Can the US handle another two front war?

[New Harry Cramb]

Theoretically could the US handle another two front war like WW2. Now that China has upped their navy to even potentially have a bigger fleet than the US (though understandably less experienced) and Russia in Europe how do you think these days the US would preform especially now china and russia can just fire missiles at ships to destroy them instead of sending out ships or planes. 

China as well has developed a new rocket that fires multiple warhead mid flight and is designed to fly at low altitudes to make it very difficult for warships to intercept. 

I just think these days everything is stacked against them/us. Even if we look at europe the entire military combined is no where near the size of russia military. Ukraine before the war had a bigger army than most of europe. But as the Ukrainian war  has clearly shown numbers doesnt matter at all if you dont have the logistics to supply them and even if you have best tanks a javelin can blow them up or a drone can take them out. 

So anyway thats my question could the US handles a 2 front war?

[VADM A Reaves]

I don't think the US can and its rooted more in its relationship with other countries buffering both fronts. I am against the US being so closely involved in Europe and drawing more closer into a war. Without a doubt the challenges of logistics is present being across the Atlantic ocean with many of the weapon manufacturers being here stateside. But Asia I think is a different story and is part of a decline in unipolarity order. Unipolarity is a condition in which one state under the condition of international anarchy enjoys a preponderance of power and faces no competitor states. The US is very much so in this category and efficaciously keeping it that way the best it can.

Scholars of international political economy in the 1970s explored the relationship among a dominant power, leadership, and openness. The discussion soon centered on the concept of hegemony, meaning a situation in which a single state exercises leadership in creating and maintaining the fundamental rules of the international system. The scholarly arguments that ensued focused on the rationale for, and durability of, hegemony, and seemed relevant because of a shared assumption that U.S. dominance, so strong during the quarter-century after World War II, was declining. However, the debate was premised on a shared but incorrect empirical perception that American hegemony was declining. When similar questions arose again at the end of the 20th century, the terminology used was less that of hegemony than of unipolarity and hierarchy, and the key question was whether exercising continuing leadership would be so costly to the hegemon that its decline would be generated by its leadership.

Anytime I see this kind of question I just think of all this stuff but to really surmise, as much pride I have in the US we would probably not win a war on 2 fronts.

1 hour ago, Harry Cramb said:

China as well has developed a new rocket that fires multiple warhead mid flight and is designed to fly at low altitudes to make it very difficult for warships to intercept. 

I would think its not possible we don't have something like that too with the kind of US spending we have in the military.

Winning against Russia might be easier than anticipated though, it seems like something the US prepared to do with the strength of NATO but China is a different story. China is clearly studying the events between Russia, Ukraine and NATO weighting their options should they look to take Taiwan or Hong Kong. War is good for business in the defense industry but trade sanctions are bad for an entire economy, even egregious by both sides in the case of Russia where US+Allies actively cut off food sources to starve the Russian population. None of that affect the people intended to. China for the sole purpose of business and wealth I cannot imagine would act out of any other interest and are more interested in disrupting this unipolarity seen with the US.

[Accessing]

I think the US could actually come on top of a 2 front war. 

Having the largest carrier strike groups and most advanced stealth fighters it would be a shame if we couldn't especially after realizing and promoting the US being in the center of the world. I don't think it would be pretty though, China may not have the resolve to contest and escalate into nuclear warfare and NATO would play a greater part in invading and fighting Russia. 

There are some things to consider though. Numbers doesn't matter at all if you don't have the logistics to supply them, watching Russia fail to meet that core principle in modern warfare is very strange and while most militaries exercise often it can be a deterrence. 

23 hours ago, VADM A Reaves said:

When similar questions arose again at the end of the 20th century, the terminology used was less that of hegemony than of unipolarity and hierarchy, and the key question was whether exercising continuing leadership would be so costly to the hegemon that its decline would be generated by its leadership.

I'm presuming this is of US leadership? 

If so its really hard to tell how an administration sways between and its reaction of a war in 2 fronts. I know this is not about that but just thinking of Congress printing more money and going further and further into trillions of dollars of debt to fund two wars basically sounds improbable. Unless we are attacked its just not going to happen and the delicate nature of the US vs. China the only way to beat China would be to advance first into the region starting from the south China sea. The only probably way there is a "win" with China is if the US striked first, whereas I do agree with you Russia would be easy especially if all their nuclear launch sites are captured/contained. 

US Intelligence have already discussed some of these theories in which how they would attack these countries in great detail, one of them is a breakdown in the Russian state and brokering with local powers to achieve those ends in disarming nukes.