5 ms·

In 1993, at the end of the Cold War, Secretary of Defense William Perry [0] summoned contractors to a dinner meeting, now called 'The Last Supper'. Unlike the o

In 1993, at the end of the Cold War, Secretary of Defense William Perry [0] summoned contractors to a dinner meeting, now called 'The Last Supper'. Unlike the original Last Supper, this one was the last (or the beginning of the end) for most of the guests: Perry told them that, having no more peer enemies, the US didn't need most of them. They would have to consolidate dramatically. At the end of the 1990s, 107 defense contractors had consolidated to five. That was efficient and a good choice for the situation. Against a peer foe like the Soviet Union, you need lots of extra capacity to supply needs during a war when everything is consumed quickly, from ships to bullets. From the end of the Cold War until recently, that was unnecessary. The Taliban, Iraq, Serbia, Libya, etc. were not going to require so many munitions that there would be a crisis; they weren't going to sink any destroyers or shoot down any planes. China is a 'near-peer' threat. As Russia's invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated, the capability of all of NATO - with combined economies maybe 30x Russia's - to manufacture supplies for Ukraine is insufficient. A war with China could be much larger; the US needs far more capacity. Another, more critical reason is that some weaknesses are escalatory - they encourage escalation by the enemy. Chinese leaders, seeing the US lacks that capacity, are incentivised to escalate peace to conflict, conflict to war, a small war to a large war. Escalation is the bane of international relations - it is systemic and often cannot be controlled, leading to catastrophes that nobody wants but nobody can stop. Any professional foreign policy carefully constructs situations that are systemically de-escalatory. (As an example, the US Space Force is changing from using a few expensive super-satellites to using very many cheap ones, in large part because having a few super-satellites is escalatory - it incentivizes an enemy to conduct a surprise attack, because they can knock out a large amount of capability at once.) [0] OT: also a mathematics Ph.D. Do such people still rise to leadership in government? Or are they all maximizing click-thru for SV companies?

awskinda 3y ago
There’s a very big difference between what the USA does in proxy wars vs direct conflicts. Ukraine doesn’t have air superiority, and is basically getting shipped leftover or soon-to-be disposed equipment. You have some really good points, but I would be cautious about extrapolating over Ukraine. As a counter-point, you can look at what happened in Iraq when it was basically a large military power entering the Gulf War (and stealth fighter/bombers were in their infancy).
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Ukraine doesn’t have air superiority, and is basically getting shipped leftover or soon-to-be disposed equipment. You have some really good points, but I would be cautious about extrapolating over Ukraine. The US and Europe is manufacturing artillery shells and other things, and cannot nearly keep up with Ukraine's needs.
  - awskinda 3y ago
    That’s true, but the US and Europe also haven’t structured their modern capabilities around artillery. It’s a component of their doctrines, but wasn’t expected to be required in such large quantities as Ukraine has required. They have astronomical stockpiles of other weapons like JDAMs able to be delivered by F-35, etc. I think Ukraine is just in a weird situation, because they are fighting WWI-style. NATO has strongly aligned their doctrines with total air superiority, and Ukraine hasn’t been able to take advantage much in that area.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      What I said about a lack of capacity is openly said by the US military to be a leading priority. > They have astronomical stockpiles of other weapons like JDAMs able to be delivered by F-35, etc. Why do you think that? Last I knew, which was several years ago, it was constrained. I think they ran out in some situations (nothing of much consequence).
      - emptysongglass 3y ago
        It's well-known that the US and Europe are not structured for artillery warfare. The reason why Europe can't produce enough artillery is because they'd need to massively expand manufacturing to provide for a country that still operates using a land warfare doctrine. Not that it's an excuse for the EU's poor showing here but it's not at all transferable to the ability of the US and the EU to fight a near-peer. None of the same considerations apply. I can recommend spending some time in r/credibledefense for more on the topic.
pxtail 3y ago
> Another, more critical reason is that some weaknesses are escalatory - they encourage escalation by the enemy. Chinese leaders, seeing the US lacks that capacity, are incentivised to escalate peace to conflict, conflict to war, a small war to a large war. Escalation is the bane of international relations - it is systemic and often cannot be controlled, leading to catastrophes that nobody wants but nobody can stop. Any professional foreign policy carefully constructs situations that are systemically de-escalatory. Very interesting, can you recommend any source where I could learn more about such international relations mechanics and intricacies?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  It's been a long time ... these days I just read about current applications of it ... WWI is a classic study of it: Very broadly, many participants didn't want the war but the escalatory system of alliances, military capabilities, risks, etc. took it out of their hands. My vague memory is Barbara Tuchman's The Guns Of August focuses on it. But you can do better than my poor memory with some online research (see below). You can also see it applied and discussed over and over in current international relations, though unfortunately without the context of the broader mechanisms and techniques: You can see the US finding ways to respond to Iran and Russia that are effective deterrents but non-escalatory, which they openly talk about. A strike on Tehran or the Iranian navy would be escalatory - they would have to strike back or lose credibility, domestically and internationally, and there would be the strong emotional component of dead Iranians. Hitting a supply depot in Syria is a different matter - costly to Iran, but not escalatory. The Iranians aren't idiots either - they are not assasinating American generals, for example. If you want to read more: * Look at professional international relations (IR) publications aimed at the public, especially Foreign Affairs (more essays, but by world-leading experts, practicioners and officials), Foreign Policy, and IR articles in Political Science Quarterly. The book reviews are especially good - the expert reviewers explain the book and provide context of other points of view, current and historical beliefs in the field, etc. * Think tanks are prominent in IR and publish a bunch of readable things - better than reading the best journalism, in many cases, in terms of pure knowledge. But you need to be careful - some think tanks are scholarly enterprises, some are partisan hacks. IIRC U of Pennsylvania has a list of top think tanks. In IR, some are Brookings, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), RAND, Chatham House. Be wary of Heritage (basically provides retro-cover and talking points for conservative policy, organizing Trump plans), Cato (libertarianism advocates), American Enterprise Institute (corporate conservatives). * Search with the terms site:.edu and site:.ac.uk Hope that helps! Really, I'd find a good textbook or take an online course.
giantg2 3y ago
"Do such people still rise to leadership in government? Or are they all maximizing click-thru for SV companies?" Many of the people I know got out of government contract work because the policies and work environment were messed up. There are only a couple idealistic people that I know of who joined government work after other careers. Technically one of those people was trading in even worse policies/leadership in the military for a defense contraring job as a civilian. So even the people who are idealistic aren't wanting to stick around, especially if policies and politics are starting to get in the way of the mission.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I'm not talking about contractors, but about career civil servants.

awskinda 3y ago

There’s a very big difference between what the USA does in proxy wars vs direct conflicts. Ukraine doesn’t have air superiority, and is basically getting shipped leftover or soon-to-be disposed equipment. You have some really good points, but I would be cautious about extrapolating over Ukraine. As a counter-point, you can look at what happened in Iraq when it was basically a large military power entering the Gulf War (and stealth fighter/bombers were in their infancy).

wolverine876 3y ago
> Ukraine doesn’t have air superiority, and is basically getting shipped leftover or soon-to-be disposed equipment. You have some really good points, but I would be cautious about extrapolating over Ukraine. The US and Europe is manufacturing artillery shells and other things, and cannot nearly keep up with Ukraine's needs.
- awskinda 3y ago
  That’s true, but the US and Europe also haven’t structured their modern capabilities around artillery. It’s a component of their doctrines, but wasn’t expected to be required in such large quantities as Ukraine has required. They have astronomical stockpiles of other weapons like JDAMs able to be delivered by F-35, etc. I think Ukraine is just in a weird situation, because they are fighting WWI-style. NATO has strongly aligned their doctrines with total air superiority, and Ukraine hasn’t been able to take advantage much in that area.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    What I said about a lack of capacity is openly said by the US military to be a leading priority. > They have astronomical stockpiles of other weapons like JDAMs able to be delivered by F-35, etc. Why do you think that? Last I knew, which was several years ago, it was constrained. I think they ran out in some situations (nothing of much consequence).
    - emptysongglass 3y ago
      It's well-known that the US and Europe are not structured for artillery warfare. The reason why Europe can't produce enough artillery is because they'd need to massively expand manufacturing to provide for a country that still operates using a land warfare doctrine. Not that it's an excuse for the EU's poor showing here but it's not at all transferable to the ability of the US and the EU to fight a near-peer. None of the same considerations apply. I can recommend spending some time in r/credibledefense for more on the topic.

pxtail 3y ago

> Another, more critical reason is that some weaknesses are escalatory - they encourage escalation by the enemy. Chinese leaders, seeing the US lacks that capacity, are incentivised to escalate peace to conflict, conflict to war, a small war to a large war. Escalation is the bane of international relations - it is systemic and often cannot be controlled, leading to catastrophes that nobody wants but nobody can stop. Any professional foreign policy carefully constructs situations that are systemically de-escalatory. Very interesting, can you recommend any source where I could learn more about such international relations mechanics and intricacies?

wolverine876 3y ago
It's been a long time ... these days I just read about current applications of it ... WWI is a classic study of it: Very broadly, many participants didn't want the war but the escalatory system of alliances, military capabilities, risks, etc. took it out of their hands. My vague memory is Barbara Tuchman's The Guns Of August focuses on it. But you can do better than my poor memory with some online research (see below). You can also see it applied and discussed over and over in current international relations, though unfortunately without the context of the broader mechanisms and techniques: You can see the US finding ways to respond to Iran and Russia that are effective deterrents but non-escalatory, which they openly talk about. A strike on Tehran or the Iranian navy would be escalatory - they would have to strike back or lose credibility, domestically and internationally, and there would be the strong emotional component of dead Iranians. Hitting a supply depot in Syria is a different matter - costly to Iran, but not escalatory. The Iranians aren't idiots either - they are not assasinating American generals, for example. If you want to read more: * Look at professional international relations (IR) publications aimed at the public, especially Foreign Affairs (more essays, but by world-leading experts, practicioners and officials), Foreign Policy, and IR articles in Political Science Quarterly. The book reviews are especially good - the expert reviewers explain the book and provide context of other points of view, current and historical beliefs in the field, etc. * Think tanks are prominent in IR and publish a bunch of readable things - better than reading the best journalism, in many cases, in terms of pure knowledge. But you need to be careful - some think tanks are scholarly enterprises, some are partisan hacks. IIRC U of Pennsylvania has a list of top think tanks. In IR, some are Brookings, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), RAND, Chatham House. Be wary of Heritage (basically provides retro-cover and talking points for conservative policy, organizing Trump plans), Cato (libertarianism advocates), American Enterprise Institute (corporate conservatives). * Search with the terms site:.edu and site:.ac.uk Hope that helps! Really, I'd find a good textbook or take an online course.

giantg2 3y ago

"Do such people still rise to leadership in government? Or are they all maximizing click-thru for SV companies?" Many of the people I know got out of government contract work because the policies and work environment were messed up. There are only a couple idealistic people that I know of who joined government work after other careers. Technically one of those people was trading in even worse policies/leadership in the military for a defense contraring job as a civilian. So even the people who are idealistic aren't wanting to stick around, especially if policies and politics are starting to get in the way of the mission.

wolverine876 3y ago
I'm not talking about contractors, but about career civil servants.