7 ms·

The US military isn't that scary; the evidence to date is that it's ability to destroy counties ends somewhere around Iran's strength. The modelling I've seen i

• kiba 11mo ago
  America doesn't and shouldn't fight China or Russia alone, so I don't know why we're talking about that. Russia is basically on its way out as a military power. It can't even conquer Ukraine. As for China, you don't fight China alone. What do you think military bases in Japan are for? Anyway, for the world's sake, China shouldn't start a war, but sometime you just can't stop stupid.
  • the_gipsy 11mo ago
    America is on a isolation downward spiral. Russia will conquer Ukraine, any other prediction at this point is absurd. See point one, America is alone now, it will take decades to repair the damage.
    • pfdietz 11mo ago
      Some would dispute the "downward" part there. Not trying to be the world's policeman would allow tremendous downsizing of the military and its associated expense. Decoupling and isolation is a very rational response if nuclear proliferation is going to accelerate, in order to avoid having entangling alliances pull the country into a nuclear equivalent of the first World War.
      • the_gipsy 11mo ago
        "World's policeman", that's what you tell little kids America was doing. America didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan for world peace. There were strong economic and strategic motives behind those invasions. At the same time, soft power is also vanishing.
        • pfdietz 11mo ago
          Strategic motivation? If one assumes the US is going to be globally involved, yes, but that's begging the question. Economic motivation? Not so much now, with the US being a dominant oil producer, and with petroleum itself losing importance. Even then, it's questionable if this could justify the full cost of the US military. I think the original motivation was two fold: it was a combination of some sort of moral obligation to defend the "free world" from authoritarians, and (after WW2) a desire to keep small countries (and recent WW2 enemies) from deciding their only option for defense was their own nuclear deterrent.
          • amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
            I don't see much evidence that's the US wants to defend the world from authoritarians. Some of their closest allies are authoritarian countries.
            • pfdietz 11mo ago
              Expansionist authoritarians, which in the post war world was communists. Why would the world need defending from non-expansionist authoritarians?
              • amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
                Maybe. They seem to actually like expansionist authoritarians now. Evidence being the Russia Ukraine peace effort.
                • 11mo ago
    • tonyedgecombe 11mo ago
      >Russia will conquer Ukraine, any other prediction at this point is absurd. They have been moving across Ukraine at a literal snails pace.
      • dmpk2k 11mo ago
        That is how attrition war works. Until it doesn’t.
    • _heimdall 11mo ago
      Are you expecting Ukraine to ultimately buckle and collapse if the war of logistics continues for long enough? It doesn't seem like Russia has the will, or potentially the capability, to actually conquer Ukraine rather than squat on some of their land and hope to move their border.
    • bildung 11mo ago
      > Russia will conquer Ukraine, any other prediction at this point is absurd. Are you sure? They are advancing, sure, put look what they paid for to achieve this: 300k dead, 700k wounded, depletion of their souvereign wealth fund, 20%+ inflation, lower oil production and so on.
      • watwut 11mo ago
        Unfortunately, yes. USA is doing everything but openly support Russia at this point too. It could have been different if Ukraine got proper support, but instead it is being undermined. Europe could do more, but at least most states dont play for Russia (Hungary and Slovakia excepted).
        • tim333 11mo ago
          I think we may be at peak Trump though which will limit his power to bail out Putin. The midterms won't go well, the Epstein stuff is embarrassing, the Republicans are starting to get unruly.
          • jacquesm 11mo ago
            It's going to be a very long 12 months though.
      • somenameforme 11mo ago
        I think literally nobody knows the price either side is paying right now. And I do mean literally, including Trump, Putin, and Zelensky. The fog of war applies to participants, let alone outsiders who are basing our views on figures and claims that obviously going to be driven heavily by propaganda. But beyond this, I don't think this war is about Ukraine anymore than a war in Taiwan will be about Taiwan. It's little more than a proxy for hegemony in both cases. Russia did not want NATO parked in their Achille's heel of the Ukrainian flatlands. NATO did, and we pushed forward against endless threats of it being a redline, essentially as a means of indirectly imposing our will on Russia and establishing a hierarchy of dominance. And similarly, for those that don't the Taiwan-China history - the Mao led Chinese revolution was a success. The existing government of mainland China fled to Taiwan where they brutally oppressed the locals, in an era known as the 'white terror' [1], and established power through 40 years of martial law. And of course we backed them, solely to use them as a weapon against China, because geopolitics. This is why these wars are so important for the participants. The US couldn't care less about Ukraine, but withdrawing without ruining our ability to militarily threaten other peer or near peer countries is difficult. And similarly the last thing Russia needs is more land, but if they never act on claims of red lines, then they can never expect their interests to be considered in the case of a conflict in interests between them and the West. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)
    • TheOtherHobbes 11mo ago
      Russia is on the same spiral, but further ahead. They're going down together. The US has some chance of pulling out of the nose dive, but it's slim. They may or may not take Europe and Ukraine with them. China is better placed to survive, but has its own structural issues.
