America Isn't Ready for a Major War — Here's Why That Should Worry You

The United States is not prepared to fight a major conflict today. That was the chilling conclusion the Commission on the National Defense Strategy came to in its recent report. Led by former Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman — with George W. Bush’s old undersecretary of defense, Eric Edelman, in the deputy role — the bipartisan Commission had been tasked by Congress with assessing the National Defense Strategy published by the Biden administration in 2022. According to their brief, the Commission’s task was to analyze “the assumptions, objectives, defense investments, force posture and structure, operational concepts and military risks” inherent in the document. What they found makes for terrifying reading. Released on July 29th, the report lays out all the ways America is unready for a serious war: from civilian unpreparedness, to gaping holes in the defense industrial base. It even questions whether the US will be able to maintain its status as the world’s sole superpower for much longer.

Key Takeaways

• The bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy, led by Jane Harman and Eric Edelman, concluded that the US is not prepared for a major conflict for the first time since the Cold War ended 35 years ago.
• US shell production is projected at 80,000 per month by end of 2024, while Russia alone produces 250,000 shells monthly, exposing a critical munitions gap.
• US defense spending at roughly three percent of GDP is far below Cold War lows of 4.9 percent in 1979, even as the Commission warns America is entering a New Cold War with China.
• The Commission warns that conflict with any one of China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea could draw in the others, turning a regional war into a multi-theater or global conflict.
• A Chinese blockade of Taiwan alone could wipe five percent off global GDP and trigger a global recession from supply chain disruptions.
• Single battles involving corps and divisions could see up to 15,000 US killed and 40,000 wounded, potentially exceeding the 58,220 Americans lost in the entire Vietnam War.

A Five-Alarm Warning from a Bipartisan Commission

It is the stark language used which really brings the risks home. To quote the Commission: “The United States last fought a global conflict during World War II, which ended nearly 80 years ago. The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today.” In terms of warnings, it is hard to find a comparable recent report that ends with such a five-alarm fire. In the weeks since publication, it has doubtless caused an unbelievable amount of arguments and soul-searching in the Pentagon. Naturally, some of that will be from people who feel this conclusion is overblown. The Economist pointed out that the report landed only shortly after Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Q. Brown, declared that the US military was the “most lethal, most respected combat force in the world.” That debate aside, it is important that people hear the contents of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy report and decide for themselves. The 114-page document deserves wide attention. The crib sheet version of the argument can be summed up as: Uncle Sam is less-prepared, and his adversaries more capable, than any of us imagine.

Military Unreadiness and the Multi-Theater Threat

The lack of preparedness in America can helpfully be broken into two types: military unreadiness, and that among the civilian population. As far as military matters go, the report says that the global situation is the most serious it has been since 1945. Back in 2018, the previous Commission warned that America “might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia.” In 2024, though, the new Commission suggests that the chance of fighting just one of these adversaries is increasingly remote. Citing the growing military alliance between Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang, the authors suggest that getting into a conflict with any of the four might draw in the others. In their words: “At minimum, the United States should assume that if it enters a direct conflict involving Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea, that country will benefit from economic and military aid from the others.” The authors note that “conflict anywhere could become a multi-theatre or global war.” As a result, in their view, America needs to be capable of containing China and North Korea, deterring Russia, and countering Iran all at once. The report does not believe the US military is currently capable of such a task. As Foreign Policy has noted, “the U.S. military’s overall end strength is smaller than it has been in 80 years.” Production of munitions, while rising, is still far below what adversaries can turn out monthly. In March, Voice of America reported that US shell production should hit around 80,000 per month by the end of 2024. That same month, CNN reported that Russia alone produced 250,000 shells. A major reason for these weaknesses is a lack of cash. On paper, US defense spending looks pretty healthy: more than $850 billion in 2023, or equivalent to over three percent of GDP. By comparison, the second-highest defense spender in NATO in dollar terms is Great Britain, which in 2023 spent more like $73 billion — a number that is barely a rounding error against America’s defense budget. Look at the figures another way, though, and US spending is unhealthily low. During the Cold War, the lowest amount of GDP spent on defense was 4.9 percent, in 1979. For much of that period, it was over six percent. To get a figure lower than the projected three percent that will be spent in 2025, you need to go back to 1999, when it dropped to 2.9 percent. The Commission’s point is that America today is entering a New Cold War with China, whilst spending like it is still the late 1990s. The Pentagon long maintained a “two war strategy,” meaning America should be capable of simultaneously fighting two different wars in different theaters and winning both of them. In 2018, the Trump administration ditched the two-war requirement, and the Biden administration did not bring it back. The Economist sums up the Commission’s findings this way: “The result is that a war in one theater would stretch America dangerously thin.”

