I’m not sure about the troop readiness these days, but afaik, USA is currently very close to its military capacity.
For everything it’s doing by having a quarter of 1 million troop stationed around the world and having between 3 and 5 Aircraft carrier groups floating around the world if they fully commit to an armed conflict with Venezuela they are basically spent.
That’s the moment any army can decide to do whatever the fuck they want and the USA can really basically only bark and look on. (Technically they could of course fight, but that would mean they sacrifice actual defence of homeland). So that would mean that China could take Taiwan, Russia could really take Ukraine or even poke further into Europe. Not to mention the Middle East would basically be without a guard dog.
If this happens this most likely would be the final nail in the coffin of the US Empire and almost analogous with how the Roman empire crumbled. (And of course the ultimate payoff for Vladdy to have helped Donnie get in the White House).
I don’t think there’s a whole lot of risk that the USA will try to take Canada or Greenland because of this.
There are people who are saying that we are at the same point as we were in Germany In the 1930s. I would argue this is much closer to Hitler having just taken all of Europe and now deciding to also go and take on The Russians.
Also don’t forget that Trump is truly one of the dumbest strategists we’ve ever had. The only success he’s having is because he has a very well oiled machine but even a well oiled machine has absolute nonnegotiable thresholds which Donald and Drunk Pete will probably try to ignore by renaming a department from defence to war and by hoping that will work.
Curious what others think about this situation?
E: spelling
Dude, a single aircraft carrier battle group can take over an entire region/hemisphere without putting a dent in manpower.
USA has NINE of these fuckers, and they barely sent a singular carrier ship with a couple frigates to Venezuela. They can have these things, if needed, to be self-sustaining fleets that stretch across rhe horizon of the open ocean and never need to resupply fuel for thirty-years because they are all nuclear powered.
No one else has this shit, nor can afford it. That's just their Navy. Ignore their Army and Air Force.
They can conduct regime-changing warfare across three different regions of the world simultaneously without issue.
Cough… Afghanistan Cough… Iran
They have 11 of those fckers and they barely use 4 or 5 of them simultaneously. They have never done why you claim, nor would they ever be able to. They provide air support to ground forces, and their primary role is to be a regional deterrent force.
They are whole units, you can’t “barely” send a carrier group, so 20% of the Navy is currently spent on one double kidnapping in Venezuela.
USA military has never been stretched this thin abroad and domestically during peace time, so it’s a reasonable question to ask ourselves.
Dude.
Topping the government in Afghanistan was done very swiftly. The failure in Afghanistan was the inability to understand the country and its culture leading to a failure to build sustainable power structures.
The Taliban changed as well. They don’t support international terrorism anymore and focus on their own country, mostly.
The reason the US went into Afghanistan was 9/11. Al Quaida had bases inside Afghanistan and was supported by the Taliban. The US succeeded in squashing Al Quaida. Several Arab states like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates went after their religious extremists internally pretty successfully as well.
The US defeated their enemy in Afghanistan, but failed at nation building afterwards.
I mentioned Afghanistan because a carrier group had little to do with overthrowing the government. Anything done in substantial land gains was because of ground troops (with awesome air support maybe) but not just a carrier.
I thought the reason for Afghanistan was poppies.
Yeah... True.
What is the question we are asking ourselves again? That they are spreading thin? Where are you reading this? Im curious.
I’m reading it in the way they pulled out Afghanistan, and now are just kidnapping a head of state and talking about taking Greenland and Canada, while threatening Mexico, Panama and Venezuela and deploying troops domestically.
These are not rational options. They can’t be chapter 5 ready and standby, do domestic law enforcement, occupy Venezuela, take Greenland and be there just in case China takes Taiwan too.
The hardware alone, even the manpower alone doesn’t mean much if it isn’t intelligently managed and deployed. The current guy is bought and paid for by the historically biggest military opponent of the USA, and managed to bankrupt casinos.
He isn’t even smart enough to bribe the Nobel Prize Committee and had to get the even corrupter FIFA to invent a prize for him.
I don’t think the USA is militarily as solid as you think, and this orange dude may go, but ultimately the next decade is managed by Peter Thiel (who knows about the anti-christ)
So... Do you think another country could try to solo the US mainland and win? Is this what you are trying to say here? I'm so confused.
I don’t think anyone would want to do that. Just that the guard of the world’s police dog is down and distracted, and several other players can have a fair go at each other.
Think the Koreas left without adult supervision, China and Taiwan. Russia could certainly maintain the frontline in Ukraine. Iran and Israel could be left to sort stuff out themselves, though I would assume protecting Israel is higher on the priority list than lots of other important priorities.
The US is pretty much in a near state of civil war thanks to the last decade of social media algorithmic execution of divide and conquer. So from China, India, Japan or Russia’s perspective they solidly fall within the “never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake” territory I think.
You think the US can sustain its military power projection with this level of incompetence at the helm? Especially if he (or the Thiel Executive Branch) goes for multi-term like Vladdy.
Given the fact that in the past 80 years no other country has stepped up to challenge the level of sheer firepower, infinite money, and influence the USA commands globally (i mean they literally patrol every major ocean trade route as a police force to deter piracy, no one else's navy does this level of power projection that I've read about so far), I highly doubt it.
