January 22, 2024 - 1:00pm
Last week was a truly strange time in the British Isles. In his first major speech as British Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps said that Britain should prepare for war with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea in the next five years. Meanwhile, in Dublin Chinese Premier Li Qiang met Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and touted the “huge potential” of deeper economic and trade cooperation between the two countries.
Ireland and Britain are both close allies of the United States and are stitched into the same global security architecture. Why, then, is one country preparing for war while the other is boosting ties with the supposed enemy? The only possible answer to this question is that the Irish government does not think such a conflict is going to take place. So, who does?
The answer appears to be Nato, which last week announced it would begin drills for a third world war. Yes, Nato wants to prepare for World War III — that is, a global conflict which would likely escalate into a nuclear war and destroy the world. At surface level, it would appear as if the adults have left the room. A closer look provides even more evidence of this.
Consider Shapps’s newly defined axis of evil. Taken together, these countries boast a total of 8.2 million troops, counting both active army personnel and reserves. Yet shortly after his apocalyptic speech the Defence Secretary was on the defensive, insisting that the British Army would not dip below 73,000. Even adding America to the mix produces an army which pales in comparison to its supposed adversary: the US Army, currently in the midst of a terrible recruitment crisis, has a total of 1.07 million troops. If the UK and US tried to take on the four countries on Shapps’s blacklist there would be eight enemy troops to every British or American soldier.
Then consider how we would get those soldiers from here to there. Earlier this month it was announced that UK aircraft carriers cannot be sent to the Red Sea thanks to a shortage of sailors. As in America, the British military is experiencing an extreme shortage of personnel due to a recruitment crisis. Is this reversible in the five-year time horizon Shapps is giving for World War III? Not a chance. Is he then suggesting that Britain should conscript all military-age men to fight the new axis of evil? How might that poll with the public?
The reality is that these machinations can be boiled down to Nato’s attempt to regain relevance against the backdrop of a deteriorating situation in Ukraine. The alliance threw all its weight behind Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s nation, and it is no secret that the war is not going well for them. On Saturday Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico claimed that Ukrainian concessions are necessary to bring the conflict to an end, and reiterated his opposition to Kyiv joining Nato. The alliance’s backup plan appears to involve preparing the Western world for total global war and potential nuclear annihilation. Watching on, it is hard not to be reminded of the black comedy of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove.
In the past few years, it has become popular to posture over conflict with Beijing. Politicians and talking heads say that we must rearm to meet the threat of a rising China, yet we are never told what this conflict would look like and how we would win. Nor are we ever instructed on when the militarisation will take place, how much it will cost or how it will work. It is always signalled that this remilitarisation will happen at a vague point in the future. Perhaps it is time for proponents to fill in the blanks.
In the meantime, countries such as Ireland are cutting trade deals and becoming wealthier — and so more powerful and influential. In a nuclear age, with many large powers, military might is far less important than economic strength because an all-out war would only lead to all-out obliteration. Britain needs to decide. Does it want to go down the route of remobilisation, allocating men and money away from growing the economy and toward the building of a large army? Or does the country want to build bridges in trade and commerce and try to make itself more prosperous and influential? Right now, it seems like Britain doesn’t know.
Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics
philippilk
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeLeaving the EU has made us far more reliant on the US and aligning with the US means being dragged into its aggressive foreign policy and militarised society.
I would rather be in the EU but there’s no point leaving one bloc to enter another with all sorts of baggage and no more freedom. Let us abandon both and, as the author suggests, play all tables.
Unless we can send pensioners or immigrants to war we have no chance of building a decent army. Today’s young aren’t going to want to fight for their landlord’s freedom. Go for amoral growth.
Apologies for repeating my advice from the comments in an earlier article. But perhaps it’s better to let our youth decide for themselves rather than assuming what they think or believe. History suggests they care rather more about their freedom than you imagine.
We are, of course, already in the NATO bloc. The one that guaranteed the freedom of Europe for almost 80 years. No sane person I know of is suggesting we leave.
The more likely scenario is that the US abandons NATO. With a President Trump back in office next January we will need to consider if he will follow through on his previous threat to scale down the US military commitment to Europe. Eventually no matter who is in the Whitehouse ,US federal debt will force a reduction in defence spending.
Maybe, but surely to take our eyes off the ball and pretend that economic influence on its own will deter the likes of Putin is naive. I don’t think this is a case of either/or, but both. In working with our partners in the democratic world, we must aspire to both a healthy economy and a credible defence force. After all, there is no accounting for crazed autocrats – they are liable to do anything, and we are living in increasingly vexed and volatile times. Why can Ireland afford not to do this? Because it doesn’t have to worry about mounting a credible army – the US, primarily, has its back.
Much like Canada. We can afford to ignore the military.
And I have met Irish and Canadian citizens who have, by choice, served in the British armed forces. I wonder why?
Honor and courage are so old-fashioned today : )
Geopolitics is back with a vengeance; the “energy transition” has turned out, so far, mostly to mean unilateral economic disarmament in favour of Russia and China. The west appears to be saying enough.
Ordinary citizens have realised we are only harming ourselves with the direction of net zero etc, when will enough of those in positions of power do the same?
The answer to the original question about Ireland’s policy is really very simple. They’ve been freeloading on defence since 1922, assuming that Britain and/or the US would take care of it for them if needed. So they’re free to indluge China. For now. Until we demand they pay their own way.
I’m astonished the author is unaware of all this. But actually, I’m not. Not based on his previous articles.
All rather similar to the way that Ireland has been allowed to develop as a freeloading tax haven within the EU and actively collaborated with big US companies in tax evasion (yes, evasion – the IP of these companies was not invented or developed in Ireland as they claim).
Ireland isn’t “indulging” China, merely making a trade deal with it.
Thereby assuming and hoping, like the article, that world war isn’t inevitable.
What a wicked assumption ! What an evil hope !
What wars is Ireland likely to face? It’s mostly likely to suffer a war within its own borders that anywhere else.
And when you talk of “freeloading on defence” – there are few scenarios in the modern world where Ireland is invaded where either Britain or the US weren’t heavily involved and where Ireland was not a belligerent.
Low tax rates? Growth? Budget surplus? Talking of trade with international growing markets? Ireland is living the Brexit dream without all the fuss of leaving.
You need to stop and ask why Ireland appears to be doing so well. Ireland is living off tax arbitrage. Highly lucrative until the big boys change the rules. Doesn’t require any great skill or effort. This is all widely known and understood.
Tax arbitrage? You mean like the Netherlands, Monaco, Luxemburg, Andorra and the biggest tax haven of them all – Delaware.
How dare these places become prosperous by offering businesses a low-tax regime? Don’t they realise that the tax-and-spend model which has bankrupted most Western economies is the only way to go? Level playing field = lowest common denominator.
Well, no doubt there are many things wrong with Irish government and politics, but actually following a simple and successful strategy is hardly to be sniffed at. If only the British state had one half as coherent!
“The only possible answer to this question is that the Irish government does not think such a conflict is going to take place. So, who does?”
The Irish Republic is entirely reliant on other countries, principally the UK, for its defence. There was a bit of a stink about it recently (https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/05/08/who-protects-irish-skies-the-secret-air-defence-deal-that-dates-back-to-the-cold-war/). So it is hardly surprising that Dublin does not beat the war-drums. Whether Varadkar’s cosying-up to the Chinese will go down well in Washington and Brussels is another matter altogether.
Does that matter ?
The central fact, is that Ireland doesn’t expect world war.
NATO seems rather eager for it.
Ireland doesn’t expect war because nobody would want to conquer it. The last nation to conquer Ireland came to regret it as they got nothing but trouble for their efforts. It’s irrelevant. It’s not large or significant enough to warrant much attention, for now anyway. How long it can ride China’s coattails economically and the US/Britain’s when it comes to defense is an open question. They’re taking advantage of what the current geopolitical situation allows. Nothing wrong with that so long as they aren’t counting on present dynamics continuing indefinitely.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Quite! We need to improve our stocks of ammunition, medical (including NBCD) supplies and clothing (that includes body armour, etc.) – Dan Snow’s “Boots, Bullets and Bandages” historical TV series refers.
NBC?
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence. Clothing, “Gas Masks”, Oximes, Calcium Iodide tablets, Atropine monojects, Gloves, Fullers Earth – It’s a long list. And, of course, training in the maintenance and use thereof.
There is a huge difference – in terms of posture, force makeup, weaponry, equipment, doctrine, of all factors that determine the shape of the military, including cost – between a force focussed on defence, and a military designed to project force (i.e., attack).
A defensive posture does not need resources for airlift, forward logistics, all the cost, manpower, and equipment that shifts a military’s “tooth to tail” ratio toward the tail.
A defensive posture is by definition non-threatening, while a “force projection” posture by definition is threatening.
An adult discussion is needed more than ever.
Britain is likelier to be harmed by Islamic terrorists than by Putin.
So what are we and NATO proposing to do about Islamic terrorism ?
Ship millions more in and hope they forget their religion when they join in the DEI mandated denunciation sessions.
Ant-terrorist operations are the responsibility of individual NATO members who will (or should) coordinate their activity with other states including none members where appropriate. If Push comes to Shove and Argie-bargie I expect the British Government to crush any known terrorist orgs with brutal and terminal force.
Brutal and terminal force? Have you been paying any attention for the last 20 years? The War On Terror has metastasised the threat of Islamist Terror from a few caves in Afghanistan to much of Central and West Asia, North Africa and home to Europe. Any threats now are blow-back, that’s all.
The same thing we’re doing about the far-right threat.
That’s the thing – radicalized Islam is a bigger threat than Putin.
I would go further and claim the average Briton is more likely to be harmed by the British State than any other actor.
Say something on the internet that upsets the fragile persona of someone embedded is DEI culture and the police will slap a “Non Crime Hate Incident” on your police record.
Watch a recorded news item uploaded to YouTube and despite never watching the BBC, they’ll have you on the criminal charge of BBC TV license evasion.
Visit London to observe a political march and while having breakfast in a cafe a squad of 30 police will drag you out, handcuff you, then pepper spray your face and finally the judicial system will ban you from entering your capital city for the best part of a year.
Switch on your central heating and you will be crippled financially because the Government has pursued a war in the Ukraine that has destabilized energy distribution around the world.
The pundit Kristin Konstantin of ‘Triggernometry’ in a recent broadcast said that Russia from where he emigrated to the UK had imprisoned 400 people last year for ‘wrong speak’ whereas the British imprisoned 3,300. Now that’s stunning.
Easy – continue to provoke Muslims to justify the spending on NATO
What a load of codswallop. The writer has put forward two contrasting positions: war or trade, as if either would be the exclusive way of moving forward.
As for Ireland “gaining in influence” if it manages to secure a few trade deals with the CCP… give me strength! What “influence” would that be, since it’s not even able to exert anything more than a very minimal influence within the EU, to which it’s beholden for any influence whatsoever, having carefully managed to evade participation in any live conflict as a national entity since its inception?
The quoting of troop numbers is also highly questionable. There are troops, and there are ‘bodies in a uniform’, as we can see in the Ukraine. Any planning for a possible WW3 would be standard for an overarching body such as NATO. Failure to plan means failure to fail. What does the writer suggest the generals do instead? I’d expect a much more thoughtful piece from this author, and an ‘off-day’ is allowed, but still…
“having carefully managed to evade participation in any live conflict as a national entity since its inception”
You seem to be suggesting this is a bad thing. The entire purpose of statecraft is to avoid live conflict. So it would seem, therefore, that Ireland has been exceptionally good at it, and its more belligerent neighbours, perhaps less so.
The purpose of statecraft is to maintain the security of the state, not to avoid conflict at all costs.
When Napoleon sent a fleet to land on Irish shores which only didn’t make it due to a severe storm, this persuaded the British government to maintain an armed presence on the island of Ireland, which only ended (in the south) in 1922. Since then, Hitler also had designs on Ireland as a route to invade mainland Britain via the back door. History has a way of cutting through the idealist mindset.
And yet: Ireland maintains good diplomatic relations with almost all nations on earth, spends very little on its military and lives in perfect peace.
And by the very examples you cite, the main cause of security threats stems from the bellicosity and belligerence of its neighbour to the east.
I think there is something in what you say, and indeed Ireland as a small nation obviously cannot in any case be a major military power. But Britain didn’t have that option. It’s main (very successful) geostrategic power was to strive to maintain a balance of power on the continent of Europe. It sounds like a Utopia to imagine Britain could have (alone – Louis 14th, Napoleon?) been a pacifist power in the past. And you can certainly say that the US and China today are bound to pursue their interests – and sadly military power is an inevitable concomitant of that.
Excellent post. Blindingly obvious, but a critique I failed to notice. NATOs entire existence is to plan for war. That’s what it does. What’s the point otherwise?
I agree about the 20,000 figure. The original press release says “20,000 personnel”.
2000 will be in 8 Royal Navy ships. I imagine even the crew of an RFA cargo ship will count. The Royal Marines routinely practice artic warfare in Norway each year so the 400 Royal Marines are just a routine annual feature of the NATO summer war gaming calendar.
The army has maintained a tripwire deterrent force in Estonia in recent years, are they part of the 20,000?
Having said that 16,000 army personnel mentioned by the Government is a notable commitment for the UK but how many are front line troops I wonder? We are down to 32 infantry battalions at 450 each = 14,400 infantry. I doubt more than half will be included so there must be a lot military supply lorry drivers in the deployment.
Too true Steve. It was always the case, how do I deal with the big nasty guy who lives in the cave next door.
Meanwhile, I’m preparing for the day when P Pilkington writes an intelligent and coherent post. I believe I have a long time to prepare.
Some people in the West want war with Russia, China, and North Korea more than they want war with us. The first two want to do business while the third just wants attention. In the US, politicians have been craving war with Iran since the days of McCain, and it’s no better an idea that conflict with the other three.
War is, however, good for business and always has been. Plus it gives our tinhorn tyrants the ability to rule by fear, as they did during the great Covid freakout. NATO may want war but who is NATO really? It’s the US. I’m reasonably sure that one candidate, the one against whom heaven and earth are being moved, does NOT want war.
Putin wants to reconquer the Soviet empire. China wants to reconquer Taiwan. ‘want business’ forsooth! As for Orange man, he wants to give Putin the same deal he gave Kim Young-un’: Orange man gets to have big summits with big men and posture like a statesman, and in return the dictator on the other side gets whatever concessions he wants.
Putin wants to reconquer the Soviet empire.
Does he really? Based on what? Funny how he wasn’t invading anyone during the Orange rein; perhaps you can point to the concession that Vlad won.
As to China, it’s always had designs on Taiwan. Team Biden is in the One China camp, so this pearl-clutching isn’t doing much.
Based on Putin taking Crimea and the Donbas by force and invading Ukraine to subdue it. If that is not enough, what is?
Why did the Donbas issue happen? It didn’t materialize out of thin air. That war was wholly avoidable. Still, Crimea and Donbas are hardly emblematic of a desire to “reconquer the Soviet empire.”
The timeline is pretty obvious.
– The Ukrainian parliament approves an association deal with the EU.
– As the deal is about to be signed, the Ukrainian government withdraws after Russian pressure, asking for financial compensation for losses from trade with the Russian economic sphere, and for three-part negotiations including Russia. The EU refuses to include Russia in the discussions.
– After the Maidan revolution Yanukovich is dismissed by parliament and replaced, on February 22
– In February/March 2014 Russia invades and conquers Crimea.
– In February/March there are local occupation of public buildings etc., in the Donbas, with Russian support; Ukraine quickly quells the disturbances.
– Ukraine signs the association agreement in March 2014
– From April 2014 armed Russian-backed groups launch an insurgency in the Donbas.
The interpretation is also obvious: Russia demanded that Ukraine remain in its political and economic orbit essentially under Russian dominance, and so could not accept the EU association agreement. When the attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to comply failed because Yanukovich lacked sufficient political support and was unwilling or unable to send the army against protesters, Russia decided instead to take Crimea and the Donbas by force. There followed a war with heavy Russian involvement on the Donbas side, and the two Minsk accords that were never fully implemented by either side. There was speculation that Russia might be content with holding the Crimea and the Donbas as a way of keeping Ukraine in check, but ultimately Russia decided this did not give them enough power and launched a full invasion.
Note that there is nothing in all this about NATO. The issue was the Russian demand for political and economic dominance over Ukraine, not keeping enemy soldiers away.
The war could have been avoided solely by Ukraine submitting to Russian control, or by Russia abandoning its demands that it do so.
Source: Wikipedia.
Trump literally shut down Nordstream 2 and told the German’s they were stupid for relying on Russian gas. Biden immediately gave the go ahead for the pipeline once he was elected. Hmm
What did Biden later do regarding Nordstream because you left out a significant point. Trump told the Germans to diversity their sources. Biden made sure one source was eliminated.
Hmm. Who was on top of this issue? The guy who refused to approve the pipeline in the first place, or the guy who blew it up after giving his approval?
At least our tinhorn tyrants don’t employ religious police to beat teenage girls to death. Had the US wanted war it would have happened.
Because its a bit late to prepare for World Wars I and II?
“I do not know with which weapons world war three will be fought, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones.”
-someone smart
You’ll have to do better than cheap, throwaway quotes in place of making your own case.
“You’ll have to do better than cheap, throwaway quotes in place of making your own case.”
-Steve Murray, 2024
IDK, the essay might be a tad hyperbolic. The world is unstable right now. Shoring up the military can be a sensible thing to do. That doesn’t mean you’re looking for a fight, or that you sacrifice the economy to do it.
If you want peace, prepare for war. That old adage is probably as much responsible for the hype as anything else. Reporters catch wind of generals and admirals saying these things to rooms full of people who are tasked with the defense of national interest and blow it far out of proportion. The fact is, up until a few years ago, the possibility of a third world war of any sort was negligible enough it didn’t behoove anyone to prepare for it. This is no longer the case. Xi Jinping worries me. His behavior pattern is too much like a certain other warmongering dictator preoccupied with seeing his people take their rightful place as the world’s dominant civilization. He almost certainly will make some move against Taiwan at some point. It’s easy to suggest the US simply back down and let him, but there are problems with this approach. He might demand something else later and there might be pressure from allies to act. Putin, for all his bluster, is easier to read. He just wants the same sphere of influence enjoyed by imperial Russia, but he could certainly decide to expand his sights toward other nations in Eastern Europe. There’s a reason Finland suddenly became interested in joining NATO. The US cannot walk away from a conflict in Korea without abandoning any semblance of credibility. If North Korea acted as part of a broader coalition with China/Russia/Iran in a coordinated military campaign, there’s no avoiding war with all of them. The point is that we might have a WWIII whether we want one or not if certain nations take certain actions. We certainly shouldn’t start one, but it would be foolish not to prepare for the worst.
The author also assumes a third world war would go nuclear, but it’s not at all clear it would. Both sides would have strong incentives to avoid using nuclear weaponry even while fighting each other. We should remember that warfare is, at bottom, a human ritual. Since the earliest times when tribes of humans fought with rocks and sticks, there have been two types of conflict. First, existential conflicts where one tribe tries to utterly destroy the other as we see in Israel/Palestine, and second, the more common type where groups fought over control of territory or resources. The former, being existential conflicts, are fought without reservation. These are the put every man to the sword and burn the fields type wars. Any tactics are justified so in these sorts of conflicts, such as that of the Cold War, nuclear weapons are incredibly dangerous because both sides are willing and able to destroy the other, and are only held back by fear of their own destruction. In the second type, however, tactics are often limited by custom, particularly within cultures and casualties and destruction kept to a manageable level because both sides are fighting over something tangible and have incentive to minimize losses. One cannot sow salt in a field if one plans to use it later. It makes no sense to nuke a city one wants to occupy. I’m not saying a nuclear escalation can’t happen, but both sides have strong incentives to avoid using them and their use would be unlikely to achieve military objectives.
I find the main article is poorly structured, the headline is interesting but the British/Irish issue is a distraction.
I doubt we are preparing for WWIII. What is actually happening is this:
NATO knows the game is up in the Ukraine short of a formal NATO declaration of war.
NATO wants to mitigate the scope of the coming damage. If Russia advances up to the Dnieper River and then strikes SW to occupy Odessa and links with Transnistria then Europe is left with a failed rump state Ukraine. Ukraine is already an economic basket case and if it were to be cut off from the sea and looses a large slice of its agricultural production then Europe has a multi decade humanitarian headache to fund.
