyway, that's just a brief coverage by me of their capabilities on the Western front. Or Eastern, from our point of view, I suppose lol

The Pacific would be more complicated. They'd be working with the Chinese there. Probably with North Korea also.

In any case, again, their plan for any confrontation with the West is more or less purely defensive. Because that is the only scenario where they can hold their own. Their offensive capabilities are much lower than NATO's. Defensive ones, especially anti-aircraft and anti-missile, are in some ways even more powerful than ours...

Russia and China are both developing ways also to destroy US military satellites in orbit: Russia and China are testing missiles that could blast U.S. satellites out of space

Obviously, one hopes this shit would never actually go down... But, yeah, interesting to research and kinda scary to know about...
 
Jul 2014
33,788
8,739
midwest
#2
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets...

The US military "could" lose war against Russia or China.

And, pigs "could" fly...

It "could" be warm outside today...but I doubt it.

My neighbor "could" win the lottery this week.

All that seems unlikely.
 
Last edited:

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
43,490
29,931
Toronto
#3
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets...

The US military "could" lose war against Russia or China.

And, pigs "could" fly...

It "could" be warm outside today...but I doubt it.

My neighbor "could" win the lottery this week.

All that seems unlikely.
My opinion is, nobody actually "wins" in a nuclear war, period



You Americans are too arrogant about this stuff. So used to fighting some impoverished Arabs who don't have the technology to defend themselves against your missiles and drones, you now underestimate all your other potential opponents. And, as someone who has studied martial arts, that, my friend, is a very dangerous mistake :)
 

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
31,279
17,858
SoCal
#5
I think the key words are unacceptable losses. With or without nuclear weapons, the MAD principle stands. Win or lose, does anyone want to incur the losses that a serious fight against the US all but guarantees?

I think the dangerous thing are the drawn out skirmishes... because they don't seem too expensive by themselves, but as they drag on, the costs pile up both monetary and blood.
 
Aug 2018
1,400
2,224
Vancouver
#7
Well the difference for 70+ years has been the dozens and dozens of other free countries that would fight to the death for a free country vs a totalitarian regime.

So the US would NOT lose a war to Putin or Xi because it would never be fighting that war alone.

That’s the way it has been for all of our lives. And probably still is.

Probably.

But that is a privilege. Not a right.
 
Likes: The Man

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
43,490
29,931
Toronto
#8
Well the difference for 70+ years has been the dozens and dozens of other free countries that would fight to the death for a free country vs a totalitarian regime.

So the US would NOT lose a war to Putin or Xi because it would never be fighting that war alone.

That’s the way it has been for all of our lives. And probably still is.

Probably.

But that is a privilege. Not a right.
Even in a scenario where the US is the aggressor?

Let us say, tomorrow, America, backed by Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea, attack the Chinese artificial island bases in the South China Sea; attack first, without provocation. And, as noise beings in Moscow about aiding China, they, the US, also hit Vladivostok, again, hit first, trying to take out the Russian Pacific Fleet there, before it sails against them...

...do you suppose Canada will still back them then, in a war they themselves started?

Will we, frankly, have a choice?
 
Jul 2014
33,788
8,739
midwest
#9
My opinion is, nobody actually "wins" in a nuclear war, period



You Americans are too arrogant about this stuff. So used to fighting some impoverished Arabs who don't have the technology to defend themselves against your missiles and drones, you now underestimate all your other potential opponents. And, as someone who has studied martial arts, that, my friend, is a very dangerous mistake :)
In a nuke war, the whole world loses...
 
Likes: The Man