The U.S. military is badly in need of congressional and executive action and unfortunately this is coded as “moving to the right”. Each branch is taking small steps to pivot to the very real prospect of a hot war with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (potentially all 4 at the same time) but they have neither the agency to make the changes needed nor the ability to do cohesively.

We can currently build 1.5 submarines a year and that’s a hard cap right now. The specialized facilities and atrophied workforce skills means this output could only be scaled up in a timeframe that spans years. The Navy has been unable to successfully procure a new weapons platform at scale for decades. The LCS is a joke, the Zumwalt is a joke, the Ford Class is too expensive, the Next Gen Cruiser was cancelled, and the Constellation class is well on its way to being both over budget and not meeting Navy needs. At this point the only thing that is capable and can be delivered predictably are Flight III Burkes which are extremely capable ships, but very much an old design.

There has been solid success in missile advancements: extending old platforms’ reach, making missiles more survivable, and miniaturization to allow stealth platforms to remain stealthy while staying lethal. US radar, sensor networking, and C4ISR capabilities are still unparalleled (and we continue to make advancements). There’s some very cool outside the box thinking, but I don’t think it’s properly scaled-up yet. Air Force’s Rapid Dragon turns cargo planes into missile trucks and the Navy’s LUSV is effectively an autonomous VLS cell positioner. However, very much in line with Supply Side Progressivism there ultimately isn’t a substitute for having a deep arsenal and attritable weapons delivery platforms. We have the designs, they’re capable, we need to fund and build them.

Diplomacy can only get you so far and talking only with State Department types is not meaningful engagement with national security. I am beyond frustrated with progressive/liberal commentators refusal to engage in 15% of federal spending; it’s frankly a dereliction of explainer journalism’s duty. I am totally for arming Ukraine to defeat Russia (and I’m sure Ezra, Matt, Jerusalem, Derek, Noah, etc. are as well), but none of these columnists has grappled with how to best do this or why we should do it in the first place. Preparing for war is not war mongering, it’s prudence. The U.S. trade to GDP ratio is 27% and we (and our allies) are a maritime powers. We rightly argue that “increasing the pie” is good via supply side progressivism but need to consider how avoiding war via deterrence, shortening war via capability, and winning war protects the pie we have and allows for future pie growth. Unfortunately nation states sometimes continue politics through alternative means: killing people and breaking their stuff until both parties are willing to return to negotiation. Willful ignorance will lead to bad outcomes.

This is complicated to plan and difficult to execute. There are Senators, Representatives, and members of The Blob that are already engaged in these challenges but they need leaders to actually drive change; throwing money at the problem does not work. This isn’t a partisan issue and Kamala Harris should have plans for how to begin tackling these challenges.

Linked is a recent War on the Rocks podcast with Sen. Mark Kelly and Rep. Mike Waltz discussing Maritime Strategy.