[madeuptempacct]

I think that's very subjective. The USSR actually led the way on some innovation:

* IRST on MIG-29 and helmet-targeting for infrared missiles

* Titanium welding for high-speed submarines

* Super-cavitating torpedoes

* Stealth theory

* Air dropped vehicles

* Urban tank support vehicles (BMPT)

* Radar targeting for individual machine guns

* CIWS

* Reactive armor

* Lots of other stuff I can't think of right now.

It's also questionable whether the US military efficiency over opponents scales with budget over opponents.

So its both questionable that it leads in innovation and that this leads to superiority.

[dbuxton]

I think you misunderstand the parent, which is precisely arguing that the "boring" things about the US military are actually the things that give it strategic superiority - not innovation. In fact your point is totally consistent with the parent - others may have innovated well, but that's no guarantee of success.

[madeuptempacct]

Good point, I totally misread.

[shoo]

> It's also questionable whether the US military efficiency over opponents scales with budget over opponents

That's a good point. Apparently the US military funding accounts for 36 percent of global military funding, with 3x as much funding as the country with the second highest spend, China.

I have no idea if the US military is particularly efficient. Even if it was half as efficient as competitors, the US military could still have an advantage due to the sheer volume of resources dedicated.

[dralley]

A certain percentage of that is simply cost of living - China can pay their soldiers and military industrial researchers a Chinese wage while the US has to pay US wages all the way down the supply chain.

Still incredibly inefficient, to be sure.

[madeuptempacct]

Sure, it's undoubtedly #1 overall.