And there is another problem, too, a demographic one.
https://dieunbestechlichen.com/2018/...hic-war-index/
From 1970 to 2017, the war index for the US has halved, and is now below 1.00.
This means any individual loss of a young fighter is so much harder to be compensated and repalkced, than in societies with high indices. To so9me degree this can be comeosnated with superior tehcnology - as long as that davantge doe snot get n eutrlaised by an according wepakjin strike, or by simpyl bpassing it and fighting a war under condiitonsd werre the technbologicalo advanatge does not become relevant. It also means that a civil society is getting less and lkess supportive of war. the energetic dynamics that an overshgoot in young, hormone-driven young males inject into a society, simply is missing. This effect is what is meant when talkig nabout the over-aging of societies.
However, Russia is even worse off (, and China also cannot claim advantages here. For the time being China just has a bigger reservoir of already exiosting replacmemnts. Once thwese are "consummed", by war or by time passing by, they will face the same problems like the West.
The real challenger here are the Islamic countries, and Africa. And it is here were we have the highest indices for actual violence and war-like action taking place. Due to the demographic development that is projected for them, they will remain to be the globe's biggest trouble makers for at least another two generations, 50-60 years, to come. Practically most of this century.
It pays off to know what the war index does, and to relate its values to the various historic events of the last century, and the present. It really pays off. Thats why NATO let the author invent and teach course in so-called "war demographics" at the NATO command college in Rome.
Heinsohn is famous for having his numbers well-prepared, and in overwhelming quantity and quality, no matter the issue he decides to mark a comment on. Empiry is the better reasonability. His comments in the oress are almost oversaturated with up-to-data and statistics. Its just that it does not always project the wanted, the welcomed, the demanded outcomes for the future. Thats why they hate him so much. Right he most of the time is, nevertheless. Empiry does not care for sentiments. Demography beats ideologically founded self-perception.
The nzumber sin that table show exactly what has gone wrong with the American wars and military adventures of the past 30 years. Just look at the indices for the enemies of the US and how they went up over the time of conflicts. The US never had a chance to "win" Iraq or Afghanistan. Not from all beginning on.
Russia plays it uch, much, much more clever. I do not say they are to be liked for it. I only say they are extremely economic and cost-effective. Superior gains from inferior investments, compared to the US.
Remidns a biot of US health care. The most costly system in the world - but not scoring that high in net effect at all. By outcome and result, others with lesser investements work much better.