9-11 is a counter example. Asymmetric warfare is a constant threat.

A one-off terrorist attack (one that required years of planning) isn't a war, and cannot scale to a war.

It was enough for us to work with, invade a few countries and spend a few trillion.

They may not attack the US directly like the Japanese did, but China may want to take over its neighbours to expand. Just like Russia could.

I appreciate the worry for everyone else. Truly it makes a huge difference in global politics. Like parent I am still surprised how paranoid the US seems. It’s almost like growing up overprotected you become extremely fearful. There is almost no practical cost to US with going into war so the result is that US is constantly fighting and makes it the core focus of the society (along with innovation and more positive sides of US culture)

Pearl Harbor was devastating and Hawaiians probably have plenty of reason to worry about the defense going forward. Then again I looked up where it is and I am shocked how remote the islands are. I think it was first and foremost symbolic attack. Not a real threat to west coast.

The rest of the world should be very scared if the US isn't ready to go to peer-state war.

- Europe has under-invested in its military for 30 years.

- Japan by constitutional decree.

- South Korea is rapidly building out an armaments industry, but they're also still at war.

- The UK is gutted and unable to afford much of anything.

- India and Pakistan are laser focused on each other.

If China or Russia feel in an expansionist mood, who other than the US has the capability to stop them?

Historical echoes of the above dynamic are why Americans bristle at criticism of their military spending.

Sure, everyone's a pacifist until someone invades...

Yes and:

Pax Americana protects the global maritime order.

I believe, but cannot prove, that hegemony and "forever war" are inextricable. a la "if you want peace, prepare for war".

--

I'm not justifying or defending Pax Americana or American exceptualism. IMHO, there is no justice, fairness, ethical, or moral defence. Statecraft, world affairs, egemony are amoral. And while the status quo sucks, for some a lot more than others, I think we'll miss it when it's gone.

India is much more concerned with China these days.

> I was struck on this trip by how clearly India’s chosen rival is no longer Pakistan, but China. It does not matter if we are talking in military, technological, economic, or even cultural terms. The default comparison Indians make is with China.

https://scholars-stage.org/observations-from-india/

China and Russia are already expanding as we speak, being allied in the invasion of Ukraine

Russia has basically burned up their entire ex-Soviet equipment + munitions stocks blundering around in Ukraine. They're not really in a position to open another front with any substantial state.

I'd still be a bit worried if I was Georgia, possibly Moldova, maybe the Baltics if European defense commitments start looking even weaker, but to a large degree they're safer right now than they'd been with how badly depleted Russia is, not more at risk.

Poland's spending heavily right now (2025 projection is 4.7% of GDP) and rapidly up-arming itself. In terms of conventional conflict they're going to be in a pretty decent position.

I don't really see much in ways for Russia to be particularly "expansionist" beyond the places they're already an ongoing problem in. (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova).

Symbolic? The point of the attack was to eliminate the US as a threat to Japan by taking out its carrier fleet.

Regardless of whether or not Japan was a threat to the West coast, do you seriously expect a nation to stand by and simply shrug off something like that?

FWIW, Japan attacked a military base in am American territory, not then a state, and never had serious plans to invade America proper. They thought they could knock America out of the fight before America realized it was even in a fight with a decisive demoralizing victory that would leave Americans feeling that ceding control of the Pacific to Japan was rational and practical.

Obviously that theory didn't work for Japan then, but there's nothing to say nobody else couldn't make the same mistake again. The mentality of the American public may have changed considerably since WWII, maybe Americans are already demoralized and no longer certain of their own righteousness. Maybe the would-be attacker has some reason to believe they can influence the mentality of the American public using control of mass media popular with Americans. Or maybe they're just so certain of themselves and their advantages they think America will back down when push comes to shove because if the positions were reversed, they would back down and they project that onto America.

I think that the events that played out after September 11th show that Americans still have the same reaction.

There are reasons they might think this would be different. That would be (probably) 30+ years in the past, in that case American civilians were targeted, on American soil, using flights full of American civilians as the weapons.

I do think that America would probably go to war if US military bases or carrier groups were attacked by the Chinese, but I think it's plausible that China might come to believe otherwise.

Sarah Paine makes this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebSpobsPmM

Fear of invasion creates massive military spending

Massive military spending creates peaceful times

Peaceful times create low military spending

Low military spending creates fear of invasion

Also the Canadians are the only ones who ever burned down DC.

It doesn't always work this way, and very much hasn't in the USA. It's been more akin to:

Fear of invasion creates massive military spending

Massive military spending creates a need for justification, and ability to invade

The need for justification, and ability to invade create wars abroad

Wars abroad create enemies and fear of invasion

Has there ever been a period in history where the dominant military power said "okay, no one can challenge us, let's roll back our military spending" and the peace remained?

I can think of a lot of previous hegemons who got complacent and lost everything.

I can't think of a period in history where most nations were democracies either, where most women could vote, or where most people had access to public education.

But alas, here we are.

And I can't think of a period in history where I can use a tiny device in my pocket to order a coat with same day delivery, but somehow invading Russia in winter still seems like a bad idea.

I see no reason to believe that democracies with women's suffrage and public education are immune to military competition. I certainly wouldn't want to risk massive upheaval of the world order which jeopardizes the existence of all those things to find out.