Source: Wall Street Journal (free link).
The writer’s conclusion makes sense to me:
The U.S. military isn’t behind the curve in some grand transformation in warfare. It simply can’t employ the combat tools it has so carefully cultivated over the past 30 to 50 years because it has spent that time preparing to fight low-intensity wars, not a major strategic contest with a peer. If stagnation continues, deterrence will fail. So will the prospects for American victory in any major-power conflict.
The idea that the U.S. is some kind of “sleeping giant” that can be awakened to wreak catastrophic harm upon any global enemy is just BS. Worse, it is hubris to ignore such practical warnings.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Si vis pacem, para bellum
LikeLike
Where is this major war with China going to be taking place? Are they going to be following Russia’s failed lead and try to take Taiwan by force of arms? Given Russia’s failure, catastrophic economic damage from sanctions, the unfavorable geography, the U.S. Navy, and the will of Taiwan to resist, that seems extremely unlikely. So, where is the danger? Are they going to try to settle their differences with India – once and for all? If they did, would we have a role?
China has one obvious target for growth by military adventure. It is not commonly remembered, but large swaths of eastern Russia were taken by force from China in the 19th century. With Russia facing collapse and essentially dynastic war among gangster chieftains looming, the temptation to re-take what was once theirs might be very great. If that were to happen, what would our role be? Russia is not part of NATO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The question is whether the U.S. is prepared to fight a major war with China. The writer thinks we are not.
LikeLike
The point is that it is a silly question if there is no realistic possibility of such a war.
We have by far the most overblown military of any country in the world. We do not need such fear-mongering to induce us to waste even more on it.
LikeLike
RE: “The point is that it is a silly question if there is no realistic possibility of such a war.”
The point is that it is stupid to be unready for wars, whether they are likely or not. It is even stupider to imagine that one is ready when one isn’t.
LikeLike
“The point is that it is stupid to be unready for wars . . .”
What is really stupid is to continue to squander our nation’s wealth on imaginary threats.
LikeLike
WSJ’s writer doesn’t think the threat is imaginary. Only you do.
LikeLike
“WSJ’s writer doesn’t think the threat is imaginary. Only you do.
You cannot even imagine a scenario where we would be engaged in the kind of war with China this fellow is talking about. If you can, tell us. These Chinese armies going to march through Siberia, take boats cross to Alaska and move south from the Bering Straits? It is patently absurd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Si vis pacem, para bellum et non stulte te.
LikeLike
Answer to “if you want peace, prepare for war”.
Since humans have been in a state of war for millennia, perhaps we need another adage to live by.
The MIC wants war because it pays very well. A point to consider is that all the nations at the top of the power pyramid have an MIC.
Gunpowder may seem like a great invention, but it allowed us to kill long distance. It made war comfortable for the leaders.
Before that, warrior kings had to put up or shut up by leading their tribes into battle.
Not a perfect opinion, but close enough, IMO.
Ironically, the current idea of an armed society is a polite society is based on that Latin phrase. And it ain’t workin’ folks.
Also, IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people