[CapstanRoller]

USAmerica now only has experience fighting against much weaker opponents. Almost everyone who remembers WW2 is dead.

When confronted with slightly more competent weak opponents (e.g. Taliban), the US military performs far more poorly. This poor performance worsens sharply as enemy competence scales.

Full-scale war with near-peer or peer adversaries? USA is SOL.

But aside from the loud-mouthed war hawks or perma-doomers on YouTube, I don't think anyone in the US or China (or Russia, for that matter) with decision-making power really has the appetite for direct open conflict, since it means the end of all things.

Expect more proxy wars like Ukraine...

[_kbh_]

> When confronted with slightly more competent weak opponents (e.g. Taliban), the US military performs far more poorly. This poor performance worsens sharply as enemy competence scales.

Russia and America have fought albeit slightly indirectly.

US soldiers engaged Wagner in Syria in the Battle of Khasham.

Rough outcome of this battle.

US / SDF side - 1 wounded

Wagner / Syrian government side - 50 - 100 dead. upto 200 wounded.

[rightbyte]

What is your point? That soldiers die if you shell them?

[_kbh_]

> What is your point? That soldiers die if you shell them?

My point is that the following paragraph doesn't exactly hold up if you consider Wagner to be "slight more competent weak opponents" which I would.

> When confronted with slightly more competent weak opponents (e.g. Taliban), the US military performs far more poorly. This poor performance worsens sharply as enemy competence scales.

[CapstanRoller]

Leaning on one instance of a massive overkill response against a relatively small group of PMCs and rebels isn't really saying much.

And sure, the US has successfully 'fought' similar 'battles' against groups of Taliban troops before, but eventually lost the war.