From almost the beginning of the Iran war, the experts have complained that the Pentagon is running out of missiles, a supposed problem that says more about the nature of the national security debate than the state of the US military.
Deterrence Theory is an impossible mental rabbit hole with no clear answers for when it works and when it doesn't. Escalation Theory, which it more about how and when deterrence fails, is better studied because there are more clear cases to study. Prof. Robert Pape is an illuminating student of the failures of deterrence in the face of the logic of escalation, which he calls the Escalation Trap. See his substack at: https://escalationtrap.substack.com/ Fascinating and timely and scary!
Regarding nuclear missile defense (Star Wars, etc.): the argument is that building a missile defense system makes nuclear war more likely because:
1. If we did have a defense against Russian nukes, it would make us more likely to start a nuclear war because our civilian casualties would be minimal. If you're skeptical that an American president would ever be the first to launch nukes, consider that (a) we're the only nation to have used nukes in war (so far), (b) we have not formally adopted a No First Use policy, and (c) we've threatened to use nukes since WW II (e.g. Lyndon Johnson suggesting it to Henry Kissinger against N. Viet Nam).
2. Given that, Russia would be on a more of a hair-trigger to respond before our nukes take out theirs; this makes false-positives like the one Niklaus Petrov discounted more likely to be reported and result in an accidental nuclear war.
The big difference between terrestrial missiles/drones and extra-terrestrial ICBM delivered weapons is easy to describe. Since the destruction of even one successfully delivered nuclear ICBM warhead would be catastrophic and decoys that accompany the real thing are easy to send along and cannot be distinguished in their trajectories from the real thing, the defense must stop all incoming, real and decoys, meaning many expensive interceptors that cannot fail must go against one real thing incoming.
The best defense against ICBM delivered weapons is to hit them before the multiple objects (warheads and decoys) can separate outside the atmosphere. This means hitting the ICBM within five minutes or less of launch. This is impossible with land based ICBM's as the launch sites are many hundreds of miles inside Russia, China and US borders.
With the missiles and drones that never leave the atmosphere and are not (though they could be) nuclear weapons, the failure to get every one incoming is acceptable in that if a few get through the damage is more or less acceptable. Here it is the supply and cost difference that is the problem. Supply in that manufacturing Patriot/Iron Dome/THAAD missiles take a long time and lots of money while the low cost and simplicity of offensive missiles and drones allows them to swamp the defense in a one-to-one matchup under an attack and to have a reliable replacement capability.
Iran has a double advantage. There is no way armed force, even that of the US and Israel combined, can force open the Strait of Hormuz guaranteeing safe passage for commercial shipping. Any such effort is easily defeated with the sinking of just a handful of commercial ships. Second, in an all out missile contest, Israel and the US will run out before Iran does leaving Iran free to continue the airborne assault unhampered. For all the empty boasting from Trump and Hegseth, this is a bind that cannot be escaped so we see the on again/off again war.
All of the above has been known by the military of all three countries involved. Why did Trump then decide to start a war with Iran? Because after waiting many years, Netanyahu found the fool he had been waiting for.
Thanks for the explanation Ken! It really shows what a clown car our defense department has become.
But, what can one say about the Pentagon not having justified a single budget in years. If I had conducted my spending the way the Pentagon does, I would be living in a cardboard box.
Is there anything that the US MIC loathes more than Ukraine's highly effective $2,500 Sting drone interceptor? The one that the Gulf states are tripping over themselves to get?
Lessee: Patriot interceptors run $2-$4m a shot, so let's spit the difference and call it $3m. It takes two years to build ONE.
Shahed drones are ~$35k: That $2,965,0000 asymmetry is the MIC's paycheck.
$3m / $2500 = 1,200 Sting interceptors. Ukraine is making 300/day, 10k a year.
That puts the Russians, the Iranians, and the MIC on the losing end of the asymmetry. What's better than that?
Kinda like watching the movie "Catch-22" all over again.
Captain John Yossarian: - played by Marco Rubio
Milo Minderbinder: - played by Donald Trump
Colonel Cathcart: - played by Pete Hegseth
Doc Daneeka:- played by RFK Jr
Set in the Middle East, it details Yossarian's (Rubio's) desperate struggle to survive as his superior officers repeatedly raise the required mission quotas. He is trapped by the absurd military rule known as "Catch-22," which states that a Secretary of State who asks to be excused from dangerous negotiations is proven sane and must therefore keep negotiating.....
This is offensive, not defensive. We don't need more. We need to stop.
Mike waltz has the IQ of a peanut.
