What's new

The US may no longer be able to fight more than one major war at a time

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 4, 2011
66,428
-55
99,890
Country
China
Location
China

The US may no longer be able to fight more than one major war at a time​

Nov 23, 2023, 8:26 PM GMT+8

  • During the Cold War, the US had the capacity to fight two wars simultaneously.
  • Amid rising global conflict, US military planning is again under scrutiny.
  • An analyst told Business Insider that US had shifted its doctrine in response to new threats.
At the summit of US power, the Pentagon had a clear task: ensure the US could fight and win against two adversaries at the same time.

That strategy enabled America to deter the Soviet Union and its allies and emerge triumphant from the decades-long Cold War. It then fought in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

But a recent proliferation in threats facing the US, ranging from terror groups to a resurgent China, has prompted a rethink.

A shift after the Soviet collapse

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US cut its military spending with the world seemingly headed toward a new era of stability.

The Pentagon retained the ability to battle two adversaries at once, a capacity tested after the 9/11 terror attacks when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in a bid to reshape the region and reduce the threat of Islamist militants.

But toward the end of the 2000s, the US faced daunting new threats, and Pentagon officials began redrawing their plans.

The threat from China and Russia

Now, the Pentagon faces the possibility of war with resurgent major powers Russia and China which can deploy huge militaries and sophisticated weapons.

Over the past decade, both have signaled their hostility to the US' global dominance, and their willingness to extend their power by force, with Russia waging a campaign to conquer US ally Ukraine and China menacing Taiwan with invasion.

They've made the prospect of the US triumphing in two simultaneous conflicts increasingly improbable, unless it massively increases its defense spending and expands its military, Raphael Cohen, an analyst with the RAND Corporation think tank told BI.

"That's going to be a hard sell in this political climate," said Cohen.

"Fighting two wars simultaneously: That's a fairly sizable commitment, particularly once powers become on the scale of China or Russia," he continued.

A new doctrine

The US military had been stretched when fighting at the same time in Afghanistan and Iraq. It prompted a 2009 rethink of US military doctrine under President Barack Obama that was rubber-stamped by then-President Donald Trump and later President Joe Biden.

Instead of winning two wars, it's now committed to being able to win against one major adversary such as China, and to present a serious deterrent to attacks from other enemies, Cohen said.

The Pentagon's 2022 US National Defense Strategy, the most recent, commits the US to being able to "prevail in conflict" yet still "deter opportunistic aggression elsewhere."

In planning for the possibility of a new world war, the US must look at the global picture.

The US has long relied on its enemies being divided, and unlikely to join forces to attack the US simultaneously.

But China, Russia, Iran, and other US adversaries are drawing closer together, sharing weapons technology and drawing up new alliances, magnifying their threat.

In a worst-case scenario in which various nation-state adversaries of the US attacked simultaneously, the US would likely be fighting alongside its allies in various regions.

European allies could help to push back Russia, allies in the Middle East, such as Israel or some Arab states, would fight against Iran, while US allies in the Pacific region, such as Australia and Japan, would likely play an important role in repelling Chinese aggression, said Cohen.

The Ukraine war is providing important new lessons to the US in what it and its allies need to do to prepare for this scenario, said Cohen.

For example, both Russia and Ukraine have burned through vast amounts of ammunition in the conflict, highlighting the need for the US to increase defense industrial capacities to support allies.

"That's still an expensive proposition," but one less expensive than vastly expanding the US military, said Cohen.

Planning to counter today's threats, said Cohen, comes down not just to military might, but to political will and the careful cultivation of alliances.

"If there's a World War, you know, it won't be the sort of single-handed conflicts that we've sort of gotten used to," he said.

 
I have long said it that US had long lost its capability to wage large scale wars overseas due to the rise of China. with the ascendance of China, our world becomes a much safer and peaceful place.
 
The crisis in Palestine has completely disrupted Americas global chess board. USA now has to deal with a hostile Russia and China while acting as Israel's body guard the ME. It can not focus on the Indo-Pacific and ignore Europe and ME.....like USA strategists planned on. IMO, that why Biden wanted to meet with Xi to cool things down.

Israel or some Arab states, would fight against Iran
Iran and the Arab states (included the GCC) are more likely to join forces against Israel at the present.
 
I have long said it that US had long lost its capability to wage large scale wars overseas due to the rise of China. with the ascendance of China, our world becomes a much safer and peaceful place.
Chinese presence is hardly felt. You are a 'talking' power, unlike Russia which walks the talk with its military and tries to match the US presence. The US can still deploy troops anywhere around the world, but the era of wars fought on foreign soil is on the decline and the public interest is against it. Which is the only reason the US troops have decreased the number of foreign deployments. If it threatens the US, they are surely going to fight it.
 
