Why should America prepare to fight two wars simultaneously?
Why should America prepare to fight two wars simultaneously?
Should the military of the United States be strong enough to fight two major wars simultaneously? Or is it an effort so gigantic more than the United States should be expected to carry out?
A pillar of US defense policy has been the ability of the United States to successfully participate in two major conflicts, such as Russia or China, or major regional conflicts such as the war with North Korea.
However, the United States military lacks the strength to fight two major conflicts simultaneously, according to a report from the United States. Heritage Foundation . The annual report of the conservative think tank, which tends to favor heavy defense spending, also called the military power of the United States "only marginally capable of meeting the demands of defending the vital national interests of the United States."
The 2019 Military Strength Index of the United States. UU Heritage presents a disturbing picture of American military capability. "In general, the 2019 Index concludes that the current US military force. UU It is likely to be able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict while attending various presence and participation activities, but it would be very difficult to do more and certainly would. be ill-equipped to handle two large, almost simultaneous, regional contingencies, "according to Heritage." The limits imposed on defense expenditures and the programmatic volatility created by the continuous, approved resolutions instead of the formal budgets approved on time, have maintained the services small military, aged and under significant pressure essential maintenance is still deferred, the availability of fewer units for operational deployments increases the frequency and duration of deployments, and old equipment continues to expand, while scheduled replacements are delayed or they are harassed by development difficulties. "
On a very weak to very strong scale, Heritage classified the nuclear forces of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the US. UU As Marginal, and the Marine Corps was rated as weak even lower. Ironically, the Army score was actually an improvement from Weak to Marginal due to an increase in the number of brigade combat teams. The marines scored lower because "overall marine operating forces continue to average a two to one ratio of deployment to inhabitant. At this rate, preparation is consumed as quickly as it is built, leaving minimal flexibility to respond to contingencies. "
After the cuts imposed after the end of the Cold War, twenty years of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then fight to reorient towards a possible "great war" with Russia and China, it is not surprising that the US military United have problems.
But perhaps the real question should be: does the United States need to retain enough military force to fight simultaneously in two major wars? Most nations would be happy if they could fight one.
Consider what happened to Britain. In 1889, the British government approved the Law of naval defense , which demanded that the Royal Navy be stronger than the next two larger ships combined (which were France and Russia at that time). The law was a blessing for the Royal Navy, which had become the global policeman of the nineteenth century. But when Germany embarked on a purchase of battleships, and the United States, Russia and Japan built their armies, Britain simply could not withstand the tension of not only having the strongest navy, but an army so strong that it can defeat Two great opponents at the same time.
Recommended: What will the sixth generation fighter be like?
Recommended: Imagine a US air force UU Who never built the B-52 bomber
Recommended: The next big military sale of Russia - to Mexico?
Recommended: Would China really invade Taiwan?
As Heritage points out, the US military has problems with preparedness and capability. But perhaps the answer is not to throw more money at a problem that has no solution. Perhaps weapons and war have become too expensive for the United States to build an army that can fight the two main enemies simultaneously. Two wars can be a war too many.
Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. It can be found at Twitter Y Facebook.
.
http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script',
'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
fbq('init', '369524843414444');
fbq('track', 'PageView');
.
SOURCE LINK ERESVIRAL.COM https://www.beviral.online
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario