> In every major historical engagement the US has fought it went in woefully under-equipped, under-manned, and out-gunned. It prevailed because it can tool up quickly and out-produce.

It doesn't seem wise to rely on that always being true. The U.S. has not been involved in wars for very long (considering the history of war) and war has changed so much recently that assuming things won't change in the future seems like a bad plan.

Er what? The US has been at war for 222 years -- https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473

Since WW2, the "wars" have been mismatched to the extreme (never mind that in both world wars USA came in late, and never had its industrial capacity threatened).

The closest to a symmetrical war was in Korea, after China sent troops. And that war has never really been resolved.

Also went in late in both wold wars, when the other side was basically exhausted.

Never mind never having had to operate the industry under 24/7 bombardment.

The US is just too fucking big to be subject to 24/7 bombardment.

The US military, which is ridiculous, couldn't even keep a lid on Iraq and it's not even as big as Texas. There's no adversary that could possibly mount a bombing campaign that big, not even the US itself.