2 reasons: first, we don't really use that state-of-the-art stuff against them. Most of these conflicts are being executed with comparatively boring, convention

2 reasons: first, we don't really use that state-of-the-art stuff against them. Most of these conflicts are being executed with comparatively boring, conventional means. The railgun, however, are a marked improvement over current naval-based artillery, and allow us to strike much further inland with them. Its a lot faster, cheaper, and safer to fire a cannon than to send a plane with a bomb in certain situations. The cutting-edge toys are used as deterrence mechanisms for other more sophisticated countries, which we have healthy diplomatic channels to communicate over. My comment above explains why merely having them is necessary and sufficient in most cases, especially since other powers are developing similar tech. Second, we are much more squeamish about losing American lives than we ever have been before. Any administration that chooses to throw bodies at the problem like we did in both World Wars will be quickly replaced. I can't defend every project (especially not the F-35), but by and large this tech is designed to maximize effect with minimal risk to American lives.