Contrary to Fukuyama’s Whig triumphalism and the assertion that mankind finally settled on liberal democracy and contractual international capitalism as the harbingers of a peaceful “universal brotherhood of man”, war has not ceased at all but taken on a different character and form. I think Fukuyama later walked back his assertions, but that was because of the oh-so-terrifying populism of maybe 20% of Europeans peacefully objecting to their invasion and replacement.

The reason we have no 20th century style war between technologically advanced nation states is simply due to the fact that defensive war is more effective than offensive war. The world realized this when it realized that devastating air power alone was not enough and you need boots on the ground to capture territory. This is because human dominance/submission behavior does not activate unless there’s a physical presence to acknowledge as dominant. Massive firebombings of civilians as seen during WWII only serve to galvanize a population and make them more eager to go overseas and kick some ass.

Once you put boots on the ground though, they’re a massive target for absurdly sophisticated computer-guided ballistic missiles and artillery that would put ‘ol Werner’s V2s to shame. It might seem counterintuitive that offensive weapons contribute to the strength of defense but the vice versa is also true. Offensive tactics were superior during WWII due to the simple fact of tank armor. Explosives weren’t powerful enough to destroy a column of tanks before they got into your defensive lines, so your best bet was just to tell the tanks to charge and send in an army walking behind to mop up the rout. That’s called blitzkrieg, and it’s what every army in WWII did. It’s why Hitler expanded so easily and then why his seemingly invincible armies crumbled once he overextended himself and his enemies pushed him back.

Nowadays, the opposite is true. The M1 Abrams is an incredible piece of technology, and pretty much an invincible piece of cavalry against goatfuckers with RPG-7s, but it’s not going to hold up against a modern airstrike. You put those things in a line, you’re just saving the enemy money on bombs.

Just imagine China trying to send a fleet to invade the continental US. It’s an absurd thought; all those big expensive aircraft carriers would get blown out of the water before they even made it to Hawaii. We make a lot of noise about missile defense, ostensibly to protect against nuclear ICBMs, but it’s really so that we can put boots on the ground without being counterattacked. The technology is not there yet. The field test data is very unimpressive. Hitting a 17,000mph projectile with another missile is possible under perfect conditions, when you know its trajectory and speed, but a computer-guided enemy missile that’s constantly changing course and even varying its speed? Using radar-shielding stealth tech? Even a 90% success rate only means that the enemy needs to spend more money and use more missiles to hit its target. Naturally, we can’t send a fleet to China for the exact same reason. During the Gulf War, we managed to literally bomb Saddam back to the stone age in a month, but only because he could not meaningfully contest the air. Recall that his mere handful of primitive SCUDs had us terrified.

So when you see Russia bragging about all the new advanced weaponry it’s building, that’s a defensive posture. When you see a country bragging about missile defense, that’s an offensive posture. Russia saying that it has incredible ballistic missiles that get around anti-missile defenses, is saying “come close to me and I’ll rain hellfire on you”. When America says it’s developing invincible anti-air defenses, it’s saying “I’m coming to get you, you bitch, and you can’t stop me”. Because great missiles are useless without boots on the ground, and great missile defense lets you put boots on the ground. Like a Mexican standoff where one party starts putting on Kevlar. The top brass in both countries is of course well aware of this, even if it’s not something you tell the public. And why America’s installations of “anti missile defense systems” within spitting distance of the Russian border has them on edge.

Which is why all of our wars are proxy wars: 4GW. They would fight enemy modern nations with 20th century total war if they could. Of course, if you were in a Mexican standoff, and you had Kevlar on under your clothes, you wouldn’t tell anybody about it. But I think the fact that we aren’t engaging in total war is evidence that we don’t have secret defensive technology yet. Once we do, that’s evidence that we have it, and we will invade some country and mysteriously suffer no losses without the public even knowing about it.