Yes, there's no doubt it was a major problem for Axis nations. However, it didn't prevent them from going to war. In the case of the Japanese one could argue securing their own source of petroleum and other resources was a major driving factor behind their expansionist policy.
On the other side, the US supplied Britain with all the arms, food and gas they needed. The whole point of the U-Boot campaign was to cut that off, which would have caused the defeat of Britain.
The interesting thing about a future modern war, however, is that modern weapons are too expensive and take too long to produce, so it'll be fought with whatever is in stock and will be over before supply lines matter. I hope we never find out if that is true or not the hard way.
I'm not sure I believe that. War doesn't usually end until one side surrenders in a way the other side is willing to accept.
If all you have left to fight with is improvised weapons, then it continues with that.
I would argue that very expensive, complex machines are the Tiger tank mistake all over again. Mechanically unreliable because of the complexity, but when it worked it was completely unmatched. One Tiger tank defeated 50 Russian tanks in the battle of Kursk, if I remember correctly.
But the cheaper, mass produced tanks of the allies won out because they could be fielded in much greater numbers.
> Insurgents continue to fight, and the usa just cannot completely win.
The US cannot win those because it is unwilling to do what is necessary (indiscriminate killing) to win.
> A war is won on ideology, not weapons.
I don't see much evidence for that in the history of warfare. For example, during WW1, the fortunes of the armies ebbed and flowed with the ebb and flow of who had the technical advantage in the air war.
