Rebooting the Arsenal of Democracy
rebootingthearsenal.comThe Soviet Union lost the Cold War because the US tricked the military-intelligence dominated Brezhnev[0] "administration" into diverting too much investment towards defense. The result was under-investment in infrastructure and agriculture that doomed the USSR over the long run. The US was able to sustain this because it had a larger industrial base.
Shall we foolishly end up on the other side of that? The Chinese can outproduce us in preparation for a war they do not actually want to fight, it would be terrible if they joined forces with our own defense sector to ransack the private sector and proverbially "eat the seed corn."
[0]He was installed in a coup against the defense-spending-critical Khrushchev.
> The Soviet Union lost the Cold War because the US tricked the military-intelligence dominated Brezhnev[0] "administration" into diverting too much investment towards defense. The result was under-investment in infrastructure and agriculture that doomed the USSR over the long run. The US was able to sustain this because it had a larger industrial base.
> Shall we foolishly end up on the other side of that?
Do you really think there's a chance the US would suffer from food lines and other shortages due to over-investment in defense a la the Soviet Union?
The Soviet Union lost the Cold War long after Brezhnev.
The Soviets stopped catching up to the west under Brezhnev, and never recovered from what Gorbachev called, "the era of stagnation."
The Cold War was just one of many factors leading to the Soviet Union collapse. It was a lot more complex than “stopped catching up to the West”.
Source: I lived through it.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it was the biggest external influence on the collapse of the Soviet Union.
What makes you think China does not want to fight?
Their society is rapidly improving. The less they fight, the better off they'll be. What will fighting get them apart from ruin?
It isn't a guarantee of peace, obviously. The same logic applies to everyone and there are still a lot of wars. But the warmakers tend to struggle to achieve the sort of results that the Chinese do and as a government they have a 50 year history of success through peace not war.
HDI growth in China is levelling out, and irredentist claims to Taiwan are a foundational piece of the CCP's ideology. The "strategic ambiguity" could be tolerated while Taiwan was relatively unimportant, but now that TSMC is one of the most important companies in the world, China is certainly at least considering war.
Their society is rapidly stagnating with a disastrous demographic profile. And since it's now a dictatorship the decision ultimately comes down to one man: Chairman Xi. No one knows what's going on in his head so we have to assume the worst.
Them having very few youths is hardly an indicator of war is it? I was more concerned when they had a big excess.
Russia is pretty short of young people these days too, and they're all too happy to throw the ones they still have into a pointless war.
Yeah but the Russians didn't declare war because of their demographics. In fact, if you ask them why this happened Putin gave a whole speech [0] on this when he sent the troops in, which can be neatly summarised:
> We are talking about what causes us particular concern and anxiety, about those fundamental threats that year after year, step by step, are rudely and unceremoniously created by irresponsible politicians in the West in relation to our country. I mean the expansion of the Nato bloc to the east, bringing its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders.
It isn't obvious that China is dealing with the same sort of pressures in East Asia.
[0] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-text-putin-s-declar... - although technically I suspect he was declaring Special Military Operation.
I think it's well-established that Putin's posture on the subject isn't sincere or an accurate assessment of their government's actual motive for war.
If NATO anxiety was the primary factor for the war in Ukraine, Russia wouldn't be so blasé about draining troops and hardware from its borders with NATO countries to throw them into the meat-grinder.
They would still probably do it, mind you, but it would be a huge scandal and a subject of existential dread for Russian media and elites.
The fact that they've been stripping their NATO borders bare with barely anyone noticing or caring shows that nobody views the prospect of a NATO invasion as realistic. It was always a fig leaf.
(Although maybe there were scandals and I never heard of them. My exposure to Russian media is filtered through Western media. But I heard about other scandals and anxieties.)
> The fact that they've been stripping their NATO borders bare with barely anyone noticing or caring shows that nobody views the prospect of a NATO invasion as realistic.
Nobody has ever suggested that there was a prospect of a NATO invasion of Russia. That is crazy talk; it'd be the end of civilisation in the northern hemisphere. They aren't deploying troops to ward off a NATO invasion, that is what the ICBMs are for.
Right. But why is NATO "bringing military infrastructure closer to Russian borders" a concern to Russia if they aren't worried about a NATO invasion?
So what's really going on? Well, Putin said "rudely". Russia feels insulted because everybody wants to be in NATO, and nobody wants to be Russia's buddy... if you take Putin's words at face value.