    • MonkeyClub 11mo ago
      > Russia will conquer Ukraine Perhaps the objective isn't to conquer the whole of the Ukraine, but only most of it, leaving the western parts independent. This seems to be pushed as the right approach wrt the Ukraine in Alexander Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics, which apparently is used as the source for Russia's current "Eurasianist" geopolitical doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
    • tim333 11mo ago
      In March 2022 Russia occupied 27% of Ukraine. They have now lost much of their artillery tanks and then army and now control 19% of Ukraine while their oil refineries blow up, and recently tankers. I'm not sure the conquest is going quite to plan.
  • expedition32 11mo ago
    China hasn't started a war since the 1970s.
    • kevin_thibedeau 11mo ago
      They're doing a good job as belligerents against the Philippines.
      • roenxi 11mo ago
        Literally yes, because they haven't started an actual war. If the US manages the same in Venezuela then they'll be doing a good job there too. The difference between China and the US is China (humorously, probably because of US pressure) keeps re-investing their economic surplus and the US keeps blowing big chunks of it on meaningless wars. That seems to be the big factor of why China had this huge industrial economy appear out of nowhere and the US has been sort of lurching along for the last 20 years. Hard to believe it, but trillions in investment is better for people's wallets than trillion dollars in making life horrible for goat herders in the middle east.
  • closewith 11mo ago
    Okay, as Devil's Advocate, you could say the same about the US. It was unable to conquer Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.
    • firesteelrain 11mo ago
      This is a false equivalence. The United States was not trying to “conquer” those countries in the territorial sense that Russia attempted with Ukraine. Those conflicts were limited political or counterinsurgency objectives fought under strict constraints, often without public support, and with no intention of annexation. Comparing that to a conventional invasion aimed at seizing and absorbing a neighbor’s territory is analytically inaccurate. US did defeat Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. And indirectly Syria by supporting the insurgency (and we had bases in that Country). It is also worth noting that the US and South Vietnam had effectively contained the North by 1973. The Paris Peace Accords ended direct US involvement and the North violated those terms two years later when it launched a full-scale conventional invasion. South Vietnam collapsed only after the US withdrew military support. Same with Afghanistan. Iraq is flourishing without Saddam and without war. It toppled Saddam’s regime in weeks, and the country now has an elected government, functioning institutions, and no US occupation. Whatever its internal challenges, Iraq is not a case where the US attempted and failed to annex territory. It demonstrates that these were limited political interventions, not conquest wars.
      • CMay 11mo ago
        I'd also add that the Vietnamese LOVE the US.
        • berdario 11mo ago
          Despite what the USA did in its invasion of Vietnam, not because of it. Vietnamese are trying to not forget their history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Remnants_Museum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Remnants_Museum (I'm not sure how many Vietnamese actually love USA, vs how many don't... I just want to remind that different people in the same society might hold different opinions, and the sentiment is certainly not monolithic)
  • somenameforme 11mo ago
    I think very few, if any, countries in the world would be stronger than what we turned Ukraine into. You have a massive army being replenished by a constant slew of bodies, to the point of forcefully dragging people in off the streets, and then being armed with hundreds of billions of dollars in Western arms. But what gives Ukraine a particular superpower is their logistics. Most people don't realize is that war is essentially a giant deadly game of logistics, and so the typical plan for Russia would be to simply destroy the logistics pipelines arming Ukraine. But thanks to the people 100% responsible for maintaining Ukraine's military managing to maintain a strategically accepted neutrality, it's impossible to fundamentally disrupt their logistics pipeline outside of small scale black ops stuff. So that has turned this war into a war of attrition where Russia is advancing slowly, but mostly setting the goal as essentially having Ukraine simply run out of Ukrainians. And they seem to be succeeding. Once the real death tolls for this war are revealed, people are going to be shocked. You don't need to drag in people off the streets, close your borders, and continually lower the enlistment age (in a country with a severe demographic crisis) if you're not suffering catastrophic losses, especially since as the amount of territory you have to defend decreases, you need fewer soldiers to maintain the same defensive density.
    • artursapek 11mo ago
      When would the real death tolls be revealed? When Ukraine does a census?
