This is actually not a very good argument.
In the old days, the only way to destroy a country was to literally invade the country, salt the fields, break the dams, poison the wells, kill off the first borns, etc...etc...
Today, with ballistic missiles and bombers, an invasion is actually an option. You invade the country because you want something other than destruction. The US could have destroyed North Viet Nam and Afghanistan from afar without risking a single Army trooper.
In Viet Nam, the bombing campaign was so destructive that it actually compelled the North to plead for a ceasefire for 'peace negotiation'. Everyone knew the plea was bogus but the US and SVN had no choice. To refuse the so called 'negotiation' would give NVN the needed political ammunition on the world stage to portray the US/SVN alliance as cruel warmongers. At the same time, the UN knew NVN would renege on any deal and the members would give NVN a pass at deception. The outcome of Vietnam War had more to do with politics than military capabilities.
In Afghanistan, it is no different. The US military could have lobbed missile after missile, and dropped MOAB after MOAB, and there would be nothing anyone can say and do to stop US. We could have destroyed every power station, every water sources, every farm field, etc...etc...And not a single US troop loss.
What if's are what if's...
Yes, the US could have bombed Vietnam and Afghanistan to stone age but to what extent??
Bombing both/either countries would have had negative effects to the US image world wide. Condemnation would have followed and maybe other wars would have too.
Similarly, if the US had bombed Afghanistan, the Taliban would still have had a comeback....since they live in the mountains. Carpet Bombing Afghanistan would have lead to the whole of Afghanistan siding with the Taliban against the US.
The US could have been hit with more suicide bombings. We don't know, all we can do is speculate.
Pakistan would have also not let US bombers through to kill civilians. China, Russia and Iran would have supported Pakistan on this stance so the US wouldn't be able to invade Pakistan.
Either way, going back to the topic, the Youtuber mentioned that with the rapid modernization of many countries (Pakistan, India, China, Russia etc)...the US no longer would have dominance over other countries.
I'm sure we can agree on that. In the future, it'll be even lesser.
Going back further to the topic, the "myth of US military infallibility" is just that...a myth.
Knocking down the Iraqi regime isn't a big thing when you have allies helping you out along with technological superiority.
Yes, there is. Desert Storm proved it.
See above.
Desert Storm was also a major air attack combined with heavy EW....and on both fronts, the Iraqis the means to fight with not good enough SAMs and poor ECM/ECCM.
Although the Iraqis did knock out 50+ aircraft but it wasn't enough.
Paper is enough of a deterrence. It was Soviet and Chinese papers that convinced Saddam Hussein he could take on US, much to his sorrow and to the embarrassment of the Soviet and Chinese military leaderships. So paper cuts (pun intended) both ways. Either you get foolish and gamble at the green table, or you wise up and back off when faced against US based upon paper. It was paper that convinced the Soviets that the US and allies held the qualitative advantage during the Cold War. Then Soviet electronics engineer Adolf Tolkachev worked for US and gave US plenty of paper proving that we indeed did held the technological advantage.
You are right in many ways but that is all in the past.
Russia is back on the rise and is further in many R/D fields than the US (look into the video around the end).
China is also on the rise and has near peer capability.
In the future, both countries can be a big threat to US dominance in the air, land, sea and space.
Which is what we're discussing here...
The Myth Of US Military Infallibility.
All Empires rise and all Empires fall although the US is nowhere near the "fall" but it is nearing the end of its military dominance over others.
) conventional ones.