Chinese presence is hardly felt. You are a 'talking' power, unlike Russia which walks the talk with its military and tries to match the US presence. The US can still deploy troops anywhere around the world, but the era of wars fought on foreign soil is on the decline and the public interest is against it. Which is the only reason the US troops have decreased the number of foreign deployments. If it threatens the US, they are surely going to fight it.

There is only so much propaganda and falsehood you can do from Indian side.

I am guessing you have never been to China. Take a plane flight sometime to large Chinese cities.

India has neither the technological nor financial chops to compete with a country like China. India is twenty years behind, maybe more.

The sooner that realization comes - the sooner Indians can start working to improve their country.
 
Last edited:
Chinese presence is hardly felt. You are a 'talking' power, unlike Russia which walks the talk with its military and tries to match the US presence. The US can still deploy troops anywhere around the world, but the era of wars fought on foreign soil is on the decline and the public interest is against it. Which is the only reason the US troops have decreased the number of foreign deployments. If it threatens the US, they are surely going to fight it.
USA forces are stretched thin, IMO, USN made a public show of sending forces to the Mediterranean to deter Hezbollah. But Houthis still captured that Israeli owned ship with no opposition from USN or Quad allies. USN doesn't have enough ships to police the ME while at the same time deterring Russia and China. Chinese Navy is actually bigger today then USN.
 
US doesn't have to fight any wars. Putin has ensured Russia is pushed back 20 years, Xi has ensured China is regressed by atleast that much, Hamas has ensured middle-east gangs up with Israel against Iran, Palestine etc and ofcourse Pakistani peopel and military are working day and night to ensure they pick another unwinnable fight with Afghanistan.

The only thing USA has to worry about is whether to build a geriatric ward inside white house
 
The Pentagon retained the ability to battle two adversaries at once, a capacity tested after the 9/11 terror attacks when the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in a bid to reshape the region and reduce the threat of Islamist militants.
doesnt really prove anything. both were minnows, afghanistan's forces being nothing more than aragtag militia, and iraq having a corrupt army with outdated, unmaintained weaponry and low morale.

US is yet to fight a war against an equal.
 
US doesn't have to fight any wars. Putin has ensured Russia is pushed back 20 years, Xi has ensured China is regressed by atleast that much,
lol, like this steady regression year on year?

微信图片_20231124131729.png
微信图片_20231124131807.png
 
lOl, check your department stores first.


lol... see who is talking...
Usual bot farm troll replies. Oh I'm so afraid of my Children's toy taken away. Do you even understand what I said? Or are you in a constant state of denial?
There is only so much propaganda and falsehood you can do from Indian side.

I am guessing you have never been to China. Take a plane flight sometime to large Chinese cities.

India has neither the technological nor financial chops to compete with a country like China. India is twenty years behind, maybe more.

The sooner that realization comes - the better Indians can start working to improve their country.
Indian has nothing to do with it but you are blabbering about India when it's not the topic. Dude fuk off.

USA forces are stretched thin, IMO, USN made a public show of sending forces to the Mediterranean to deter Hezbollah. But Houthis still captured that Israeli owned ship with no opposition from USN or Quad allies. USN doesn't have enough ships to police the ME while at the same time deterring Russia and China. Chinese Navy is actually bigger today then USN.
Yeah, Houthis sound like Somali pirates with a helicopter. Taking over an unarmed ship is nothing to boast about. Whether it's Israeli or American, Somali Pirates have done worse.
Tell me when any of these countries actually blow up a USN vessel and shoot down an F16. Tell me something that these big powerful ME countries do that the US views as an act of war. It could be anything. They won't, no matter who is backing you, Russia or China you won't act against the US.

I'm not comparing the militaries, I'm contesting the fact that Chinese influence has reduced conflicts, which it hasn't.
 
Usual bot farm troll replies. Oh I'm so afraid of my Children's toy taken away. Do you even understand what I said? Or are you in a constant state of denial?
lol, wake up and smell the coffee

 
Chinese presence is hardly felt. You are a 'talking' power, unlike Russia which walks the talk with its military and tries to match the US presence. The US can still deploy troops anywhere around the world, but the era of wars fought on foreign soil is on the decline and the public interest is against it. Which is the only reason the US troops have decreased the number of foreign deployments. If it threatens the US, they are surely going to fight it.

since US lost in Afghan, it was mainly because their ability to pay for the war, US's economy is too weak. India+Russia can better wage a war which US can't afford now. a merciless state, the US's economy has :-)

lol, like this steady regression year on year?

View attachment 1032051View attachment 1032052

in Global Hunger Index, India is above US-west, as per the the information i have :-)
the LDC members like Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan above India? US's-western media are sick....
i was told that India handsomely exceeds Indonesia, Philippines, Brazil in Hunger Index measure .....
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom