I think this is a bad misunderstanding of what makes things effective in war. Yeah, we can count tanks and planes and bases, mobile or otherwise, and declare t

I think this is a bad misunderstanding of what makes things effective in war. Yeah, we can count tanks and planes and bases, mobile or otherwise, and declare that the US would win in an overwhelming fashion in a WWIII scenario. But I think that assumes we'd be fighting based on our terms - which never happens in war. I don't think it's consequential, at all, that Russia and China struggle with the carrier vessel concept. These "super weapons" that are supposedly just Russian propaganda would render these things obsolete. Chinese cyber weapons knocking out US military communications systems would be catastrophic. Let's also not forget the very regrettable state the US Navy itself is in[1]. This is simply to say that I think you're overstating the primacy of the US military today for fighting a "conventional" style war. Actually, between the three countries only Russia has done so, fight a "conventional war", in the last decade or so when they annexed Crimea. The US has been engaged in a forever-war of "Counter Insurgency" that most assuredly has atrophied both experience and technical skill for fighting great land wars. I'm not saying it's an even playing field, but I would not underestimate Russian or Chinese ingenuity to exploit weaknesses here. I also figure that a WWIII scenario would be much more like WWI than WWII, since there will be a myriad of new technologies all clashing together for the first time. I don't think anyone can say for certain today what trumps what. Do hunter-seaker drones take out infantry platoons faster than they can be replenished, or do EW units - something that's never actually been tested against these adversaries - knock out the drones first? [1]https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/ https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgeral...