The Vampire Fallacy: Why High-Tech Hardware Fails Modern War
By Maya Ellison · Reporting from Detroit ·
War expert John Spencer argues that the U.S. must abandon its obsession with expensive stealth tech in favor of industrial readiness and strategic targeted strikes.
War expert John Spencer argues on The Free Press podcast that "decapitation strikes"—the targeted killing of nuclear scientists, generals, and political leaders—are a strategic asset. He calls this a "contest of will" to force enemies to the negotiating table without a full-scale invasion. For those who remember the "surgical strikes" of the early 2000s, the logic feels familiar. The U.S. military spent two decades and a sum that could have rebuilt the national power grid hunting insurgents in the Iraqi and Afghan deserts.
Why high-tech weapons fail
Spencer calls the U.S. military's obsession with expensive hardware the "vampire fallacy." He said the Pentagon believes stealth jets like the F-35 make war bloodless, leading leaders to ignore the basics: infantry, tanks, and artillery. The war in Ukraine exposed this gap. Spencer noted that the U.S. lacks redundancy in its supply chain, relying on a single factory to produce certain interceptors.
This failure stems from a defense industry that prioritizes profit over readiness. The U.S. traded a diverse network of small manufacturers for a few giant firms that favor high-margin "vampire" tech over the dull work of stockpiling shells. Now, the administration is ordering contractors to quadruple production. This is a frantic scramble to refill warehouses hollowed out by corporate consolidation.
Can targeted killing prevent war?
Spencer said peace is not a strategy. He argues that pacifism invites violence by making the U.S. appear weak. To prevent a global collapse, he suggests the U.S. must dismantle Iranian-backed militias from Lebanon to Yemen and hold the line in Ukraine. He frames the current friction with Iran as a "limited objective war" meant to extract concessions rather than topple the government.
History suggests "limited objectives" rarely stay limited. A surgical strike often creates a power vacuum. That vacuum invites a "stabilization" force, which evolves into a decade of attrition. Spencer claims targeted killings deter war, but they often act as appetizers for larger interventions. Believing that a missile can remove a leader without triggering a systemic collapse or empowering a more radical successor is the same logic that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The Price of Dominance
Spencer believes the U.S. must fight to remain the world's sole superpower, citing China as the primary threat to American stability. He views current military shortages—empty barracks and depleted ammo piles—not as a warning to stop, but as a roadmap for more production.
The choice is presented as a binary: accept the violence of an unchecked regime or rely on American military dominance. This framing hides the domestic cost. Billions of dollars flow away from crumbling bridges and failing schools into the pockets of defense contractors. When experts argue that the only way to avoid a great war is to perfect the art of the assassination, they are not planning for peace. They are designing a permanent state of war, rebranded as "deterrence," funded by a public that fears the return of the forever war.