Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super
New York Times ^ | April 27, 2003 | GREGG EASTERBROOK

Posted on 04/26/2003 5:22:02 PM PDT by Brandon

The New York TimesSponsored by Starbucks

April 27, 2003

American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super

By GREGG EASTERBROOK

Stealth drones, G.P.S.-guided smart munitions that hit precisely where aimed; antitank bombs that guide themselves; space-relayed data links that allow individual squad leaders to know exactly where American and opposition forces are during battle ó the United States military rolled out all this advanced technology, and more, in its lightning conquest of Iraq. No other military is even close to the United States. The American military is now the strongest the world has ever known, both in absolute terms and relative to other nations; stronger than the Wehrmacht in 1940, stronger than the legions at the height of Roman power. For years to come, no other nation is likely even to try to rival American might.

Which means: the global arms race is over, with the United States the undisputed heavyweight champion. Other nations are not even trying to match American armed force, because they are so far behind they have no chance of catching up. The great-powers arms race, in progress for centuries, has ended with the rest of the world conceding triumph to the United States. 

Now only a nuclear state, like, perhaps, North Korea, has any military leverage against the winner.

Paradoxically, the runaway American victory in the conventional arms race might inspire a new round of proliferation of atomic weapons. With no hope of matching the United States plane for plane, more countries may seek atomic weapons to gain deterrence. 

North Korea might have been moved last week to declare that it has an atomic bomb by the knowledge that it has no hope of resisting American conventional power. If it becomes generally believed that possession of even a few nuclear munitions is enough to render North Korea immune from American military force, other nations ó Iran is an obvious next candidate ó may place renewed emphasis on building them. 

For the extent of American military superiority has become almost impossible to overstate. The United States sent five of its nine supercarrier battle groups to the region for the Iraq assault. A tenth Nimitz-class supercarrier is under construction. No other nation possesses so much as one supercarrier, let alone nine battle groups ringed by cruisers and guarded by nuclear submarines. 

Russia has one modern aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, but it has about half the tonnage of an American supercarrier, and has such a poor record that it rarely leaves port. The former Soviet navy did preliminary work on a supercarrier, but abandoned the project in 1992. Britain and France have a few small aircraft carriers. China decided against building one last year.

Any attempt to build a fleet that threatens the Pentagon's would be pointless, after all, because if another nation fielded a threatening vessel, American attack submarines would simply sink it in the first five minutes of any conflict. (The new Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarine is essentially the futuristic supersub of "The Hunt for Red October" made real.) Knowing this, all other nations have conceded the seas to the United States, a reason American forces can sail anywhere without interference. The naval arms race ó a principal aspect of great-power politics for centuries ó is over.

United States air power is undisputed as well, with more advanced fighters and bombers than those of all other nations combined. The United States possesses three stealth aircraft (the B-1 and B-2 bombers and the F-117 fighter) with two more (the F-22 and F-35 fighters) developed and awaiting production funds. No other nation even has a stealth aircraft on the drawing board. A few nations have small numbers of heavy bombers; the United States has entire wings of heavy bombers.

No other nation maintains an aerial tanker fleet similar to that of the United States; owing to tankers, American bombers can operate anywhere in the world. No other nation has anything like the American AWACS plane, which provides exceptionally detailed radar images of the sky above battles, or the newer JSTARS plane, which provides exceptionally detailed radar images of the ground.

No other nation has air-to-air missiles or air-to-ground smart munitions of the accuracy, or numbers, of the United States. This month, for example, in the second attempt to kill Saddam Hussein, just 12 minutes passed between when a B-1 received the target coordinates and when the bomber released four smart bombs aimed to land just 50 feet and a few seconds apart. All four hit where they were supposed to.

