That's absolutely a valid point, as far as actual forces present. We will never win anything (and this hurts me) with air or sea power, alone. But, I believe the flaw in your assumptions are the number of troops required to do what you assume is nescessary.
At some point, we need brave troops on the ground, willing to hold/secure positions. But, so much of that concept is very dated. This isn't WWII. Vietnam & Korea are irrelevant. Desert Storm? We were mobile and kept moving. Afghanistan? Iraq II? Nobody came close to standing up in a peer to peer fight. We have a ton of capabilities that support fast, mobile troops taking territory.
We are precise, deadly, & are very capable of removing a conventional (peer/near-peer) foe's ability to wage war. This is a point that is often lost/ignored. Once we gain air superiority (something we have enjoyed for decades), we can do whatever we want, whenever we want.
Our foes are trying to challenge us....but, between the F-22 & F-35....we are unmatched. The air power enthusiast inside me wants to be challenged here. It would be a blowout.
The question is about scale. My point is that even recent examples from the Russian/Ukraine war are not indicative of what we would require. We are far-more capable.
Great post Moose. I like to describe/compare the varying levels of military capability by different countries as I would the varying levels of college football conferences greatness.
At the very top is the SEC: UGA, BAMA, OU, UT, UTjr, MIZZU LSU, Ole Pi...I mean Ole Miss, T&M, Barn and UF ....the very best of the best and there's no comparison. This is who the US military is and there's not a country anywhere close to our capability from "Tooth" but especially to "Tail". No country has the ability to project power globally like we can. I point people to the fact that Russia can't invade and conquer a neighboring country or project power more than 100 miles from their boarder. While the US invaded and occupied not 1 but 2 countries half way around the world for 20 years. That's the height of the British empire type shit. Alexander the Great type stuff by comparison. If we really wanted to, we can kill anyone in the world with limited civilian collateral damage.
Next would be NATO and I would say they are a the ACC minus Clemson, FSU and Miami. Good talent left there with: BC, Duke, GT, NC State, UNC, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia Tech and WF but who's watching those games. That conference makeup would maybe get aired on PBS but can't think anywhere else but that's the level of drop off with capability. Good tech, good training and good military leaders but way way underfunded and limited power projection capabilities.
China and Russia I'd say are around the same level but they have major questions as far as corruption, quality of tech, limited power projection against near-peer, military leaders and military doctrine. But they can churn out a butt ton of capacity even though their effectiveness would be limited compared to the US and NATO so I'd compare them to an FCS conference.
No one should doubt for a second our military and the only one that can defeat us is...Congress.
