Yeah it's fairly obvious you aren't a military man, thank you for saying it explicitely. The core of my issue with your points is this belief: >the threat of m

Yeah it's fairly obvious you aren't a military man, thank you for saying it explicitely. The core of my issue with your points is this belief: >the threat of military force is what underpins the overall fairly secure world that we live in That hasn't been true since some time after the first gulf war. Asymmetrical warfare (good old guerilla/"terrorism", cyberespionnage..) aren't operational theaters on which carrier groups present determining advantages. The threat of vitrificating entire valleys hasn't really deterred ideological opponents to the USmil and associated economical or strategic partners. Basically, you're arguing for a variant of the irresistible movement (strong traditional military capabilities), while ignoring why the metaphorical unmoveable object adapts to resist traditional military pressure. Ask the soviets how Afghanistan went for them despite their vastly superior military capabilities.