Current US Military

[Zlaxer]

The idea that aircraft are going to be obsolete is so unbelievably naive and ridiculous that I have trouble even believing you believe this.

Why so hard to believe? Many missiles / torpedoes - I ship with maybe a few AMS on board....Carrier $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.$$$/unit Missiles $,$$$,$$$.$$$ / unit....range of Missiles > range of Aircraft (Missile doesn't have a BINGO light)....

[nmoore63]

The only real way aircraft get neutered is by space craft....

[Speaker to Animals]

The only real way aircraft get neutered is by space craft....

Even then.. you aren't getting rid of aircraft. You just have to build, maintain, and train for this whole new form of space warfare in addition to air warfare.

These things don't just go away. They get more complicated.

After all this time, soldiers are still using bladed weapons and clubs even now. While we have all this high tech equipment operating.

The only weapon system I can think of that is truly obsolete is the siege engine, but I suspect that will have to come back as a concept at some point. It's only because walls are easily breached with ordnance.

[SuburbanFarmer]

If we got into it with a major power, and they achieved air dominance over CONUS,

dude. We'd be exchanging nukes before anything got off the ground. Air superiority in an actual, major war would involve rocket engines, and nothing else.

Uh.. yeah.. and then the nukes would be exchanged and we proceed to fighting it out.

Or do you believe all that Jane Fonda slash Carl Sagan bullshit about nuclear war meaning the end of human existence? LOL

No, but there’d be almost nothing left to fight over, in even a limited exchange. And certainly no public support for it, when most of our population is dead or dying.

[Speaker to Animals]

dude. We'd be exchanging nukes before anything got off the ground. Air superiority in an actual, major war would involve rocket engines, and nothing else.

Uh.. yeah.. and then the nukes would be exchanged and we proceed to fighting it out.

Or do you believe all that Jane Fonda slash Carl Sagan bullshit about nuclear war meaning the end of human existence? LOL

No, but there’d be almost nothing left to fight over, in even a limited exchange. And certainly no public support for it, when most of our population is dead or dying.

Wrong.

Nuclear weapons would not destroy most everything. Not even by a longshot. Most of America would be intact.

Also, because MIC has most of our armed forces deployed all over the planet, our enemies are truly fucked.

Worst target for nuclear war ever: United States.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Uh.. yeah.. and then the nukes would be exchanged and we proceed to fighting it out.

Or do you believe all that Jane Fonda slash Carl Sagan bullshit about nuclear war meaning the end of human existence? LOL

No, but there’d be almost nothing left to fight over, in even a limited exchange. And certainly no public support for it, when most of our population is dead or dying.

Wrong.

Nuclear weapons would not destroy most everything. Not even by a longshot. Most of America would be intact.

Also, because MIC has most of our armed forces deployed all over the planet, our enemies are truly fucked.

Worst target for nuclear war ever: United States.

Worst target for any war, certainly. We are bordered by two oceans.

So then why do we need the largest, most expensive military, by far?

[Speaker to Animals]

Being a difficult target does not necessarily preempt invasion. Ask Russia about that.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Being a difficult target does not necessarily preempt invasion. Ask Russia about that.

If Russia had had 1,500 nuclear warheads in WW2, that invasion would have lasted about 5 minutes.

[Okeefenokee]

Being a difficult target does not necessarily preempt invasion. Ask Russia about that.

If Russia had had 1,500 nuclear warheads in WW2, that invasion would have lasted about 5 minutes.

Russia was outclassed at the opening of the war, so the Germans would have had even more nukes, and better ones.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Being a difficult target does not necessarily preempt invasion. Ask Russia about that.

If Russia had had 1,500 nuclear warheads in WW2, that invasion would have lasted about 5 minutes.

Russia was outclassed at the opening of the war, so the Germans would have had even more nukes, and better ones.

Regardless, there would have been no invasion. Or Berlin would be a smoking crater.