Last week, a merchant ship bound from the Suez Canal to Romania collided with the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Mediterranean.
The collision pierced the Truman’s hull above the waterline, but there were no injuries or damage to the ship’s nuclear assets. With so many fateful events developing right now, this mishap might seem an odd way to approach the topic of 21st-century warfare, but it’s instructive in several ways.
Since DOGE has focused so much attention on the budget, let’s begin with what a lucky break it was for the American taxpayer that this accident wasn’t more serious. The Truman, which has a crew of about 5,000, was launched in 1996 at a cost north of $8 billion. If it were replaced with one of the newer classes of carriers, the cost would be around $15 billion.
Like the area around Reagan Airport, the northern approach to the Suez Canal is becoming increasingly crowded, so the possibility of future, more serious collisions can’t be ruled out.
That’s the least of the risks the Truman faces. According to Naval News, the Truman was on a deployment conducting air strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen and ISIS in Somalia. Over two months in the Red Sea, the Truman has been attacked several times with drones and cruise missiles, including one attack that the rebels claimed lasted over 9 hours.
The Truman’s defenses prevailed against these attacks, but in the Russia-Ukraine War, the Ukrainians have sunk more than a third of the ships in the Russian Black Sea fleet using basically the same kind of weapons, which is very impressive considering Ukraine doesn’t have a navy. Just as the aircraft carrier supplanted the battleship in World War II, inexpensive drones could threaten the supremacy of big carrier groups like the ones the United States sends around the world to show its strength.
As we look to the future, should we continue to spend billions on increasingly vulnerable warships, and if so, what’s the best way to protect them? You’d think the first place we’d go for the answers to these questions would be the ally that has most effectively employed the weaponry of 21st-century warfare. Instead, they are sitting on the sidelines while the United States and the Russians begin negotiations over their territory.
Ukraine has received billions in support from the United States and its European allies, but Napoleon’s remark that the moral factor is three times more important than the physical factor in war still holds true. The Russian military, which three years ago was planning to march down the streets of Kyiv in a matter of days, has proven to be extraordinarily inept and corrupt, while the Ukrainians have proven to be inventive and steadfast if seriously outnumbered.
Vladimir Putin has prolonged this conflict in the same way Josef Stalin held off the Germans in 1941: by throwing staggering numbers of poorly trained troops — including some North Koreans — into suicidal battles, and waiting on the Americans. By the latest estimate, a quarter million Russians have died over the past three years.
The Truman has arrived for repairs at a facility in Greece, which is part of NATO, which Vice President J.D. Vance was in the process of lecturing in arrogant fashion as the ship was reaching its destination. In 21st-century wars, will we be able to depend on our allies for safe harbor, or will that also be “transactional,” to use the word of the day?
We can pray there won’t be any 21st-century wars, but threatening to take other countries’ territory doesn’t seem like a very good way to ensure there won’t be any. There are some very clear indications of how war will be most effectively waged in the coming decades, and they don’t point back to 1941. About this subject, we can’t afford to learn the wrong lessons.
Tom, insightful and incisive, as ever. Thank you. CMc