3 ms·

I recall that one of Rand's area of research was how a nation could survive a nuclear attack. They definitely nuclear hawks. The USAF may get less of the budge

I recall that one of Rand's area of research was how a nation could survive a nuclear attack. They definitely nuclear hawks. The USAF may get less of the budget as percentage of GDP but I'd wager the budget might equivalent in absolute terms since US economy is larger. I think the real reason they have far fewer planes deployed is this: "The cost of acquiring and maintaining major posture components has tended to grow in real terms over time" [1] as a Rand Corporation report circa 1990 observed. [1] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R3807.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R380... p. 7

BJones12 2y ago
>The USAF may get less of the budget as percentage of GDP but I'd wager the budget might equivalent in absolute terms since US economy is larger. In 1952 the military budget was 41.4 billion. A CPI calculator [1] puts that at 486.98 billion today. The current budget is 910 billion [2]. So the military budget has doubled since 1952. [0] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-budget-message-the-congress-fiscal-year-1952 https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-budget-mess... [1] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=41.40&year1=195305&year2=202405 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=41.40&year1=19... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...
moandcompany 2y ago
While people may like to call the RAND Corporation as an entity of "nuclear hawks," it seems a bit dismissive of the mission and nature of what the RAND Corporation was chartered to do. They were tasked, and encouraged, to apply their creativity, brain power, quantitative skills, to study decision spaces, future possibilities and analyze these to arrive at recommendations and methods for best achieving desired outcomes, as well as identifying and understanding blind spots in thinking. In the above context of nuclear war, I don't believe nuclear war was an organizationally desired outcome, however they had to contemplate it and its implications. This is the organization that concluded based on application of quantitative methods (e.g. game theory) that for example, pursuing a credible strategy of mutually assured destruction was objectively the best way to avoid a nuclear war. I recommend looking for references to the phrase "Thinking the Unthinkable" to get additional insight to some of RAND's studies.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Think tanks are not about the talent, they are about who pays the bills. The USAF paid the bills. The guy signing the checks was Curtis LeMay, who was a… reactionary who ended up as running mate to the George Wallace. He was an enthusiastic proponent of nuclear war and inspiration for Dr. Strangelove. MAD came a bit later, many of the key folks assumed and accepted that nuclear conflict was inevitable. And they may have been right.
  - ferfumarma 2y ago
    The article provides several concrete examples where RAND drew conclusions counter to the implied interests of the USAF. In the absence of counterexamples your argument sounds plausible, but incorrect.
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      Fortunately, other resources exist. Try reading the book “Soldiers of Reason”. RAND was literally founded to figure out how to wage nuclear war. It evolved after Vietnam. Particularly in the 50s and early 60s, the firm was the brain of the Air Force, period. In that era, several of the principals fully expected that there would be a nuclear exchange in the 60s or 70s.
      - esotericimpl 2y ago
        [dead]
      - moandcompany 2y ago
        > RAND was literally founded to figure out how to wage nuclear war. It evolved after Vietnam. Particularly in the 50s and early 60s, the firm was the brain of the Air Force, period. This is literally a stretch of reality. Was the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) founded to figure out how to wage intergalactic space domination, and is CalTech the brain of NASA? RAND, and the concept of FFRDCs (as well as UARCs), was created in the mid 1940s because of the recognition that the US government's partnership and direct ties to private sector industries for many national security matters was overexposed to the private sector's self-interest or potential conflict of interest. It was founded to create a gap between the government and private sector of contractors that bid on contracts to (mass) produce "weapons" systems. The thinking was, because the US Government and its armed services do not (sufficiently) have its own organic or dedicated personnel or a workforce for "R&D," it needed an expert workforce (i.e. "think-tanks") to help research requirements, core technologies, and guide the rest of the "R&D" process for "weapons" systems development -- and those experts should not be the companies that ultimately produce (i.e. prime contractors that bid on production contracts) those systems because of conflicts of interest. Similarly, by being directly involved in the "R&D" of a system's requirements/design, etc, conflicts of interest might preclude those contractors from being able to bid and be awarded contracts to produce those systems under US Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) The US Army Air Corps, which later became the Air Force, were reliant on R&D efforts from for-profit contractors such as Douglas Aircraft (it's worth mentioning that this is the same era of Howard Hughes and Hughes Aircraft) to develop requirements, "weapons" systems designs, and ultimately produce those systems. The starting pieces of the RAND Corporation were a split-off of Douglas Aircraft's R&D groups to create organizational distance and gaps for mitigating conflict of interest. [Note: this doesn't mean that the idea of "self-licking ice cream cones" don't exist in the world of FFRDCs/UARCs, and the tendency of large organizations or bureaucracies to act in a manner to perpetuate their own existence certainly applies] See US FAR 35.017-2: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/35.017-2 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/35.017-2 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44629 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44629
kjkjadksj 2y ago
I thought the reason for fewer bombers was the development of the icbm and related ship or sub based ordinance obviated the need for such a force

