“It is also becoming clear that militarily, the Pentagon could never defeat Beijing, Moscow, even Teheran.”
LOL, one week...one week only and those three countries are a pile of slag and Ash. And it can be done using just THREE of our MIRV missile carrying subs.
“And it can be done using just THREE of our MIRV missile carrying subs.”
I think a lot of people envision just the US using its missiles. I assure you, a nuclear exchange would be just that; an exchange. Imagine Katrina, but multiplied thousands of times and spread across the entire country. Then, imagine the effects lasting, not decades, but centuries. This is why, even though it would have been cheaper, nukes are not used and war continues to be with conventional weapons.
The purpose of those submarine carried, nuclear tipped missiles, is deterrence. If we actually use them, then we have to accept whatever damage comes to us as a result. Russia no longer has the ability to field a massive submarine presence. To maintain its deterrence, Russia has announced a nuclear robotic submarine that it says can deliver a waterborne explosion anywhere even if Russia no longer exists. If they actually intended to use it in a first strike they wouldn’t have announced it. Also, its intent is not for military purposes, but massive civilian retaliation. Look for China to do something similar. This is why America maintains a navy stronger than the rest of the world’s navy’s combined. It is intended to also act as a deterrence, but to conventional war.
If there is an exchange of nuclear weapons, good odds says it will be one Muslim country attacking another. Deterrence does not work if one, or both sides, believes that they will live in the afterlife better than they live in this life; as the promise of 72 virgins implies. (I always wondered how bomb-wearers thought that would work out when all their good parts are hundreds of feet away from the rest of them.)
Going after Iran or Russia with conventional weapons would be a long, tough slog. The American taxpayer is not interested. And, for the most part, America has no strategic interest in much of the rest of the world. Only about 10% of America’s GDP results from trade and nearly two thirds of that is with Mexico and Canada. This is one reason most of America’s use of military force, of late, has been a big coalition of parties who DO have a strategic interest.