What are your thoughts?
That’s a good point. Past performance is not a guarantee for future success though.
In my view each major power has its own vertical speciality.
Exactly because after 80 years, nearly 3 generations of humans have discovered you don’t challenge the USA militarily. Which is why Russia attacked them with Maga propaganda and China by pulling the entire world manufacturing pipeline towards them. That’s just the argument for why they aren’t challenging the US military, not why they are about to be stretched thin if they keep the current rhetoric going.
From what I see, if Venezuela becomes an active armed conflict it will require the same commitment of resources and time as Iraq II and probably have about the same outcome.
Once another country provokes them into another war, or they decide to go full nuts, then anyone can do anything, they won’t be able to respond effectively without jeopardising one of their other theatres, including the domestic one.
None of this is mentioning the real potential of an escalating second American Civil War. No idea how that would affect troop readiness.
If they are smart, we will see a continuation of hit and run (the Iran strikes, the Yemen strikes, Venezuelan kidnapping, and short burst efforts like that) to make them make look important, but really don’t know if they are, after replacing all the too brass with sycophants.
I think I better understand what you're saying now that I've read your comments, specifically in this thread. While I agree with some of your sentiments to an extent, I think you may be oversimplifying a few things and overestimating the importance of others. I don't think I'm necessarily directly disagreeing with you, though.
I very seriously doubt an armed conflict at a significant scale in Venezuela is on the table right now. While definitely an outrageous international crisis, an invasion is completely unnecessary for the goals of the trump admin. While the US did bring in an aircraft carrier group to carry out the kidnapping, the amount of time, ordinance, and logistical expenditure would be equivalent to one of the many regular drills run by the US military annually. The cost in terms of American military capacity being tied down is effectively zero. The geopolitical cost, however, is more than likely going to be world changing. We have yet to even see the initial response, let alone the consequences, but what we're hearing at the moment isn't exactly looking great for the trump admin or the future of US soft power.
The US military isn't really stretched all that thin right now, especially since pulling out of Afghanistan recently with a very small drawdown of forces after. America isn't in a position of crumbling or even losing an inch of worldwide hegemony due to military adequacy. However, the geopolitical climate in addition to the impossibly stupid moves of the trump admin recently have certainly earned the US a great amount of distrust globally that would take a gargantuan effort to repair over many years by a different administration(s). It really does appear that the trump admin is running around poking anyone/everyone trying to start a fight.
Talk of an impending American Civil War are pretty silly. Tensions and polarization are high, sure, but the interdependence, geographic blurring, and lack of political will are too great to overcome for a full blown Civil War. While I won't rule it out in our lifetime, it's just not in the realm of possibility right now. Despite the political polarization, Americans remain strangely unified. Worst case scenario I could see in the near future is the equivalent of The Troubles in Ireland. Red and blue states are much more purple than the narrative would have us believe, and those in the ranks of the US military are gonna be pretty reluctant to turn their weapons on other Americans, again, despite the narrative. Domestically, the US is more in economic trouble with the ai bubble, volatility of the housing market, and the brittle state of employment, rather than military trouble with political instability. The coming economic downturn will for sure hurt, but it won't destroy America. I could see the current admin being incompetent enough to fumble the economic downturn into another worldwide depression, but again, not enough to destroy America on its own.
So, to your point of American military power being eroded an uncomfortable amount, oh yeah, hard agree. In fact, the pentagon is working tirelessly to warn of further erosion and drafting up plans to rebuild infrastructure. But American military hegemony isn't currently under threat. None of the current conflicts around the world have warranted direct military intervention under the goals of the current administration, despite said admin champing at the bit to do so. If China were to invade Taiwan tomorrow, they would get their shit kicked in almost immediately. If Russia were to invade a NATO country tomorrow, they would get their shit kicked in even harder. In a regular conventional war, America will absolutely fuck up anyone's shit right now.
I think you may overestimate china's economic influence worldwide as well. While I will acknowledge that the two main economic powers in the world are the US and China right now and no one else even comes close, China still doesn't quite have the same reach as America. If the Chinese economy failed overnight, the world would feel it and not have a great time, but it would survive. If America's economy failed overnight, the current state of civilization is over. The world would shuffle shit around for awhile, turning into something we wouldn't recognize. China is certainly catching up, but China is extremely dependent on American buying power much like the rest of the world. The world economy is built on consumerism, and America is by far #1 in buying an unreasonably enormous amount of shit. China is certainly gaining their bearings in ruthless and barbaric economic warfare, but they still pale in comparison to the professionals in America.
So while I definitely disagree that America is on the brink because of a degraded military, I will agree that American political hegemony is in danger because the trump admin is unbelievably stupid and the major opposition party is largely disorganized and unable to expend any political capital to give meaningful resistance. I think you're right to be concerned for the future stability of the world given the increased political turmoil and brick-shitting incompetence of global leadership.
Thanks for tagging along and the civil discourse. I think that’s what this community was supposed to do, I enjoyed reading your takes.
And while I sometimes have some strange takes on things, I do recognise when there’s an expert in the room. I hope I get to read some more of your thoughts on here somehow sometime. Cheers