Sure, insurgencies don't need fancy jets or million-strong armies when they're fighting against countries that aren't investing much in this specific war. This

Sure, insurgencies don't need fancy jets or million-strong armies when they're fighting against countries that aren't investing much in this specific war. This concept of asymmetric war is literally as old as America itself; it's how it won the revolution: Britain just gave up when it got too expensive. But it's absurd to think that, under modern military conditions, the strength of an insurgency rivals the military strength of the U.S.. For example, in all these conflicts you mentioned (-Azerbaijan), the U.S. isn't even sending troops (-Iraq, Afghanistan) and our side is still winning with its superior technology and supply chains. The military conditions today absolutely still favor organized countries. In a future war against such enemy, if the U.S. has much to gain and doesn't care too much about the body count, you'll see Desert Storm levels of dominance. The reason we have all those real big "obsolete" planes is to drop real big fucking bombs like we did in WWII and Vietnam. (Edit: maybe your insurgency has impenetrable air defenses consisting of thousands of drones with said "microchips". But at some point your insurgency will run out of supply and the U.S., with its "outdated" mass production capabilities and supply lines, will eventually outcompete you and then the bombers will be sent in.) My point is that the military successes of insurgencies that you're describing are not enabled by a change in the balance of military strength. They're enabled by the fact that there was a significant decrease in the amount of effort that major military powers spent on war, e.g., when the U.S. decided not to irradiate the Korean Peninsula with cobalt. But just because countries don't go all-out anymore doesn't mean they can't or won't. These capabilities still exist and they implicitly influence every international interaction and transaction made with the U.S.. So no, anarchy will not erupt domestically when the U.S. loses some of its global hegemony to China. And the country with its centralized government and military is not yet an obsolete form of organization. Any domestic revolution would be put down easily, assuming there were people stupid enough to try. People will just adapt to whatever change happens and submit to their governments like always.