Experts Say US Defense Modernization Has a Serious Pacing Problem

The United States has always been a global leader in military prowess and domestic security. However, experts warn that America’s defense modernization is falling dangerously behind rival nations such as China.

At the same time, emerging technologies—artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing—have put a spotlight on potential data security weaknesses within the defense community.

“Maintaining America’s edge over our pacing competitor, the People’s Republic of China, depends on our ability to integrate new technologies into our national security ecosystem,” said Roger Zakheim, the director of the institute.

The Reagan Institute analysis, released in March 2024, stated the Department of Defense (DoD) needs to “prioritize the development and maturation of novel manufacturing processes that enable the flexible and affordable production of munitions and other military capabilities to meet global demand.”

The report also observed America needs to accelerate technological development.

Related Stories

Falling behind on defense modernization, even in the military, is a stark contradiction to the amount of money the United States spends on defense every year.

In a February analysis, the foundation observed the United States spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined.

Some experts have attributed this spending modernization gap to years of initiatives that have eroded national security, especially within America’s armed forces.

“U.S. military doctrine was overshadowed by social and political priorities that included DEI, social experiments, and other non-warfighting training that wasted valuable time in developing a warrior ethos,” Anthony Melé, president of AMI Global Security, told The Epoch Times.

From his years of experience working with the U.S. military and federal government, Melé said America doesn’t need to “recreate the wheel” when it comes to defense modernization.

He believes it needs to get back to focusing on air, land, sea, and—most recently—low earth orbit.

Part of this is due to the size of the U.S. armed forces in relation to potential adversary armies and the alarming amount of outdated equipment currently used in the field.

A former U.S. Marine and the owner of Hot Gates Consulting, Wood told The Epoch Times that the military’s use of 30 to 40-year-old equipment in the field could have serious consequences.

“All of the [military] services are similarly afflicted with old equipment. Though the platforms differ—tanks, ships, aircraft—each has to be effective in its respective environment especially relative to advances in anti-platform weapons,” Wood said.

There’s also the matter of how older weaponry will perform against an enemy force. Wood said the type of combat and the nature of the adversary are deciding factors in this equation.

“In Ukraine, we are seeing novel use of unmanned systems against heavy armor, rather than tanks against tanks.

“U.S. ground forces faced something similar in Iraq when Iraqi insurgents were very successful in using improvised explosives against heavily armored American vehicles,” he explained.

Wood pointed out that the U.S. Navy and Air Force haven’t faced the same level of threat as their Army and Marine counterparts in recent years.

This becomes a critical question mark when considering how older equipment will perform as naval tensions with China heat up in the Indo-Pacific region.

“What we don’t know is how well a current 30-year old Navy ship or Air Force fighter would work against a modern Chinese or Russian anti-ship missile or torpedo and a latest generation integrated air defense system,” Wood said.

The cleanup effort included more than 33,000 pieces of equipment valued at an estimated $418 million.

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) is taking similar steps and ramping up equipment modernization in the Indo-Pacific region.

The USAF hardware upgrade was estimated to begin in January this year.

“The modernization effort seeks to ensure peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, including the Korean peninsula, through state-of-the-art aircraft,” the USAF release stated, calling the improvements “pivotal.”

But this doesn’t address another critical issue: ongoing munitions shortages.

American munition shortages remain at the top of the list of concerns shared by defense professionals. “All this tech, all of these weapons we have, but there aren’t enough bullets,” Melé said.

And this involved a single terrorist group. This figure doesn’t account for the demand a battle with a nation would put on America’s armory.

This comes into focus when looking at comparison munitions stockpiles of potential adversaries.

America’s munitions stockpile has been a topic of much debate and concern, but the exact numbers of what the United States currently has in its arsenal are unknown.

One problem with trying to increase domestic munitions production is Pantagon’s claim that America’s industrial sector lacks the surge capacity to handle large orders and that boosting missile production in the short term isn’t possible.

“Sometimes you just need bullets to be able to fight against bullets and onslaughts of folks,” Kosinski said.

He said the United States has been underprepared for a “near-peer competition” in the mass production of warfighting materials, including ammunition, for several decades.

Meanwhile, Melé said DoD spending has undergone a shift from conventional warfighting to the high-tech, remote weapons systems that don’t account for what he called “battlefield realities.”

Despite continued progress towards a modernized armory, Wood’s concern over America’s faltering war “deterrent value” is shared by many. This extends beyond conventional weaponry and into the nuclear sphere.

“Deterrence is premised on the assumption that one’s military power would be effective if it had to be used,” Wood said.

“There has been very little work on new designs for nuclear weapons … U.S. focus has almost exclusively been on maintaining what it has.

“There is risk in this approach and, if maintained too long, can begin to damage deterrence if one’s adversary starts to question the viability and efficacy of America’s arsenal.”

Technical Difficulties

The breakneck speed at which new technologies are entering the national defense landscape has become something of a catch-22.

America can’t afford to be left behind, but Melé and Wood believe there’s an inherent danger of too much reliance on tech as a deterrent or warfighting device.

“We have to modernize and be forward-thinking, but we can’t abandon the basic rules of self-defense,” Melé said. “All that online technology is fine until you lose electricity. Then you’re back to the stone age.”

Melé said it’s paramount to retain the ability to “fight in the dark,” and believes the United States is lacking in its physical warfighting skills.

This became abundantly clear in Iraq in the early 2000s. Melé pointed out that despite having superior tech and weaponry, terrorists inflicted heavy damage and losses on the U.S. military with what he called “street fighting” tactics.

“Looks at what $75 worth of IEDs [improvised explosive devices] did to our troops. Superior tech doesn’t matter in a low-tech fight,” he said.

Nevertheless, he agrees innovations like AI could pose a serious threat to U.S. defense, depending on how it’s used.

Melé suggested advanced AI tools could “weaponize deception,” such as impersonating someone in the military chain of command.

Wood thinks emerging tech like AI is “extraordinarily important” in terms of U.S. defense strategy and combat readiness.

“Just as the telegraph, radio, airplane, jet engine, and rockets were when they were introduced. They cannot be ignored because adversaries will field them,” he said.

However, like Melé, Wood believes it’s dangerous to think or act as though AI, unmanned systems, quantum computing, and hypervelocity weapons will replace conventional military hardware.

“Artificial intelligence and cyber tools cannot take and hold ground. They make conventional forces much more effective but, by themselves, cannot win wars and therefore cannot deter enemy actions,” he said.

Technology may not win wars directly, but some say it is important to prepare for what leaps forward in quantum computing can do to America’s data security.

In terms of power and ability, quantum computing is significantly faster and can process much more data. It stands to revolutionize the entire digital industry, especially security encryption.

Quantum computing could potentially hack existing encryption methods, including those used by the U.S. government and military. Competitor nation’s progress with this same technology is another area of concern.