Civilian Unpreparedness and the Human Cost of a Major Conflict

Military preparedness is just one problem the Commission identified. The other is an American public that is just not ready for the horrors a serious war would bring. These horrors encompass not only the actual fighting, but also the effects on the economy. The report points out that a Chinese blockade of Taiwan would be severe enough to wipe five percent off global GDP. A full-blown war with Beijing, the authors write, would trigger “a global economic recession from disruptions to supply chains, manufacturing, and trade.” America would suddenly be cut off from minerals vital for modern industries to function. On top of that, there could well be massive cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, taking everything from transport systems to water offline. In short, the report found that a major war would touch the lives of nearly everyone in the country, requiring daily personal sacrifices not experienced in decades. And this is before the deaths. Battles involving corps and divisions are predicted to see up to 15,000 killed, with another 40,000 US soldiers wounded. These are just single battles. The overall war would likely kill far more American servicemembers. Should the war originate on the Korean peninsula, some analysts assume that Kim Jong-Un might open the conflict with surprise nuclear attacks on American bases in the Pacific. Back in 2017, Director of the East Asian Nonproliferation Program, Jeffrey Lewis, wrote in the Washington Post that a “doomsday scenario” would involve Pyongyang simultaneously striking American bases in South Korea, Japan, and Guam, in the hopes of shocking Uncle Sam into backing down by causing mass casualties. While that would not work, such an opening move would kill tens of thousands of Americans before the main fighting even started. A major conflict in the Pacific could potentially kill more Americans than the 58,220 lost in the Vietnam War. Certainly it would kill more than the 4,492 servicemembers who lost their lives in Iraq. The Commission’s report speaks directly to public preparedness: “The US public are largely unaware of the dangers the United States faces or the costs required to adequately prepare. They do not appreciate the strength of China and its partnerships or the ramifications to daily life if a conflict were to erupt.”

China’s Historic Military Buildup and Growing Adversary Strength

The fact that Beijing is undertaking a serious military buildup is widely known. But the sheer scale of that buildup may not be. Just this March, Commander Admiral John Aquilino claimed that “on a scale not seen since WWII, the PLA’s buildup is occurring across land, sea, air, space, cyber, and information domains.” It is this massive investment that has gotten the Commission worried. In stark language, the report warns that “China is outpacing the United States and has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific.” To be clear, Beijing right now is not capable of matching America across domains. US undersea capabilities — to take just one example — are vastly superior, and may continue to be for some time. Yet there are certain other domains where this is no longer true. The report highlights cyber and space as areas where the People’s Liberation Army is fast catching up — and others where it could catch up in the near future. “If these trends continue, the PLA will be a peer, if not superior, military competitor of the United States across domains, a situation the United States has not faced since the height of the Cold War.” The Commission believes that not only is China a bigger worry than commonly realized, but so is Russia. In the case of Moscow, the danger comes from a combination of massive military spending, serious capabilities in certain domains, and Vladimir Putin’s naked ambition. Although the Kremlin’s army is currently bogged down in Ukraine, the Russian government is channeling as much as 29 percent of the federal budget into defense spending. Carnegie Endowment estimates that this is equivalent to six percent of GDP, while the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute puts it closer to seven percent. Either way, it means that Russia will be able to reconstitute its battered army after the fighting stops, perhaps within as few as five years. The threat the report sees is Russia ultimately triumphing in Ukraine, then moving its army up to the borders with NATO, forcing the US to allocate forces to Europe that could otherwise be used in the Indo-Pacific. Finally, there are the dual nuclear threats of North Korea and Iran. Following the lead of analysts Robert L. Carlin and Siegfried S. Hecker, the Commission notes that Pyongyang may have already decided to go to war with South Korea in the near future. Regarding Tehran, they write: “Iran’s military is modernizing, with access to advanced aircraft and the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, with improved accuracy, range, and lethality. It has also advanced its nuclear program.” The report also sounds the alarm about possible Russian technology transfers to Iran and North Korea, in exchange for drones and munitions to use in Ukraine. Reporting has already shown that Moscow may be giving Pyongyang advanced nuclear tech. The Center for Strategic and International Studies recently wrote: “Kim wants advanced telemetry, nuclear submarine technology, military satellite wares, and advanced intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology… ICBMs with advanced countermeasure technology, overhead reconnaissance capabilities, and nuclear submarines would allow Kim to target the entirety of the United States.”

