Hi Sean, I've been watching a few of your videos and you are right on target with your thinking. I'm convinced that there are two reasons for what you are seeing: first, the escalation of individual force, and second the deterrence of a crippling threat. The first piece, escalation of individual force, is why technology alone doesn't seem to win wars any more. Basically, the individual soldier is now more deadly than ever before in history. With a machine gun, even one soldier is a credible threat to a whole town, and machine guns are cheap, widely available, and easy to get munitions for. This means that equipping a credible threat that demands a military response now costs only a few hundred dollars. It is easy to maintain a perpetual state of credible threat over a large area for a long period of time with very few troops and very little technology. These troops can't hold an area, but they can make it impossible for anyone else to hold it either without spending enormous resources. That's why the US lost in Afghanistan. The second piece is why we don't see conventional wars between states any more, and is related to the first. Destructive power in general has outstripped our capacity to defend against it. It is easy for a major military power to field enough firepower and strike quickly enough to devastate any other major military power in a single strike, between nuclear weapons and various other capabilities. We don't do this, because we know they have equally powerful guns aimed at us. If we ever had a conventional war between superpowers, we would both be fighting with kid gloves on until one side started losing. Then, the threat of retaliatory devastation loses its hold, because they are losing a war, so they are already being devastated. The losing side might try to cripple the winning side, and would very likely be able to do so successfully. This leaves both powers in ruins, not much worth winning. It is a risk not worth taking. Put them together, and the available avenue for conflict becomes exactly what you describe: it is a war in the shadows, without states, without conventional forces, with mercenaries and without meaningful borders. It is weak forces taking what they can,, while strong forces fail to stamp them out.. The value of the state I this world is as an economic prize to be sapped for resources, not as the power that will decide the outcome.
Hi, I'm glad you enjoy these ad hoc videos. I agree with your assessment; it is easier now to pack individuals with cheap lethality that cannot conquer but certain disrupt others' plans to conquer, resulting in quagmires. Also, the threat of nukes is real. Unfortunately, a lot of "Great Power Competition" wargaming doesn't take it seriously. Many stage out conventional wars in South China Sea not realizing it could go nuclear in hours. Or, as you point out, if a total war does occur, the 'nuclear option' is always on the table. Hence, GPC will be an irregular war fight, as nations compete on the periphery rather than head-on conventional war.
@@seanmcfate826 The other interesting thing I could see is Great Powers picking on the little ones, knowing that there is no credible threat of military response from any other great power. This reality gives them strategic room to maneuver. I think this is what Russia is doing in the Ukraine right now; their leaders have recognized that Russia can survive trade sanctions, and that the conventional military threat from the west is nonexistent. They can be pretty confident that they can compete effectively in the war of the shadows too. So, I would bet they try to seize more territory from Ukraine, or maybe annex it wholesale. What remains to be seen is whether Ukraine has the will to make as much of a quagmire of it as the Taliban did with us.