If you don't, then I think Putin is terrified of Ukraine's revolution against a Russia-friendly leader. He doesn't want a western-friendly revolution in a culturally-Russian-adjacent country to succeed - there's too much chance that Russians might decide that they like the idea.
Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians? It isn't hard to understand the motivations here, we've seen the US throw a massive hissy fit in the Cuban Missile crisis because of Soviet gear in Cuba and that was much more benign than a full military integration. And the US has a history dating back more than a century of tolerating no rival military powers in their hemisphere [0] let alone on their borders. There isn't anything to wonder at here - the Russians see their security interests as covering their border regions. In a display of outrageous hypocrisy the US also sees their security interests as also covering Russia's border region. Kremlin concern over this is hardly unexpected.
The way the Ukraine war has played out makes it pretty clear the Russians did have legitimate concerns. When the US invades Iraq with no moral justification, everyone moves on. When Russia invades Ukraine with no moral justification we see a similar response from most of the world ... except NATO that goes in and orchestrates what Wikipedia suggests are half a million casualties of the Russian armed forces [1].
Why might Russian military planners feel this is a threat? Because they can count corpses and they're not stupid. If you want to argue that they underestimated the threat NATO posed them in Ukraine and so Putin was lying that is one thing, but if so his propaganda happened to be truer to reality than he thought because he made a great point. NATO is out to get the Russians.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...
> Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians?
Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians if they invade.
> Why might Russian military planners feel this is a threat? Because they can count corpses and they're not stupid.
Because they can count corpses after they invaded.
The logical conclusion was "don't invade", not "hurry up and invade while you still can".
We've seen the US throw a massive hissy fit in the Cuban Missile crisis because of Soviet gear in Cuba and that was much more benign than a full military integration.
Except there was no "full military integration" in the works, or even any "gear" deployed in Ukraine before Putin started throwing his massy hissy fit in 2014.
Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians?
The point is to gently remind the current regime of the borders of NATO states, and of this thing known as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
Cool story. At that point we get back to:
> If NATO anxiety was the primary factor for the war in Ukraine, Russia wouldn't be so blasé about draining troops and hardware from its borders with NATO countries to throw them into the meat-grinder
Countries don't always behave logically, see Russia & the self defeating war in Ukraine.
What do you suggest we do to oppose the threat that China poses to democracy and the post WW2 status quo?
The same thing they're doing to pose the threat... trade with smaller countries, pressure them not to steal capital assets. But this reference to "democracy" is total propaganda, the US does not use only democratic allies.
Which country being the world power is more likely to lead to more countries being democratic -- The United States or China?
For whatever flaws the US has and the atrocities it has committed China isn't going to suddenly start spreading democracy around the world.
Thanks to Ronald Regan, China is strong enough to fight the west
It is unfair to blame only one president for that, if any. The country was going to develop anyway. If Reagan was bad then what stopped Bush, Clinton, Obama, or anyone in Congress, from doing something about the policies that destroy our industries and make China rich?
> Thanks to Ronald Regan, China is strong enough to fight the west
Why do you say Regan? Nixon normalized relations, Clinton let it into the WTO, and those seem to be the most significant events.
Just revisiting this, I'm not seeing anything very significant here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_R...
> Reagan had been a prominent spokesman on behalf of Taiwan in the political arena, but his advisors convinced him to announce in his 1980 campaign that he would continue the opening to China. Haig argued strenuously that the People's Republic of China could be a major ally against the Soviet Union. Beijing refused to accept any two-China policy but agreed to postpone any showdown. As President, Reagan issued the "Six Assurances" to Taiwan and a joint communique with the PRC reaffirming the one-China policy.[31] As the Cold War wound down during Reagan's second term, and Shultz replaced Haig, the need for China as an ally faded away. Shultz focused much more on economic trade with Japan. Beijing warmly welcomed the president when he visited in 1984.[32]
> In commercial space travel, Reagan backed a plan which allowed American satellites to be exported and launched on China's Long March rockets.[33][34] This was criticized by Bill Nelson, then a Florida representative, as delaying U.S.'s own commercial space development, while industry leaders criticized the idea of a nation-state competing with private entities in the rocketry market.[35] The China satellite export deal continued through Bush and Clinton administrations.[34]
Compare to what it has for Clinton, which is too long to quote fully: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Bill_Cli..., and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Bill_Cli...:
> Clinton's highest priority was to maintain trade with China, boost American exports, expand investment in the huge Chinese market, and create more jobs at home.[24] By granting China temporary most favoured nation status in 1993, his administration minimized tariff levels in Chinese imports. Clinton initially conditioned extension of this status on Chinese human rights reforms, but ultimately decided to extend the status despite a lack of reform in the specified areas of free emigration, no exportation of goods made with prison labor, release of peaceful protesters, treatment of prisoners in terms of international human rights, recognition of the distinct regional culture of type at, permitting international television and radio coverage, and observation of human rights specified by United Nations resolutions.
> In 1998, Clinton paid a friendly nine-day visit to China. Albright defended the trip by saying, "Engagement does not mean endorsement."[28] In 1999 Clinton signed a landmark trade agreement with China. The agreement–the result of more than a decade of negotiations–would lower many trade barriers between the two countries, making it easier to export U.S. products such as automobiles, banking services, and motion pictures. The Chinese citizens ability to afford and purchase U.S. goods should have been taken into consideration. However, the agreement could only take effect if China was accepted into the WTO and was granted permanent "normal trade relations" status by the U.S. Congress. Under the pact, the United States would support China's membership in the WTO. Many Democrats as well as Republicans were reluctant to grant permanent status to China because they were concerned about human rights in the country and the impact of Chinese imports on U.S. industries and jobs. Congress, however, voted in 2000 to grant permanent normal trade relations with China.[29] In 2000, Clinton signed a bill granting permanent normal trade relations to China, and American imports from China massively increased in the subsequent years.[30] Clinton's last treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, argued that Clinton's trade policies were technically "the largest tax cut in the history of the world" in that they reduced prices on consumer goods by lowering tariffs.[31]
> ...
> Clinton's May 28, 1993 Executive Order 128950 linked future extension of China's most favored nation trading status to China's progress on U.S.-defined human rights measures.[127]: 222 China made virtually no effort to comply with the U.S. conditions and in mid-1994 Clinton changed his position,[127]: 223 de-linking the China's most favored nation status from human rights issues.[
Democracy my ass. The politicians these people support and fund will try their damndest to turn the US into a China-style autocracy. Who will this arsenal be aimed at, I wonder?
Anduril ad?
"Only superior military technology can credibly deter war."
No. Various other factors including large alliances, trade risks, etc can deter war. And by far the biggest "deterrent" among our military technologies is nuclear weaponry, which relies on 1940s technology, thus undermining the essay's thesis that we need to innovate more in defense to prevent war.
With that said, many of the essay's suggestions are sound recommendations for improving the USA's ailing defense industry. I think that the consolidation of companies into a small number of conglomerates is particularly damaging.
Yeah came here to say this. The central argument Anduril makes here is preposterous, to the point where it feels like the whole enterprise is entirely unserious. Let's ask a basic logic question here: if the supposition is that one side has to have superior military technology lest the other side declare war on it, why isn't China at war with the US right now? Why isn't Russia at war with the US right now, or India, or Japan, or Pakistan, or Brazil, or Mexico, or Canada? Could it perhaps be there are other variables involved?
This deck feels like it was unearthed from a time capsule buried in 2010. "The Pentagon operated like a startup." Woof. "Move fast and break things" is maybe not the ideal motto when lives are at stake.
---
Overall, a new arms race is not the answer. No serious person thinks arms races are good ideas. They are highly dangerous, especially at this level of technology. What works is diplomacy and a common cause against scarcity.
Why is this only about China? Russia is a much bigger problem right now.
How about we reboot democracy first?
Beware the military-industrial complex indeed.
wtf is this? "Audio narrated by Palmer Luckey".
He owns Anduril, the company that published this site
LOL. Talk about an oxymoron.
TL;DR The war machine wants more because other war machines get more.
Lets have some fun and reboot the arsenal of democracy and ban bikes in dictatorships shall we?
https://imgur.com/a/paranoid-dictatorship-forbids-bikes-lk9G...
This is a refurbished bike pump gun, firing up and recycling remolded plastic pellets with botox inside. Easy to make anywhere .
To democratic, to low tech? not enough government handouts?
How about this? shotgunshells and 4 cameras and it can hop around cleaning trenches and houses? much more democratic arsenal?
How about coilgun gliderdrone artillery?
https://imgur.com/a/sad-ie8Ezsk
Cheap, decentralized, they sail all day over a area waiting for that call to fold and strike? Everyone can make and coilgun a guncotton glider. No takers? Anyone.
Arsenal of democracy my ass. Imperial restocking after selling out all values.