Originally Posted by
rickair7777
I agree that peer/near contingency opens up the prospect for an extended conflict.
But my sense (acquired via osmosis and even participation in the room) is that philosophically our leaders' intent is to wrap things up relatively quickly, ie shock-and-awe. Take away their toys, then they can either settle up, or be contained while they continue to make token lashing-out gestures over a longer period.
Intent is one thing. Ability is another. Here was our
intent in Afghanistan:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/defense/afghanistan#:~:text=To%20accomplish%20this%2C%20he %20said,lead%20responsibility%20for%20Afghanistan' s%20future.
The President’s strategy, as laid out in his address on December 1, 2009, maintains the core goal laid out in the beginning of his administration: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa’ida and prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future. To accomplish this, he said we would pursue three objectives: denying al-Qa’ida a safe haven, reversing the Taliban's momentum, and strengthening the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. He also committed to begin the responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011.
Hard to say we accomplished much of that.
And while it's certainly prudent to consider peer conflicts, I don't see any real prospect of any likely adversary reaching peer status relative to us in the near-term...
Enough to take us on in CONUS? Of course not. But enough to engage us locally in our job as world policeman - yeah, they could. Heck, they have.
RU: No commentary needed. They are protected by their nukes, but they obviously cannot actually project power in any meaningful way.
Which makes our NATO allies claims that they must be stopped (mostly by us) in Ukraine or they will roll over all of Europe what? Just another attempt to get us continuing to pay for their defense? Because you are right, their ability to project power militarily isn't that great. They lost a war in Afghanistan too, despite the lesser logistics burden it imposed on them.
PRC: Quantity doesn't automatically trump quality. I'll just leave this here without any elaboration (do your own research): submarines. Although PRC may set themselves up to hide behind a strategic nuke aresenal, and appear to be attempting to do so. That might keep other nations from interfering in a Taiwan scenario. It sort of worked for RU, no overt NATO boots on ground in UA.
We certainly have advantages in the metallurgical field with submarines in what? Two shipyards? And we are conserving that advantage (and others) by continuing low rate production probably even excess to our requirements. But that's sort of an isolated example. A German Panzer was superior to a Sherman tank in WWII also, but not to two or three of them. And other nations have their quality systems as well. For that matter after they shut down Space Shuttle flights the US was importing rocket engines from Russia. And the real heavy equipment exported from China today (and their overall shipyard capacity) greatly exceeds our own and there are some things almost everyone buys from China because we no longer have the infrastructure to competitively produce it.
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local...china/2411897/
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/21/12329...ecurity-threat
So I find myself in at least partial agreement with Col Vershinin's RUSI article. I think for a prolonged war the industrial base and logistics becomes a larger factor and one that high tech doesn't completely offset, especially once the shooting actually starts. A "force multiplier" concept becomes a loss multiplier when the casualties start to pile up. I'm not against high tech weapons certainly, but affordable high tech or even affordable medium tech might actually be preferable in a serious (non nuclear) fight. The Zumwalt might well be the finest destroyer ever built but the entire class is only going to be three ships because they cost $4.4 billion each even after you write off the R&D costs
which were another $10 billion.