      • somenameforme 11mo ago
        Once the war ends and both sides can start clarifying their troop classifications. There's always going to be uncertainty because an MIA could be dead, or it could be some guy who successfully deserted and started a new life for himself somewhere. But as both sides return captured troops, exchange bodies, and so on - everything will be made much more clear. And there will also be less political motivation to lie.
        • amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
          Do you think Ukraine has more casualties than Russia? Or is it simply that Ukraine had a smaller population to begin with?
  • deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
• Qwertious 11mo ago
  >The US military isn't that scary; the evidence to date is that it's ability to destroy counties ends somewhere around Iran's strength. The US military's "ability" is very contextual - for instance, the US could easily obliterate Iran with a MIRV or two, but for various geopolitical reasons they choose not to. Likewise, the US navy is of limited use against Iran due to the literal mountain range between their only coastline and the bulk of their landmass (and population), much of which is quite mountainous.
  • roenxi 11mo ago
    If we're assuming a nuclear war then the US military is comparable to a bunch of other militarys. And the "various geopolitical reasons", on examination, includes possible outcomes like the US being pummelled through the stone age and out the other side, or more mild ones like New York being flattened. It isn't really much of an option in any foreseeable scenario where their goose isn't already being cooked. So yes they are scary, but they aren't that scary relatively speaking. We've left the brief era where the US could exert military supremacy over the globe and it is ambiguous who has the "best" military among the major powers [0]. Militarys are generally a tool for self-destruction anyway so the term is a bit ambiguous, most of the big empires fall because they get too enamoured with military solutions over economic and diplomatic excellence. [0] Does the US military even perform to spec? There is clearly a lot of corruption and I've seen it described on HN as a disguised welfare program.
    • woooooo 11mo ago
      Re: US military quality, it's both. Massively corrupt jobs program on the weapons acquisition side, combined with an incredibly effective devolved leadership structure on the logistics and combat side. Tested frequently over the last few decades. The bet in favor of them is that the weapons corruption gets sorted out once it really needs to be.
    • jacquesm 11mo ago
      > If we're assuming a nuclear war then the US military is comparable to a bunch of other militarys. What a nonsense. Really, if we're assuming a nuclear war then the remainder of the sentence no longer has any relevance. Note that even the idiot in the Kremlin has been given reasons enough to consider that one off the table no matter how much he might want it (assuming he still can). First strike is a non-starter for every sane country, so you better hope that sanity lasts long enough to get to the '.' at the end of your sentences. Because if it does not the best you can hope for is live near ground zero. > Does the US military even perform to spec? There is clearly a lot of corruption and I've seen it described on HN as a disguised welfare program. If you're aware of any American gear that has not performed in the last 12 months then maybe you should report it rather than to resort to 'just asking questions'. So far all of the recipients seem to be fairly happy with the deliveries and most nations would quake in their boots if the USA set their sights on them with intent to punish, bar none, and to suggest otherwise is seriously ignorant.
• lurk2 11mo ago
  > the evidence to date is that it's ability to destroy counties ends somewhere around Iran's strength. Only if Geneva enters the equation. > the US has already been undermined by the likes of China, Russia and India What is India doing on this list?
  • roenxi 11mo ago
    India has been gently aligning [0, 1] with the Russia-China bloc that the US has been encouraging to form over the last couple of years. Nothing crazy but that looks like undermining the US to me. It certainly isn't supporting US policy and the US has been trying to pressure them over it without much success. [0] https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/explained-ahead-of-putins-visit-india-is-set-to-benefit-from-a-russian-military-pact https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/explained-ahead... [1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/16/india-joined-belarus-russia-war-games-amid-signs-of-rift-with-us https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/16/india-joined-belaru...
    • elteto 11mo ago
      It's not undermining, it's asserting/showing off their independence. India doesn't want to play for anyone's team, so they play on everyone's team. It's a reminder to all sides that they are not an automatic partner to be taken for granted.
• mschuster91 11mo ago
  > And the US has already been undermined by the likes of China, Russia and India With respect, Russia is being decimated (literally, at least the "big fortresses" that Russia has been gnawing at for months such as Pokrovsk have insane loss rates) by Ukraine's army who are mostly using donated shoddy Soviet-era remainders and decades old Western surplus. If the US were to wage actual war with modern technology against either Russia or China (whose arms are based off of Soviet designs and stolen American plans), there is no chance in hell either would be able to do much against the US. India is different but they're at least a democracy that's reasonably worth calling it that (despite Modi doing his best to dismantle it). I don't see any attempts of India to project power anywhere other than in its immediate neighborhood (i.e. the border disputes with Pakistan and China). They're no threat.
  • T-A 11mo ago
    > If the US were to wage actual war with modern technology against either Russia or China (whose arms are based off of Soviet designs and stolen American plans), there is no chance in hell either would be able to do much against the US. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/in-cnas-led-taiwan-wargame-no-air-superiority-no-quick-win/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/in-cnas-led-taiwan-wargame... https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargamin...
• plastic3169 11mo ago
  Could China attack US? Why would US try to attack China in asia? Not an expert but that feels like losing proposition. I think people confuse proxy wars with wars. US is under no threat of being actually attacked.
  • tonyedgecombe 11mo ago
    You could ask the same question about Japan attacking America but they did do it. If they think conflict is inevitable then they may well feel they will get an upper hand by moving first.
    • plastic3169 11mo ago
      It counts as an attack, but how close was US to actually being taken over? Usually when you fight a war the real risk is that you cease to exist as a country. I know nothing about war strategy, but seems to me US is in a great position as long as you get along with Canada and Mexico.
  • humanlity 11mo ago
    old chinese proverb: Suffering is living, happiness is death(生于忧患，死于安乐)
    • cindyllm 11mo ago
      [dead]
• potato3732842 11mo ago
  Military action is an extension of politics. US politics do not support all out war against foreign nations at this point in time hence the half wars. This goes for most first world nations.
• CMay 11mo ago
  The US is the second largest manufacturing power, the largest economic power and the largest military power, but those things aren't even what makes it a scary threat. There are things that make up the US that vastly increase its potential for self-organization when it is given an organizing principle. Yes, dynamism has taken a hit over the decades, but there are also a lot of aimless purposeless people right now that do have an appetite for purpose if given one. Major modern countries today have red lines defined that they won't cross in order to keep the peace. Russia says don't attack Moscow or otherwise attempt to replace their government or they will nuke you. Nukes do change the structure of future wars between nuclear powers, which might actually make some aspects of it less extreme. If Ukraine had nukes, they could have a red line like, "If you keep hitting hospitals and schools, we will nuke you. Powerplants and railroads we understand, but if you show us with your actions that you have no mercy for the weak and innocent, we will end you." Instead, they have nothing of the sort. All the US has to do is wait for the enemy to make catastrophic moral failures and it's game over, because it rallies the people, the companies, the innovative talent, the allies, etc to reject it with force. It crystallizes the purpose. We are energy independent and are advancing even more ways to expand the dimensions of that. You can't destroy our government, because we'll just recreate it. We're forcing our allies to become more independent, because they got too soft and we need them hardened up. That only makes the US stronger, because strong allies are better for all of us. It makes us a better deterrent against war happening in the first place. Meanwhile China is surrounded by countries that dislike it and don't trust it. Giving Canada and Mexico tough love is no comparison to the fundamental failures in the relationships China has with its neighbors in their region. India is far more US aligned than with China, regardless of tensions. Neither North Korea nor Russia trust China, but they are forced to deal with it despite the buddy-buddy optics. Failing to benefit from so many possible optimizations at the basic strategic level in their local region, any confidence in a favorable outcome for the CCP seems misplaced. Their failings probably cascade down into the other levels of preparation as well.
  • ambicapter 11mo ago
    “Forcing our allies to become more independent” is a HILARIOUS way to say “we’re destroying our allied relationships, reducing our intelligence capabilities and the chances that they would form a coalition with us in any armed conflict”. I’m just imagining someone getting a divorce saying they’re “teaching their spouse the value of independence”.
• kec 11mo ago
  I think you’re burying the lede there: this hypothetical war would be fought in Asia because China is completely incapable of projecting force to the North American continent. Without that ability to credibly threaten America China could not possibly win a war against it. The conflicts which superpowers have withdrawn from have been against occupied nations which were in no position to ever become a future threat, this would not be true in a conflict with China, as China could conceivably develop the ability to project force and would be certainly motivated to do so during or after a real conflict.
• wqaatwt 11mo ago
  > China will probably win it unless the US gets a lot of help Sure they’d win a land war on the continent. An amphibious invasion of Taiwan opposed by the US navy and air force would be a but trickier. > undermined by the likes of China, Russia and India To a large extent voluntarily.
• myrmidon 11mo ago
  > evidence to date is that it's ability to destroy counties ends somewhere around Iran's strength What kind of evidence? US is not destroying countries because its citizens don't want it to, and are generally not willing to pay the price for it. If "the US" actually wanted, it could kill every inhabitant of continental Europe within less than a decade in a conventional war; the price in American lifes would be very high, but the outcome (without external intervention) seems pretty certain to me (speaking as a European).