How Fiscal Austerity Hollowed Out American Defense

For those feeling a little depressed about the report’s conclusions, the good news is that the Commission also has a gigantic section on how to improve things, starting with a diagnosis of what went wrong. Their main conclusion is that fiscal austerity and a dysfunctional Congress are putting America in danger. A lot has been made of how Europe reacted to the 2008 Financial Crisis by embarking on a wave of austerity that gutted its armed forces. What is less well-remembered is that the United States did a smaller version of the same. During the Obama years, Congress enacted budget caps to slash the national debt. These caps are cited as one of the main reasons the US can no longer fight and win two wars at once. In the current era, the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act is having a similar effect. To get the Act through Congress, defense spending had to again be capped, meaning it will decline in real terms in 2025 and 2026. What is galling is that the 2018 Commission called for defense spending to grow between three and five percent annually. But both the Trump and Biden administrations ignored this recommendation. As a result, one of the current Commission’s recommendations is for the US to invest heavily in its defense industrial base. The Economist summed up their plans: “The commission urges Congress to revoke existing spending caps, pass a multi-year supplemental budget to beef up the defense-industrial base and open the fiscal taps to put defense ‘on a glide path to support efforts commensurate with the US national effort seen during the Cold War.’” The report envisages this happening not just by throwing money at Lockheed Martin and RTX, but also taking bold gambles on new companies, including those focused on specialties like cyber. It also wants the US to boost manufacturing capacity, which can be imagined playing well with voters in states that are likely to benefit from the investment. How this will all be funded, though, is a trickier proposition. Reflecting its bipartisan nature, the report calls for the funds to come from a combination of raising taxes and slashing welfare spending — a recipe guaranteed to anger partisans on both sides.

Strengthening Alliances, Reforming the Pentagon, and the Path Forward

The Commission does not want America to do everything alone. One of their biggest recommendations is for the US to start partnering more closely with major allies. The thinking here is that the arrival of an axis joining together China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea cannot be countered by the USA alone. Therefore, rather than turning inward, America should bolster its alliances to help achieve its goals. In the report’s telling, that includes not only working to strengthen NATO — the Commission even thinks Washington should permanently deploy a full armored corps to Europe to deter Russia — but also forging closer bonds with existing partners. Examples include the AUKUS initiative with the UK and Australia, as well as recent moves to strengthen military ties with Japan. Speaking of NATO, the report effectively suggests a quid pro quo. The Pentagon should boost America’s presence and capabilities in Europe, but in return NATO states should start spending more, and targeting their spending more effectively. The Commission said that NATO defense planners should set targets for the military capabilities that US allies in Europe need to have in order “to reduce overreliance on the United States.” Getting NATO to spend more has been the windmill presidents have tilted at for decades. It was only last year that over half of NATO states met their spending obligations for the first time, and only this year that over 70 percent of members crossed the two percent threshold. Still, the threat from Russia all but guarantees that most European NATO states will keep defense spending high in the coming years. Perhaps the more notable conclusion in the report is that the only way the US can free itself up to focus on China is to ensure a Ukrainian victory over Russia. “The only viable course of action is to increase the scale, capability, and freedom to use the materiel provided to Ukraine so that it can push Russia back.” Other recommendations include ditching a culture of “risk avoidance” in the Pentagon, reforming a byzantine procurement system to make American defense spending leaner, faster, and more willing to gamble on emerging tech, and improving the offer to new military recruits. Right now, the US military is missing recruitment targets, largely due to low unemployment across the nation. While retention is high — unlike in peer nations — the report still suggests improving the offer to those interested in signing up, including by allowing more flexibility and increasing financial incentives. The whole report is available to download for free for those who want to dig deeper. Though not every conclusion may be beyond debate, it is clear that there are potential problems ahead for the US military — problems that may require citizens to make some hard-nosed sacrifices in the near future. For the first time in three decades, America has a credible military challenger emerging in the form of China, one that has risen at the exact same time that three powerful rogue states — Russia, Iran, and North Korea — are setting out to destabilize the world order. That does not necessarily mean a global war is inevitable. The world is not yet reliving the summer of 1914, as the great powers of Europe march toward catastrophe. But these are dangerous times, and even a nation as powerful as America needs to think calmly and clearly about what might come next.

