Thousands of nuclear warheads you can't use to win a conventional war are of little use. They merely deter an all out nuclear war. They don't even deter isolated suitcase nuke attacks when those can be deniable.
To maintain primacy (and we should discuss _why_ maintain primacy in a second) the U.S. need to have the best conventional capabilities as well. My money is or more autonomous, robotic vehicles: in the air (armed UAVs), on land (small robot tanks), and in the sea (small robotic AIP subs).
As to why maintain primacy: because as much as I'm certain you dislike the U.S., it is the best hope we have for peace in this world. The Chinese are still bent on dominance and interested in various conquests. The Russians apparently still feel a desire for revanche. And the muslim world is increasing nuclear proliferation and state terrorism. The Pax Americana of the Cold War era was remarkable -- you might disagree and point to all the ill-advised interventions by the U.S., but those are as nothing compared to the levels of violence we have seen historically. At least until China democratizes and adopts closer-to-Western values, we must remain the foremost military power on Earth.
> The Chinese are still bent on dominance and interested in various conquests.
What evidence do you have for that, as opposed to this alternative hypothesis:
1. The Chinese have a bit of a thing about uninvited guests. C.f. world history from the industrial revolution until 1975, or go back a bit further to that Ghengis ratbag.
2. If any ininvited guests turn up in China in the next 30 years, they are, objectively, very likely to be Americans. Because a) who else can? b) go ask the Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis, Phillipinos, pause for breath, Nicaraguans, Yemenis, Iranians, Indonesians, Somalians, Cambodians, ..., whose army it usually is that turns up in someone else's country.
3. Pfaffing around in their local seas is relatively cheap for the Chinese, and it provokes Americans to burn lots of money in order to "maintain primacy". Meanwhile, the Chinese get to save their money and build submarines.
> At least until China democratizes
Because, of course, external threats from the world hegemon are just the kind of setting where people have always been willing to give more open and democratic ways of life a try.
Your entire argument is based on the premise that the Chinese military's actions have been in the interest of territorial defense and nothing else. You then proceed to make a bunch of snarky comments based off this premise.
Maybe address the premise before going off on tangents about Nicaraguan or Filipino invasions of the Chinese mainland.
> > The Chinese are still bent on dominance and interested in various conquests.
> What evidence do you have for that, as opposed to this alternative hypothesis:
Your hypothesis is a bunch of non-sequiturs.
The evidence is bare for all to see. Their behavior on the South China Sea mainly, but not only. ASEAN exists in great part to combat Chinese aggression.
I really doubt the US can maintain it's current status in the long term, I don't even think it can be maintained in the short term. Sure China won't be invading US mainland anytime soon, probably never, but they will be dominating the south china sea within the next couple of decades.
The US hegemony was largely a result of a world devastated by WW2, it was never and should never have been seen as a permanent position.
And neither should the remarkable prosperity that the US enjoyed during that hegemenony. Much of our current domestic and foreign politics can be viewed through the lens of grasping at straws to maintain/regain that unprecedented run after WWII. It's just not sustainable.
To maintain primacy (and we should discuss _why_ maintain primacy in a second) the U.S. need to have the best conventional capabilities as well. My money is or more autonomous, robotic vehicles: in the air (armed UAVs), on land (small robot tanks), and in the sea (small robotic AIP subs).
As to why maintain primacy: because as much as I'm certain you dislike the U.S., it is the best hope we have for peace in this world. The Chinese are still bent on dominance and interested in various conquests. The Russians apparently still feel a desire for revanche. And the muslim world is increasing nuclear proliferation and state terrorism. The Pax Americana of the Cold War era was remarkable -- you might disagree and point to all the ill-advised interventions by the U.S., but those are as nothing compared to the levels of violence we have seen historically. At least until China democratizes and adopts closer-to-Western values, we must remain the foremost military power on Earth.