BJones12 2y ago

>The USAF may get less of the budget as percentage of GDP but I'd wager the budget might equivalent in absolute terms since US economy is larger. In 1952 the military budget was 41.4 billion. A CPI calculator [1] puts that at 486.98 billion today. The current budget is 910 billion [2]. So the military budget has doubled since 1952. [0] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-budget-message-the-congress-fiscal-year-1952 https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-budget-mess... [1] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=41.40&year1=195305&year2=202405 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=41.40&year1=19... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...

moandcompany 2y ago

While people may like to call the RAND Corporation as an entity of "nuclear hawks," it seems a bit dismissive of the mission and nature of what the RAND Corporation was chartered to do. They were tasked, and encouraged, to apply their creativity, brain power, quantitative skills, to study decision spaces, future possibilities and analyze these to arrive at recommendations and methods for best achieving desired outcomes, as well as identifying and understanding blind spots in thinking. In the above context of nuclear war, I don't believe nuclear war was an organizationally desired outcome, however they had to contemplate it and its implications. This is the organization that concluded based on application of quantitative methods (e.g. game theory) that for example, pursuing a credible strategy of mutually assured destruction was objectively the best way to avoid a nuclear war. I recommend looking for references to the phrase "Thinking the Unthinkable" to get additional insight to some of RAND's studies.

Spooky23 2y ago
Think tanks are not about the talent, they are about who pays the bills. The USAF paid the bills. The guy signing the checks was Curtis LeMay, who was a… reactionary who ended up as running mate to the George Wallace. He was an enthusiastic proponent of nuclear war and inspiration for Dr. Strangelove. MAD came a bit later, many of the key folks assumed and accepted that nuclear conflict was inevitable. And they may have been right.
- ferfumarma 2y ago
  The article provides several concrete examples where RAND drew conclusions counter to the implied interests of the USAF. In the absence of counterexamples your argument sounds plausible, but incorrect.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    Fortunately, other resources exist. Try reading the book “Soldiers of Reason”. RAND was literally founded to figure out how to wage nuclear war. It evolved after Vietnam. Particularly in the 50s and early 60s, the firm was the brain of the Air Force, period. In that era, several of the principals fully expected that there would be a nuclear exchange in the 60s or 70s.
    - esotericimpl 2y ago
      [dead]
    - moandcompany 2y ago
      > RAND was literally founded to figure out how to wage nuclear war. It evolved after Vietnam. Particularly in the 50s and early 60s, the firm was the brain of the Air Force, period. This is literally a stretch of reality. Was the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) founded to figure out how to wage intergalactic space domination, and is CalTech the brain of NASA? RAND, and the concept of FFRDCs (as well as UARCs), was created in the mid 1940s because of the recognition that the US government's partnership and direct ties to private sector industries for many national security matters was overexposed to the private sector's self-interest or potential conflict of interest. It was founded to create a gap between the government and private sector of contractors that bid on contracts to (mass) produce "weapons" systems. The thinking was, because the US Government and its armed services do not (sufficiently) have its own organic or dedicated personnel or a workforce for "R&D," it needed an expert workforce (i.e. "think-tanks") to help research requirements, core technologies, and guide the rest of the "R&D" process for "weapons" systems development -- and those experts should not be the companies that ultimately produce (i.e. prime contractors that bid on production contracts) those systems because of conflicts of interest. Similarly, by being directly involved in the "R&D" of a system's requirements/design, etc, conflicts of interest might preclude those contractors from being able to bid and be awarded contracts to produce those systems under US Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) The US Army Air Corps, which later became the Air Force, were reliant on R&D efforts from for-profit contractors such as Douglas Aircraft (it's worth mentioning that this is the same era of Howard Hughes and Hughes Aircraft) to develop requirements, "weapons" systems designs, and ultimately produce those systems. The starting pieces of the RAND Corporation were a split-off of Douglas Aircraft's R&D groups to create organizational distance and gaps for mitigating conflict of interest. [Note: this doesn't mean that the idea of "self-licking ice cream cones" don't exist in the world of FFRDCs/UARCs, and the tendency of large organizations or bureaucracies to act in a manner to perpetuate their own existence certainly applies] See US FAR 35.017-2: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/35.017-2 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/35.017-2 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44629 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44629

kjkjadksj 2y ago

I thought the reason for fewer bombers was the development of the icbm and related ship or sub based ordinance obviated the need for such a force