US Seeks Super Weapons to Maintain Global Dominance

The United States is actively seeking to develop new "super weapons" in an effort to maintain its position as the world's sole superpower, particularly in the face of rising challenges from China and Russia. This pursuit reflects a long-standing US policy of preventing the emergence of rival powers capable of challenging American global dominance.

According to the 2022 National Security Strategy, the US sees itself as being in a "strategic competition to shape the future of the international order." This view is not new - a 1992 New York Times article revealed that Pentagon planning at the time called for ensuring no rivals could challenge American primacy. This policy has driven decades of US military interventions, political interference, and economic sanctions aimed at maintaining its dominant position.

However, the facade of unchallenged US military supremacy that emerged after the Cold War has begun to crumble in recent years. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has exposed weaknesses in US weapons systems and military-industrial capacity when facing a peer adversary like Russia. Expensive US precision-guided munitions, produced in limited quantities, have proven less effective than expected against Russian defenses. Meanwhile, Russia has demonstrated an ability to produce both high-tech precision weapons and conventional munitions in far greater quantities than the US and its allies.

This disparity is even more pronounced when considering a potential conflict with China. US military planners are increasingly concerned about their ability to project power in the Asia-Pacific region against China's growing military capabilities. A recent Defense One article highlighted how the US Air Force wants to build numerous new bases across the Pacific to disperse its forces, but lacks sufficient air and missile defense systems to protect them all.

Faced with this growing gap between its global ambitions and actual military means, the US is turning to new approaches in weapons development and production. Two startup arms manufacturers, Anduril and Area-I, are at the forefront of these efforts.

Anduril is proposing to use "software-defined manufacturing" - a process it claims allowed Tesla to outpace legacy automakers - to rapidly produce large numbers of drones, missiles, and other weapons. The company believes this approach will allow the US to match or exceed China's production capabilities.

Area-I, meanwhile, is focused on developing cheaper, less capable, but more numerous weapons to augment existing US arsenals. Their goal is to produce cruise missiles for around $300,000 each - significantly less than current US long-range missiles, but still more expensive than comparable Russian systems.

However, these efforts face significant challenges. China already extensively uses software-defined manufacturing in its vast industrial base, including for military production. This means China can likely adopt similar approaches faster and on a larger scale than US startups. Additionally, both Russia and China have demonstrated an ability to produce advanced weapons at lower costs than the US, while also maintaining the capacity to augment their arsenals with even cheaper conventional munitions when needed.

The fundamental problem facing US weapons development is that the country's arms industry remains profit-driven rather than purpose-driven. Unlike state-owned enterprises in Russia and China, US defense contractors prioritize maximizing returns for shareholders over meeting national security needs. This leads to higher costs, smaller production runs, and less flexibility to rapidly adapt to changing battlefield requirements.

Even if the US were to reform its military-industrial base and education system to prioritize producing a skilled workforce and expanding industrial capacity, it would still face the reality that China has already done this with a population over four times larger. The premise that the US, representing less than 5% of the global population, can maintain primacy over the other 95% is fundamentally flawed.

The emerging multipolar world order is built on cooperation rather than conflict, with industry and infrastructure driven by purpose over profit. Progress in this new paradigm comes through practical education and hard work, not the blind pursuit of power and wealth that has characterized decades of US hegemony.

For the United States to find a constructive role in this changing world, it must accept that it will not remain the single most powerful nation. Instead, it should seek to be one of several major powers cooperating within a balanced international system. Continuing to pursue global dominance through military means is likely to prove both futile and self-destructive in the long run.

As tensions rise in various regions - from Eastern Europe to the Middle East to Southeast Asia - it's crucial to view individual conflicts as part of this larger struggle between a US-led unipolar system and an emerging multipolar order. By focusing on the bigger picture, rather than becoming overly invested in any single proxy war, observers can better understand the true nature of global power dynamics in the 21st century.

Ultimately, no super weapon or technological innovation is likely to allow the US to overcome the fundamental shifts occurring in the global balance of power. The sooner American policymakers recognize and adapt to this reality, the better positioned the country will be to play a positive role in shaping a more stable and equitable international system for the future.

Article created from: https://youtu.be/h0qk3MptAP4?feature=shared