I don’t really understand this line of reasoning; it’s not like the person bearing the most rudimentary weapons is at an advantage? What’s the plan, lose in aerial combat but win in a fist fight?
Who says it has a fragile supply chain anyway? It certainly has a complex one, but then so do things like nuclear weapons and nobody is clamouring to abandon them on that basis. Protecting that chain and the logistics around it is a staple of military operations. It’s not like someone is going to surprise them by going after supply chains.
I think the point is that if you want to harm a nation you have various avenues of attack of which overt military action is only one.
If the US is unbeatable militarily then you, as a poorer advesary, don't try to match it, you use one of the other avenues like causing political de-stabilisation for example, interfere with elections maybe.
Therefore is the military persuing "perfect" at high expense instead of "good enough" at a lower expense which would still be good enough to fulfil its requirements.
Who says it has a fragile supply chain anyway? It certainly has a complex one, but then so do things like nuclear weapons and nobody is clamouring to abandon them on that basis. Protecting that chain and the logistics around it is a staple of military operations. It’s not like someone is going to surprise them by going after supply chains.