Deterrence Theory is an impossible mental rabbit hole with no clear answers for when it works and when it doesn't. Escalation Theory, which it more about how and when deterrence fails, is better studied because there are more clear cases to study. Prof. Robert Pape is an illuminating student of the failures of deterrence in the face of the logic of escalation, which he calls the Escalation Trap. See his substack at: https://escalationtrap.substack.com/ Fascinating and timely and scary!
Regarding nuclear missile defense (Star Wars, etc.): the argument is that building a missile defense system makes nuclear war more likely because:
1. If we did have a defense against Russian nukes, it would make us more likely to start a nuclear war because our civilian casualties would be minimal. If you're skeptical that an American president would ever be the first to launch nukes, consider that (a) we're the only nation to have used nukes in war (so far), (b) we have not formally adopted a No First Use policy, and (c) we've threatened to use nukes since WW II (e.g. Lyndon Johnson suggesting it to Henry Kissinger against N. Viet Nam).
2. Given that, Russia would be on a more of a hair-trigger to respond before our nukes take out theirs; this makes false-positives like the one Niklaus Petrov discounted more likely to be reported and result in an accidental nuclear war.
The big difference between terrestrial missiles/drones and extra-terrestrial ICBM delivered weapons is easy to describe. Since the destruction of even one successfully delivered nuclear ICBM warhead would be catastrophic and decoys that accompany the real thing are easy to send along and cannot be distinguished in their trajectories from the real thing, the defense must stop all incoming, real and decoys, meaning many expensive interceptors that cannot fail must go against one real thing incoming.
The best defense against ICBM delivered weapons is to hit them before the multiple objects (warheads and decoys) can separate outside the atmosphere. This means hitting the ICBM within five minutes or less of launch. This is impossible with land based ICBM's as the launch sites are many hundreds of miles inside Russia, China and US borders.
With the missiles and drones that never leave the atmosphere and are not (though they could be) nuclear weapons, the failure to get every one incoming is acceptable in that if a few get through the damage is more or less acceptable. Here it is the supply and cost difference that is the problem. Supply in that manufacturing Patriot/Iron Dome/THAAD missiles take a long time and lots of money while the low cost and simplicity of offensive missiles and drones allows them to swamp the defense in a one-to-one matchup under an attack and to have a reliable replacement capability.
Iran has a double advantage. There is no way armed force, even that of the US and Israel combined, can force open the Strait of Hormuz guaranteeing safe passage for commercial shipping. Any such effort is easily defeated with the sinking of just a handful of commercial ships. Second, in an all out missile contest, Israel and the US will run out before Iran does leaving Iran free to continue the airborne assault unhampered. For all the empty boasting from Trump and Hegseth, this is a bind that cannot be escaped so we see the on again/off again war.
All of the above has been known by the military of all three countries involved. Why did Trump then decide to start a war with Iran? Because after waiting many years, Netanyahu found the fool he had been waiting for.
Reminiscent of that famous phrase “Offense wins championships”.
Thanks for the explanation Ken! It really shows what a clown car our defense department has become.
But, what can one say about the Pentagon not having justified a single budget in years. If I had conducted my spending the way the Pentagon does, I would be living in a cardboard box.
it's a mess.
On brand for styling themselves as the Department of War instead of the Department of Defense 🙄
Is there anything that the US MIC loathes more than Ukraine's highly effective $2,500 Sting drone interceptor? The one that the Gulf states are tripping over themselves to get?
Lessee: Patriot interceptors run $2-$4m a shot, so let's spit the difference and call it $3m. It takes two years to build ONE.
Shahed drones are ~$35k: That $2,965,0000 asymmetry is the MIC's paycheck.
$3m / $2500 = 1,200 Sting interceptors. Ukraine is making 300/day, 10k a year.
That puts the Russians, the Iranians, and the MIC on the losing end of the asymmetry. What's better than that?
I would argue that the US. Has far, far, far too many missiles. I think the world would be a far safer place if the US was disarmed entirely.
Kinda like watching the movie "Catch-22" all over again.
Captain John Yossarian: - played by Marco Rubio
Milo Minderbinder: - played by Donald Trump
Colonel Cathcart: - played by Pete Hegseth
Doc Daneeka:- played by RFK Jr
Set in the Middle East, it details Yossarian's (Rubio's) desperate struggle to survive as his superior officers repeatedly raise the required mission quotas. He is trapped by the absurd military rule known as "Catch-22," which states that a Secretary of State who asks to be excused from dangerous negotiations is proven sane and must therefore keep negotiating.....