US citizenry may have deficient and idealogical view of reality, but behauviour of their leaders is consitent, even for Trump actually, who was no one than a social media w****, but his actions actually were far less irrational than they may appear - radical, yes, destabilising, absolutely, irrational?, no, they look like when you have someone as trampish like him invoking them. Given how they were introduced and with what popular rethoric they were served (aimed on the internal radical electorate), the global effects are what they are.
Their behaviour is consistent? I don't know what the hell you've been watching, but it doesn't look like the real world. The GOP is falling completely under the control of the Trump hardline, no matter the experience of their leadership, in a way very reminiscing of European democratic collapses, and it isn't a matter of simply pleasing the electorate and doing otherwise afterwards, and in terms of rationality, they're fucking their entire country entirely just to "own the libs".
Americans are no idiots, they may lash out when put against the wall, true, but once again, when there is dissulution inside, no one will go for war with at best equal power, stronger at worst. It is simply logsitically impossible. Plus in case of insanity you will have literal war in the barracs before that happens. Also best case is with Trump who generated additional failsafes from his rhetoric and behauviour.
Yeah, right now, I must say that you are deeply in denial when it comes to understanding the level of insanity and kool-aid drinking in the US. They
will go for it, because there is a large part of the political echelon seriously believing the divine mandate and protection. As for "additional failsafes", they are literally being dismantled by the GOP as we speak, both on the electoral and political levels.
Currently US is on the defense, it literaly have entrenched at their current positions and tries to amend deficiencies of Bush and Trump administrations. We could prophecise that after Biden we would get a Reagan-esque figure, but that would be using historical allegories, which is by itself not a wise thing in security oriented analysis, but, nontheless, it is possible assuming Biden will manage to stabilise situation internally and at least work out some fundamentals for reintroduction of USA to the leading role, which I am doubtful. On the other hand it is possible they will manage to stabilise smaller area of influence if good winds will allow.
Otherwise war, but remember that main difference between "Better dead than Yellow" Redneck Joe and decident is that decident have much clearer and more extended picture of reality than Redneck Joe, meaning that no one will go for war knowing they will loose. Everything will be much more clearer when Americans release their new National Security Startegy, but it seems it will be centred on what TRADOC and Co. was publishing for past circa 7 years, which is about long term competition and multidomain deterrence, which some hail it as wishfull thinking and dilution of forces and means trying to cover all aspects simultanously, which actually to some degree it is, also showing critical deficiencies in the US power projection and capabilities.
Once again, you are trying to look at the situation in a rational way, when the US electorate and its leadership is NOT rational, and they have a mindset that denies the very possibility of losing if they "fight hard enough", hence the constant "stab in the back" myths whenever they get their asses handed to them. There's no stabilization coming in any way or shape internally with the level of polarization and the longer-term societal consequences of the pandemic, and Biden has strong chances of losing the mid-term elections next year then to be replaced by Trump in 2024.
Remember one thing about the US leadership: the Congress is the place where a Representative literally, not figuratively, asked whether the island of Guam could
capsize because of an amphibious training exercise on a beach by the USMC. This was a
Democratic one. The Republicans? There are those who literally, not figuratively, blame forest fires on "Jewish space lasers", and this isn't roleplay or posturing. A number of them are batshit insane and you should seriously stop looking at their political system the way you might look at the European, Chinese or even Soviet ones, where the leadership is calculating, assholish but somehow competent. Look at it rather like in terms of the irrationality of the German one in the "bad time", where their highest echelon would go on rants about hyperboreans or being possessed by the spirit of whatever legendary character.
Anyway, every open war scenario, rapidly escalates to the nuclear option and goes up from there, at least when conventional wisdom is applied. On the other hand nuclear escalation is broken becouse it ends with destruction of both sides without realising any of the political or ideological goals.
There will be no hegemony, no status quo, no armistice, no victory. Such outcome is not desirabele aside very narrow group of people who have no access to power nor such destructive means.
Yep, but once again, the problem is that once you are back to the wall and are going to lose everything anyway, it becomes very tempting to make the other side lose as well. See previous parts for the desirability, then add to it the "small detail" that in the Evangelist cosmogony,
the apocalypse is necessary for Jesus to come back, with a large part of their support to Israel being literally because they need it to be destroyed during the armageddon and not before to ensure their prophecies. And don't make the mistake of thinking their religious insanity stops at the "redneck" level.
Full scale conventionl war neither achieves anything and for it regional allies matter even more, allies who do not want to be reduced to the failed states when critical infrastructure will be wiped out and themselves will become a battleground for foreign powers. And in that scenario, due to the severe damage of critical infrastructure which especially in case of China might lead to the nuclear escalation, even when China have no first use policy, assuming, their conventional warmaking capbility will critically fail and US manages to create global anti-Chinese block, but given the global attitudes, it is, now at least, unlikely.
Of course we can entertain also disarming mass conventional strike coupled with limited deployment of precision nuclear ordinance against hard targets and selected C2, communication nodes and military infrstructure, but that lead also to instant escalation and ends in not achieving any goals.
Most likely as we see entrenching in the Pacific region both sides will try to destabilise each other in their respective spheres of influence. Given impact of teh Pandemy on the Belt and Road Initiative sites, they are primary targets for sabotage and subterfuge, and thus potential places of proxy conflict between US and PRC.
The global anti-Chinese block theory is over, when the US and China have both pissed enough people that everyone outside the region rather wants to see them fight it out between themelves, and the notion of proxy wars require a stable statu quo such as the one between the US and USSR during the Cold War where noone is facing the clock in a terminal fashion. The problem is that both sides are facing the clock this way: China which needs hegemony FAST to secure itself for the climate change era, and the US which needs to remove China FAST before it overcomes them. They both need to win clearly and decisively if they want to remain intact, unlike the US and USSR who could actually coexist after a while.