Contending With Overmatch
(Interjection – Basically, in the abysmal failure of the DOD audit, the military-industrial complex had to come up with SOMETHING that might stand a chance of instilling sufficient FEAR in U.S. citizenry to gain support for ever-increasing and totally unnecessary over-blown budgets… Just as happened to initiate the Cold War and eventually drive Soviet budgets sufficiently out of control that the old Soviet Union collapsed. Historically, humanity has predictably responded to FEAR as intended by national leaders. The concept of Overmatch is simply another attempt to instill FEAR to justify continued extremely expensive militarization which THIS country can ill afford, any more than the old Soviet Union could.
If we look at the basic assumptions of MAJOR simultaneous wars, what are the odds? Practically zero! Also, it assumes a nuclear weapon development effort that is TOTALLY unnecessary and VERY expensive (NOTE that I began my 20-1/2-year military career as a nuclear weapon technician and team chief). A mistake that even Obama let himself be talked into and tRump, in his total ignorance, is in favor of.
The participants of the military-industrial complex (mostly one percenters) wants to stay in their relative luxury, paid for by the rest of us AND government debt bought up by China and other countries. This concept (in my experience) was initially proposed by the bib hitters in industry and proposed to the DOD where the ranking officers, looking at military retirement with the prospect of lucrative post-retirement jobs in industry supporting this concept were more than happy to start the ball rolling with poorly thought-out assumptions – because they’ve been used so many times before to generate population FEAR to support previous “concepts.” ~ Don Chapin)
“There’s no getting away from it: overmatch will govern US foreign and military policy for years into the future. It will increase the risk of great-power war and encroach upon civilian life. The Democrats in Congress cannot stop it, partly because they lack the power to do so and partly because most of them also subscribe to the notion of permanent US military superiority. Resistance from the peace and antinuclear movements, such as can he mustered, is unlikely to slow the pace of expanding militarization. What is needed, therefore, is a clear-headed critique of overmatch and a strategy for contesting its most dangerous components.
Overmatch rests on the assumption that the United States can and should devote whatever resources it takes to preserve a significant military lead over all potential competitors indefinitely. This is both practically and morally flawed. America’s competitors will always find new ways to overcome US advantages, while any sustained drive to stay ahead of all conceivable threats will eventually drain this country of its economic, scientific, and technological assets. As the architects of the original US-Soviet arms-control agreements eventually concluded, negotiating parity in weapons capabilities is a much more sensible strategy.”
Read the article in the pdf below: