Throwing Money at the Problem: collisions of US Navy and the proposed 2019 budget

Summer 2017 was an embarrassing and tragic one for the US Navy. It was marked by two deadly ship collisions (June 17, August 21) resulting in not only large dents and damaged pride but the loss of multiple sailors' lives. The visual in both cases is a bit a ridiculous: two, very large vessels in the middle of large body of water moving slowly toward one another yet unable to avoid impact. I'll be the first to admit that I initially found the incident(s) funny- until I heard about the casualties. How could a navy as highly skilled and equipped as ours fail to avoid another vessel in the course of normal movements about sea? This question has no simple answer.

In the case of the June 17th collision of the USS Fitzgerald with an MV Crystal cargo ship, the Navy cited the "poor seamanship" of the officer on deck and others who failed to maneuver, raise alarm, notify his commanding officer, or even radio the crew of the Crystal. The result was the deaths of seven sailors. While the Crystal also failed to take action, the Navy accepted the brunt of the blame because its sailors proved themselves to be unprepared and deficient in their training. On August 21st, the USS John S. McCain collided with a merchant vessel, killing ten men this time. The Navy report cited similar failures in ship's operation, following international maritime procedures, and "situational awareness."

Both collisions resulted in senior officers being relieved of duty and lower officers being reprimanded in varying degrees. Republican Senator Ben Sasse took advantages of these events and spoke out about the military being underfunded and that it was the cause of the lack of "training, readiness, and maintenance" at the heart of these tragedies. But why is this all relevant now? The answer is twofold but it looks like Senator Sasse may be granted both of his wishes. 

First: this week the Navy released word that, in response to these collisions (it mentions only the USS Fitzgerald by name), it has formed the Readiness Reform and Oversight Council (RROC). Its purpose is to ensure the Navy makes changes to prevent future (very avoidable) tragedies like these and will be expanding its scope in order to oversee and enforce the roll out of new readiness strategies. 

Second: also this week, news hit of the Navy's proposed 2019 budget- and it's big. $686 billion to be exact and with it hopes to get back to what James Mattis called, it's "position of primacy." It's goal is to have "more sailors, more pay and higher incentives for those joining the service or staying in," which they defined as around 7,500 more sailors and a 2.6% pay increase over 8 years. It cites the lower national unemployment rate (aka other job options) as the need for the Navy to step up their game and make enlistment more appealing: a new ad campaign (launched in December) and more incentives to join and stay. It should be noted that nothing is concrete, not even the Navy's 2018 budget, but as it stands it seeks to end the former focus on "asymmetric warfare" and slow the alarming tempo that the military has been functioning since 9/11. If Sasse's theory is correct (and in some proportion it may be), then the budget increase and change in oversight of Navy might just solve the failings that were exposed last summer and save lives. 

National Defense... From OUTER SPACE!!

Well, technically not from outer space but low-earth orbit. Foreign policy ran an article this weekend about the collision between a defunct Russian communications satellite and an American commercial satellite (owned by Iridium, who had this to say about the incident) early last week. The whole thing was apparently an accident, even though my intuition tells me that the odds of an un-planned collision like this are incredibly small. Think about it: even if the two satellites are orbiting at the exact same altitude, at 500 miles above sea-level they are on a surface that has more than 250 million square miles to travel in… the odds of them running into each other are astronomically low. Still, I guess the odds are better since the two spacecrafts were traveling along the same longitude. Or, considering that two nuclear submarines collided earlier this month in the Atlantic, maybe those in possession of advanced technologies are just really bad drivers.

Conspiracy theories aside, FP goes on to describe how space is a resource (like oceans, or land) that give those in possession of it certain advantages over those who are not in possession of them. Those who possess communication, spy and military satellites control space, and those who have the ability to shoot down those satellites have the ability to challenge the current hegemons (China has recently demonstrated this ability, and technically Iran as well). All of this will, of course, lead to marvelous new and really cool conflicts in the coming decades (space wars!!!) if satellite-launching countries do not mutually agree to demilitarize space. Noticeably, the current space-hegemon (the United States in case anyone didn’t know that already) has a very long record of refusing to ratify such treaties in the event that we ever develop “Goldeneye” technology (or “Diamonds are Forever” technology for that matter).

The article describes a “nightmare” scenario in which countries start blasting each other’s satellites leaving the earth encircled with a layer of debris that will damage other satellites and eventually prevent any space based communications. This will lead to mass starvations, de-globalization, and a technological return to pre-satellite eras. It also notes that “humane” wars with low collateral damage require precision guided weapons that often require satellites to guide them to their target (or at least find the right target). Without this technology, conflicts will supposedly become more costly.

Sounds like some pretty bad stuff… but the whole thing sounds pretty unlikely to me. I mean, humans are pretty ingenious… I’m pretty sure that if space debris ever were a problem we could develop some kind of anti-debris technology.

Regardless, the article does bring up a very valid point: since space is now required for advanced economic activity, states will increasingly compete with each other for its control. Rising powers on the world stage (Iran, China, India…) will start to deploy their own satellite and anti-satellite technologies in the next few decades. While space-based weaponry is still a long time coming, weapons that use space-based technology may soon proliferate and open up the skies to an unprecedented new type of conflict.