American aerial might is so great that adversaries don't even try to fly. Serbia kept its planes on the ground during the Kosovo conflict of 1999; in recent fighting in Iraq, not a single Iraqi fighter rose to oppose United States aircraft. The governments of the world now know that if they try to launch a fighter against American air power, their planes will be blown to smithereens before they finish retracting their landing gear. The aerial arms race, a central facet of the last 50 years, is over.

The American lead in ground forces is not uncontested ó China has a large standing army ó but is large enough that the ground arms race might end, too. The United States now possesses about 9,000 M1 Abrams tanks, by far the world's strongest armored force. The Abrams cannon and fire-control system is so extraordinarily accurate that in combat gunners rarely require more than one shot to destroy an enemy tank. No other nation is currently building or planning a comparable tank force. Other governments know this would be pointless, since even if they had advanced tanks, the United States would destroy them from the air.

The American lead in electronics is also huge. Much of the "designating" of targets in the recent Iraq assault was done by advanced electronics on drones like the Global Hawk, which flies at 60,000 feet, far beyond the range of antiaircraft weapons. So sophisticated are the sensors and data links that make Global Hawk work that it might take a decade for another nation to field a similar drone ó and by then, the United States is likely to have leapfrogged ahead to something better.

As The New York Times Magazine reported last Sunday, the United States is working on unmanned, remote-piloted drone fighter planes that will be both relatively low-cost and extremely hard to shoot down, and small drone attack helicopters that will precede troops into battle. No other nation is even close to the electronics and data-management technology of these prospective weapons. The Pentagon will have a monopoly on advanced combat drones for years. 

An electronics arms race may continue in some fashion because electronics are cheaper than ships or planes. But the United States holds such an imposing lead that it is unlikely to be lapped for a long time.

Further, the United States holds an overwhelming lead in military use of space. Not only does the Pentagon command more and better reconnaissance satellites than all the rest of the world combined, American forces have begun using space-relayed data in a significant way. Space "assets" will eventually be understood to have been critical to the lightning conquest of Iraq, and the American lead in this will only grow, since the Air Force now has the second-largest space budget in the world, after NASA's.

This huge military lead is partly because of money. Last year American military spending exceeded that of all other NATO states, Russia, China, Japan, Iraq and North Korea combined, according to the Center for Defense Information, a nonpartisan research group that studies global security. This is another area where all other nations must concede to the United States, for no other government can afford to try to catch up.

The runaway advantage has been called by some excessive, yet it yields a positive benefit. Annual global military spending, stated in current dollars, peaked in 1985, at $1.3 trillion, and has been declining since, to $840 billion in 2002. That's a drop of almost half a trillion dollars in the amount the world spent each year on arms. Other nations accept that the arms race is over.

The United States military reinforces its pre-eminence by going into combat. Rightly or wrongly, the United States fights often; each fight becomes a learning opportunity for troops and a test of technology. No other military currently has the real-world experience of the United States.

There is also the high quality ó in education and motivation ó of its personnel. This lead has grown as the United States has integrated women into most combat roles, doubling the talent base on which recruiters can draw. 

The American edge does not render its forces invincible: the expensive Apache attack helicopter, for example, fared poorly against routine small-arms fire in Iraq. More important, overwhelming power hardly insures that the United States will get its way in world affairs. Force is just one aspect of international relations, while experience has shown that military power can solve only military problems, not political ones. 

North Korea now stares into the barrel of the strongest military ever assembled, and yet may be able to defy the United States, owing to nuclear deterrence. As the global arms race ends with the United States so far ahead no other nation even tries to be America's rival, the result may be a world in which Washington has historically unparalleled power, but often cannot use it. 

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraqifreedom; newnwo; superpower
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: American Soldier
I signed up to kill Communists, Ba'athist & Co., not to chase pimps and coyotes around the countryside of the American Southwest. Force me to do that job and you probably won't like the way I do it. Wait till a squad of soldiers tracks an illegal into an American border town, sees the guy run into a cul-de-sac, and then goes house-to-house smashing peoples' windows in and breaking down doors, then running into people's bedrooms and checking their walk-in closets trying to find the illegal. Now that would be great for civil-military relations!

