3 ms·
That's a valid criticism of budget allocation favouring existing modes of conflict. However, things like jamming maximize the technical advantage the US has aga
by angry_octet 7y ago
That's a valid criticism of budget allocation favouring existing modes of conflict. However, things like jamming maximize the technical advantage the US has against adversaries seeking to develop asymmetric threats -- it is possible to make all the (cheaper) missiles miss.
One school of thought is that cyber/IO is like the air force -- it prepares the environment for ground action but doesn't hold territory. So once the West is weakened and divided enough, kinetic operations (Taiwan, Ukraine, Georgia, Syria/Iraq) become possible. So it is still very valuable to have a kinetic defence.
- chiefalchemist 7y agoValuable? In the sense that we keep getting beat with less and less? Where does value end and Military Industrial Complex begin? The USA out spends the next 10 or so nations __combined__. Most of those are allies.
- angry_octet 7y agoMuch of the spending is pork. Existing programs that are hard to cut. The US has very expensive tastes when it comes to capability. However, modern EW techniques are far more bang for buck than most programs. The US doesn't get beat in the fight, they get beat by the strategy the US govt chooses. They keep wanting what is almost impossible (like a peaceful, democratic and tolerant Afghanistan that does grow opium) and half committing to do it.