Frequently Asked Questions

What will happen if there’s a World War III?

According to Eric Schmidt’s article in Foreign Affairs, the future of warfare is already here, and the US is not ready for it. The Commission on the National Defense Strategy warns that the United States lacks the readiness to face modern military threats, and a new report by the Commission cautions that China and Russia’s ‘no-limits’ partnership, formed in recent years, poses a significant threat to the US. If there’s a World War III, the US may struggle to win or even lose a war against China or Russia, as warned by the previous Commission in 2018. The global situation is the most serious it has been since 1945, and the chance of fighting just one of these adversaries is increasingly remote.

What is the commission on the national defense strategy?

The Commission on the National Defense Strategy is a bipartisan commission chaired by former Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, with Ambassador Eric Edelman as the vice chairman. The Commission was tasked by Congress with assessing the National Defense Strategy published by the Biden administration in 2022, and its report was released on July 29th, laying out the ways America is unready for a serious war. The Commission’s task was to analyze the assumptions, objectives, defense investments, force posture and structure, operational concepts, and military risks inherent in the document.

Where did Jane Harman go to college?

Although the provided context does not specify where Jane Harman went to college, according to publicly available information, Jane Harman attended Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, and later graduated from Harvard Law School in 1969. She served nine terms in Congress as the U.S. representative for California’s 36th congressional district and was the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

How did World War II start and end?

World War II started with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, followed by the German Anschluss with Austria in 1938, and the Treaty of Munich in September 1938. The war in Europe began in March 1939 when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. The war ended nearly 80 years ago, with the formal surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945, following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The war in Europe ended on May 8, 1945, with the formal surrender of Germany, known as V-E Day.

What US state would be hardest to invade?

Although the provided context does not specify which US state would be hardest to invade, it is generally considered that states with rugged terrain, such as Alaska, or those with significant military presence, such as Hawaii, would be more difficult to invade. However, the Commission on the National Defense Strategy report focuses on the overall lack of readiness of the US to face modern military threats, rather than the specific vulnerability of individual states. According to Admiral John Aquilino, the US military’s overall end strength is smaller than it has been in 80 years, which could impact the ability to defend any state.

Who decides if the US goes to war?

The decision to go to war in the US is typically made by the President, in consultation with Congress and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The President serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and has the authority to deploy troops and direct military operations. However, Congress has the power to declare war and approve military funding, and can also play a role in shaping US military policy. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, currently General Charles Q. Brown, also provides military advice to the President and the Secretary of Defense.

Has the US ever been attacked in a war?

Yes, the US has been attacked in several wars throughout its history. One notable example is the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan on December 7, 1941, which drew the US into World War II. More recently, the US has faced terrorist attacks, such as the September 11 attacks in 2001, which led to the War in Afghanistan. The Commission on the National Defense Strategy report warns that the US is not prepared for a major conflict, and that the global situation is the most serious it has been since 1945, with the growing military alliance between Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang posing a significant threat to the US.

How often is the National Defense Strategy published?

The National Defense Strategy is typically published every four years, as required by law. The Biden administration published the most recent National Defense Strategy in 2022, which was assessed by the Commission on the National Defense Strategy. The Commission’s report, released on July 29th, provides an analysis of the assumptions, objectives, defense investments, force posture and structure, operational concepts, and military risks inherent in the document. The previous Commission warned in 2018 that the US might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia.

Related Coverage

• War is Coming. Europe isn’t Ready.
• What Would a War Between China and the US Look Like? A Comprehensive Military Analysis
• America’s Nuclear Strategy Pivots to China: Preparing for a Three-Against-One Nuclear Threat
• Why is America Destroying its Strongest Alliances? And More.
• Is the 21st Century’s Deadliest War about to Restart? And More.

Sources

1. https://www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/NDS-commission.html
2. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/07/29/america-is-not-ready-for-a-major-war-says-a-bipartisan-commission
3. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/29/us-national-defense-strategy-commission-review-report-biden-war-planning/
4. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/not-prepared-major-war-commission-slams-us-defense-strategy/
5. https://www.economist.com/international/2024/07/18/could-america-fight-its-enemies-without-breaking-the-law