If the Russians get to Transnistria then they will have control of one bank of the River Danube and that will be a major setback for NATO.
The NATO gameplan is to position an army size force in eastern Europe that is just a 12 hour drive from Moscow. The Russians will have to reposition forces to counter that which would cause them to scale back operations in the Ukraine.
Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington would comprehend this logic.
NATO is preparing for WWIII. We will be ready in 2027. If the culture changes.
I have a hard time understanding what Mr Pilkington is arguing here. The idea that countries shouldn’t rearm because any conflict would result in nuclear annihilation is about as naive and myopic as it gets. The rest seems to be mainly trite anti-NATO and anti-military (pacifist?) rhetoric. I fail to see any value in this article
I never thought I’d live see a return of those Cold War advocates of unilateral disarmament, yet here we are.
Russia has invaded Ukraine, China is constantly making threats towards Taiwan, Iran is causing havoc in the Middle East and North Korea is its usual belligerent self, but according to Pilkington the west is the one in the wrong for preparing for possible conflict
Does anyone in Uganda or Bolivia want World War 3?
Sounds like the cuffed coffee break musing of “an investment professional”. Is there really ONLY ONE possible answer to the lamely rhetorical: “The only possible answer to this question is that the Irish government does not think such a conflict is going to take place. So, who does?’. In fact, there are many other possible answers – few of them flattering to Ireland and its tired facsimile of moral rectitude. Ireland can just cash in on low tax economics, beggar its EU neighbours and sup with whoever makes it feel more appreciated – dictators welcome! Where was Ireland on Ukraine? Nowhere, because nothing was going to happen. Where are they now – regardless of any WW3 fears? Nowhere, beyond a Palestinian protest or Biden primary. Who will cover Ireland’s backside if things go wrong? Not Ireland.
Why is Pilkington only counting the troops from Britain and America, when NATO comprises of around 30 nations?
Comparing the actions of Ireland (who have famously hidden from every conflict safe in the knowledge the UK would have to protect it for strategic purposes) with that of other nations who are belatedly starting to take defence seriously is just nonsense.
Another ridiculous partisan piece from Pilkington, whereby every problem in the world can be levelled at the west
Why is NATO preparing for World War !!!? I guess somebody’s got to.
A craven Atlanticist political class driven by arms corporations that appear never to have been as powerful as today. But US shale gas corporations are also an important element to this ideological blindness. Perhaps the Norwegian energy companies have done a few deals there too?
NATO isn’t preparing for world war three, its re arming to deter Putin and to ensure that European NATO countries pull their weight and don’t simply rely on a reluctant US. A fragmented Europe bullied by Russia is a danger to us all.
There is a weak neocon in the White House which is the root cause of the current global conflict. Let’s hope there is a fair election in November that reverses that.
Didn’t I read somewhere that the British foreign minister is planning an official trip to China. I doubt if it’s to deliver a note declaring war. In the comments section we have the usual anti-Irish hysterics exaggerating the issue of Irish neutrality (and British air cover). A more sober view is expressed in The UK Defence Journal, quoted below. The site has more information if people are interested. The UK, on occasion, scrambles jets to intercept unresponsive aircraft in Irish-controlled airspace but make no mistake, the UK is not simply protecting Irish airspace. The deal benefits both nations.Many believe that the UK is protecting Irish airspace or that British jets patrol Irish skies. That’s not true, the UK is not responsible for Irish air defence. In short and simple terms, the UK is protecting its own airspace and Ireland benefits from that.
Of course it’s not actually that simple, so let’s get into it.
It is past time for the adults to take charge again.
If King Arthur is paying attention in Avalon, now might be a good time to activate the atque futurus.
The way in which the current Tory party is going, I wouldn’t be too surprised if Sunak and his colleagues cooked up a state of emergency in time for them to postpone the general election later this year. Hence the push to send British troops to Europe. What on earth would be the use of them being there at this time if not to manufacture a casus belli for war with Russia?
Fail to Plan…Plan to Fail!
The British Army armed forces are in any case pitifully under resourced and ill specified for likely conflicts, which almost certainly will not include a war with China. (We would be humiliated).