Hey, no problem, im happy to answer, its something of a hobby for me. So let me be clear about my thoughts on American power in relation to the international order. I think American overarching dominance provides a sort of security over the entire world in that the dominance of one power prevents the rise of others, or even better, lessens the risk of conflict between states and the potential for insecurity and arms races. Again, a easy scenario is to look at China and SE Asia. Vietnam has dealt with historical Chinese intervention in its affairs, the most recent being 1979. Vietnam as a country, and people do not look favorably on the potential of Chinese dominance increasing and worry about the risk of future Chinese intervention in Vietnamese affairs. In a scenario without the U.S, I could see Vietnam rearming, securing alliances with other SE nations for security against China. But despite these efforts, China is still a big dog, probably able to take on all of SE Asia if she wished. Therefore the U.S is a counterbalance smaller states fearing larger neighbors can use to guaranteeing their security.
Part of ensuring that security, part of preventing arms races, increased risk of armed conflict and global disruption of peaceful trade is the capability of overwhelming force (i.e 11 aircraft carriers). So yeah, we must maintain military superiority not in self-defense of ourselves, but in the self-defense of our allies and friends, which I believe provides security for us.
An aspect of retaining U.S superiority needs to be remembered, is the usage of soft power, of power projection not in military nature. Things like economic aid, trade agreements, cultural spread of American-friendly ideology, etc.
Now China itself, is a growing power. China of course has their legitimate security needs, and the simple fact is, as a authoritarian nation, she needs to keep her population happy in order to prevent revolt and overthrow. (Particularly since as a authoritarian nation, the security of the ruling party is paramount) Part of that is the security of China's trade, that fuels its oil consumption, that allows her factories to produce goods for the world, and generate the economic fuel for her people, etc, etc.
On that simple basis that China has legitimate security needs to require it to develop military power for its internal and external security, we have the first conflict between the U.S and China. One, China is a authoritarian nation, the United States does not generally support authoritarian nations. I wont get into things like spreading democracy too much, but I do think the maintenance of democratic regimes is a important tool for American soft power, and here we conflict with China, a nation that relies on suppressing democracy. So on the simple basis that China needs to defend itself from risk of revolt, China needs to reach military parity with the U.S to prevent a scenario where the U.S may decide to conduct a regime change by military force. Not by a mainland invasion, but a simple blockade of China's ports will probably end the Chinese Communist regime.
Now, from Chinese viewpoint, military parity is a necessity. However, U.S strength is overwhelming. Heres the deal that China gets currently. Engage in a arms race it cannot win with the U.S and lose, or we settle into a stalemate, into a situation where both sides preserve what they value the most, and give and take. America will never be able or allowed to remove the Communist Party, and China never threatens American global dominance. Essentially, my view of American policy should be to never let anyone potentially think they can get into a fight and win. Like the very idea is suicidal. Like a stalemate is the best course of action for everyone.
Now this is a pretty simplistic view. Like say we decide to talk about Russia. Russia cannot enter a military fight vs the U.S. However, Russia can use its influence to turn American power away. Russia needs to do this in order to prevent the loss of Russian influence beyond Russia's borders and maintain a security cordon for the protection of Russia (i wont get into why, cause im not too read up on it, alot is economic, etc.). Why does America need to undertake active measures against Russia if they can't win a military fight? I'll give you a example. A significant fear among East European states like Poland, the Baltics is the risk of Russian intervention or military action. But what about NATO? NATO exists....but can those states bank everything they have on the USA? No, so the Baltics and Poland invite American forces to settle in country, cause the thought is placing American forces in harms way tripwires American full-fledged support. What about economically? Let me provide you another situation. Germany, the leading European nation on the continent is not fully trusted to take measures in support of East Europe completely vs their own self-interest. An example is the Russian to European gas line called
Nord Stream. Essentially, Russia provides a significant portion of fuel for Europe, including West European states like Germany. These gas lines do not go through East Europe, and the fear is that Russia can negotiate with West Europe for Eastern European influence and control. Obviously, East Europe does not like this. Eastern Europe can go to the U.S and ask for support against Russia and to lobby Western European states to hold the line against Russia.
So we have a situation where a Europe that is divided is one, a Europe Russia can gain more influence overall and thereby reduce American influence, Two, Europe is the most significant lever to hurt Russia. Promoting a united Europe under American leadership allows for influence over Russian affairs. Promoting and strengthening pro-American parties in Europe hurts Russia. Also a united Europe is a Europe less likely to reenter conflict. (I wont get into the legitimacy of Russian concerns vs American power, thats a factor too.)
