Follow us on social

google cta
Welcome to the defense death spiral

Welcome to the defense death spiral

At the current spending rate, in another generation we will have a lot of rich contractors and no aircraft or Naval fleets to speak of


Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

A basic truth in Washington is that almost every single new weapon system ends up costing significantly more than the one it is replacing.

As the cost of weapons increases, the number of systems produced decreases. That’s how the United States ended up with only 21 B-2s, 187 F-22s, and three Zumwalt-class destroyers, rather than the 132, 750, and 32 respectively the military initially promised. This phenomenon creates what is known as the Defense Death Spiral, when the unit cost of new weapons outrace defense budgets.

John Boyd and his friends in the Military Reform Movement during the late Cold War years warned us about the military industrial congressional complex 50 years ago. This small band of Pentagon insiders saw with their own eyes how the political economy created by the financial and political connections between the military elite, the defense industry, and society’s ruling class wasted precious resources and produced a series of deeply flawed weapons.

President Eisenhower elegantly articulated the dangers of the military industrial congressional complex in 1961, several years before Colonel Boyd and his friends began their work. He warned that only “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” This statement remains as true today as it was on that wintery January day 53 years ago.

With all due respect to President Eisenhower, it must be acknowledged that he issued his warning during the final days of his presidency rather than at its beginning – when he could have used his office to do something about it. The participants of the Military Reform Movement sacrificed their traditional careers and the greater financial rewards they could have enjoyed to actively fix the system from within.

President Eisenhower defined the problem for Boyd and his friends. They dissected it, identified the underlying pathologies of the system, and then did all they could to affect meaningful change.

The Death Spiral is one of the main Pentagon Pathologies. The American people devote ever greater resources to their defense while receiving less and less in return. The Air Force had 10,387 aircraft in 1975 when the Military Reformers began their work in earnest. Today the Air Force has 5,288. The Navy had 559 active ships in 1975. Today the fleet has only 296. The Pentagon’s base budget is more than 60% higher today than it was in 1975, when adjusted for inflation. The American people simply spend more and receive much less in return for their defense dollars.

An argument can be made that modern military equipment is more expensive because of the capabilities they provide the troops. That is extremely debatable because many of the high-profile acquisition programs over the past 25 years have been underwhelming at best, and often complete failures. It is difficult to find anyone who will honestly say the Littoral Combat Ship was worth the effort.

Left unchecked, the acquisition Death Spiral’s inevitable destination is unilateral disarmament. Norman Augustine, a former DoD official and Lockheed Martin CEO predicted in 1983, with only a hint of satire, that by 2054, “the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.”

The right way to combat an inevitable fate similar to Augustine’s prediction would be to stop business as usual in defense procurement. Service leaders should abandon the practice of pursuing the most technologically advanced weapons possible. Rather than trying to add every conceivable gadget to each airplane, ship, and ground vehicle, the military should simplify designs. A quality weapon is one that is just capable enough to perform the intended task.

The Pentagon should only approve programs for development when the component technologies have already been proven effective. That is how the Pentagon can avoid another acquisition debacle like that of the F-35, for which development work continues 23 years after Lockheed Martin won the contract.

Lawmakers and defense officials constantly say the acquisition system needs to be updated to speed weapons to the warfighters at the “speed of relevance.” That is a worthy goal, but it doesn’t require new laws and regulations to achieve. The only thing required is a more realistic design approach.

Unsurprisingly to many people, realism is not the approach of the national security establishment. The establishment’s leaders want to combat the Death Spiral by throwing more money at the problem. Senator Roger Wicker wants to drastically increase defense spending to 5% of GDP. Such an increase would add an additional $5 trillion in Pentagon spending over the next ten years over the already eye-watering $9.3 trillion currently projected over the same period.

Something clearly must give. The United States needs an effective military force to defend its interests. But if the country is bankrupted in the pursuit, then what is the ultimate point? The good news is that the solution to the Death Spiral conundrum doesn’t require additional legislation and will save countless billions of taxpayer dollars. All that is really required is true leadership to instill the necessary discipline to the process.

Finding the right leaders is the only real challenge to be faced.


Top photo credit: Wonder AI
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.