What are you, a programmed robot? As a member of the military, you are trained to obey and follow orders. If your commanding officer tells you NOT to go house-to-house smashing peoples' windows in and breaking down doors, then running into people's bedrooms and checking their walk-in closets trying to find the illegal alien, then you don't do it, unless you want to face charges of insubordination.

41 posted on 04/26/2003 7:01:19 PM PDT by judgeandjury (The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
While the Clinton's and Albright's of this world bemoan the fact that we are the only 'superpower'...
42 posted on 04/26/2003 7:06:01 PM PDT by Guillermo (Sic 'em!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Oh, I think we could take a break and pat ourselves on the back............. There, that was refreshing. Now back to work.

As far as the Foreman thing... that goes back to an ancient sport called Bear Baiting in which a pack of dogs would fight a bear. The bear would usually kill several of the dogs but eventually a nip here, a bite there and the bear would start to weaken. For this to happen to us would require the rest of the world to gang up on us, a common liberal bete noir. Fortunately, the rest of the world seems to hate each other even more than they hate us. ]

And finally... Did anybody hear General Tommy Franks, in the interview he gave to Tony Snow, say regarding the Syrians "I think any nation that wants to control its borders can do so"? I thought it was a little shot at our policy here at home, but never saw it reported that way.
43 posted on 04/26/2003 7:06:37 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
I don't see how we could ever conquer AND occupy the world. It seems like logistics and politics have always mitigated against the possibility of this except in the fevered minds of evil demagogues.
44 posted on 04/26/2003 7:08:53 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: konaice
Give the land element Fast Lightly Armored all terrain vehicles (Bradleys)

liked most of your post but the above- brads, although not tanks, are not really "light" armor- they weigh 25 tons, and are fairly costly to operate, compared too- tadaa: the upgraded M113 Gavin!

Reliable, armored "enough", much lighter, much less exepensive, new suspension/engine damn equals Brad cross country ability...plus, crotchety old viet nam vets could maintain and operate them.

(there would be a "WhenI" procductivity hit- i.e. young bucks having to listen to the VN vets preface every conversation with "When I was in viet nam...*grin*)

45 posted on 04/26/2003 7:09:55 PM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d
"victory disease?"

The Clap? Ooops, watching Sex in the Civil War. ;)
46 posted on 04/26/2003 7:11:14 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
"Tommy Daschle is deeply saddened."

Has anyone noticed the total lack of tommie d. on the tube lately. His silence is saddening....

NOT

47 posted on 04/26/2003 7:11:16 PM PDT by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
Maybe he's in that box marked USA?
48 posted on 04/26/2003 7:13:57 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: johnb838
Control the southern border?

Let's go with what's worked in the past.

Texas Rangers. More of 'em. Lot's more.
49 posted on 04/26/2003 7:15:19 PM PDT by LocalYokel (my state might be blue but my county was red)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Pre-empt the Chinese and NK's demise is very easy to war-game and not much more difficult to accomplish. The preemption of the Chinese might just happen of its own accord. We are a 40 billion dollar trading partner, whereas the North Koreans are just a pain in the butt to them.
50 posted on 04/26/2003 7:18:39 PM PDT by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Pre-empt the Chinese and NK's demise is very easy to war-game and not much more difficult to accomplish. The preemption of the Chinese might just happen of its own accord. We are a 40 billion dollar trading partner, whereas the North Koreans are just a pain in the butt to them.
51 posted on 04/26/2003 7:18:52 PM PDT by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
Imagine if we had these capabilities during World War Two. We would have defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in about a week or so.
52 posted on 04/26/2003 7:25:54 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (California wine beats French wine in blind taste tests. Boycott French wine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Actually I think we should cut social programs and double our military budget. After all, the elimination of the Saddam Hussein regime was a far better use of taxpayer money than giving a bunch of layabouts money to buy malt liquor and cigarettes.

I will not feel comfortable until the United States has 20 super-carrier groups, 10,000 fighter jets, 30,000 tanks and an inventory of 500,000 smart bombs and cruise missiles. Also, we need to eliminate the nuclear capability of all nations that are not our staunchest allies. The only nations I feel comfortable having nuclear capability (besides the U.S.) are England, Israel, Australia, Japan and maybe, just maybe, India.

53 posted on 04/26/2003 7:32:59 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (California wine beats French wine in blind taste tests. Boycott French wine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: judgeandjury
What are you, a programmed robot?

I understand your post, but that's a little harsh. The guy made a valid point- combat troops are trained one way, law enforcement folks another.

While we should expect infantry types to obey orders, I suspect they would be prone to "imaginative" interpretations of their orders.

This is in no way a slam at the guys who shot up the civilian vehicles in Iraq- they were in a war zone, they had seen/heard of their fellow troops getting attacked by fighters in mufti, and if I had been there I guess I probably would have done the same thing- if I wasn't too busy crying and wetting myself.

I wouldn't want them manning DUI checkpoints.

I'm not suggesting combat soldiers/marines are rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth beasts. I wasn't when I was in, and I don't think the current crop is either.

The training and acculturation of combat troops emphasizes a set of "conflict resolution techniques" that are not appropriate for the civilian environment.

I want our grunts to keep that "mean" edge...and leave LEO stuff to LEO types.

54 posted on 04/26/2003 7:35:12 PM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
The future threat is asymmetric, pure and simple.

Fortunately, rogue states don't have the resources to mount effective asymmetric measures. The best they can do is get a few nukes so they'll make us think twice about invading them.
55 posted on 04/26/2003 7:53:13 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tacis
I think it is StarWars. The Times, the dems, and all America-haters know that, once we have a missle shield, we are truly the super power.

NMD would make us a lot safer from the likes of NK, but the only way it would really hurt the Chinese (like the Soviets before them) is if they tried to match it, which they clearly won't try. They'll simply build more ICBMs, fit them with MIRVs, and work on countermeasures.

56 posted on 04/26/2003 7:58:59 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Brandon
North Korea now stares into the barrel of the strongest military ever assembled, and yet may be able to defy the United States, owing to nuclear deterrence. As the global arms race ends with the United States so far ahead no other nation even tries to be America's rival, the result may be a world in which Washington has historically unparalleled power, but often cannot use it.

NK has learned a lesson from Iraq, but it's not the lesson we hoped to teach it. In their view, Iraq was attacked exactly because it had too little WMD capability and had staked its reputation on having no WMD at all. That's why NK acts differently: They're totally upfront about their nuclear capabilities (even bluffing when necessary) and won't repent for anything. As a result, not only have they forced us to talk to them, they're making us do it largely on their terms.

57 posted on 04/26/2003 8:06:59 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #58 Removed by Moderator

To: Lucas McCain
All the hate-America types around the world (including those in the United States) ought to stop their rantings long enough to thank their lucky stars that it is America, and not some evil regime such as the Soviet Union, that wields this awesome dominence of power.
The point is that they did not and cannot create it. It comes of the American genius, its political system, equality, liberty, and reverance for the individual. While other nations, now and in history, have built and used power, America alone did so in self defense.
59 posted on 04/26/2003 8:19:23 PM PDT by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

It's the soldier not the reporter who gives you the freedom of the press.

It's the soldier not the poet who gives you the freedom of speech.

It's the soldier not the campus organizer who allows you to demonstrate.

It's the soldier who salutes the flag, serves the flag, whose coffin is draped with the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag!!!

60 posted on 04/26/2003 8:34:25 PM PDT by Happy2BMe (LIBERTY has arrived in Iraq - Now we can concentrate on HOLLYWEED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson