Maybe Israel/US can’t beat Iran.
LMAO, “Russia now beat them in peer warfare”. How long has Russia been trying to fight and losing against a small country with basically no military budget?
This article is WHACK. Even if it was true-ish it misses love key point. The US Military industrial complex is MASSIVE. In a real conflict, it can easily pivot to more effective technologies, especially if they’re cheap and Iran has “basically open sourced them”.
I’m no US fanboy, but to call the US Military weaker than Russia after what we’ve seen of colonialist behaviour on both sides in the last 25 years, you’d have to be completely off your gourd.
How long has Russia been trying to fight and losing against a small country with basically no military budget?
There is a war of attrition in which Russia is winning by most important measure of gaining vs losing territory. It has equipment superiority over Western backed Ukraine. Production capacity that is higher than the west.
The US Military industrial complex is MASSIVE. In a real conflict, it can easily pivot to more effective technologies
While massive, it is extremely wasteful, and the technology shifts it has committed to are expensive and underperforming. F35s have low reliability/flight time. Littoral ships scrapped 5 years after comissioning, refueling ships in long dry dock time. Boeing troubles is a hallmark of a US defense system that only cares about spending money instead of results/quality/value, with CEOs simply good at bribes and promises instead of caring about execution.
Lol what did I just read
It’s cope. It means nothing. Speculating on the effectiveness of warfighting technology before a peer engagement is just flag-waving. A stealthed craft deploying guided munitions at half a mile is a lot less likely to be countered when compared to a medium-range ballistic missile from 30mi out, for example, despite the risk of a manned craft behind enemy territory. On a cost analysis, we can’t speculate on profitability until we know just how many of those munitions will be screened during an engagement. You fire 100 $5k rockets vs. 2 $250k cruise missile, the benefit only comes from the amount of bang that reaches the target.
Id call it a cope with a few grains of truth.
Short of a US/EU/Russia/China war, there is no real peer-peer conflict; Ukraine and even Israel are proxy wars. However, holding the capability to win a peer-peer conflict is expensive and requires significant weapons platforms - warships, aircraft - and logistic chains. These however are expensive overkill in the majority of conflict. A US carrier group would be able to dislodge a piracy operation using missiles that are orders of magnitude more expensive than their targets, with a fleet whos individual vessels have more manpower and fuel use that the whole fleet they destroy. Combine this with falling defense spending as priorities shift, and you start to understand the issues.
Don’t quote me on this, I think a single Iron dome rocket costs as much as a teachers average yearly salary, and Israel would frequently have to fire hundreds to block an attack. An Arlegh Burke (spelling) destroyer costs as much as a brand new school and its maintenance for the first 5 years, and I’m pretty sure the US has hundreds.
a single Iron dome rocket costs as much as a teachers average yearly salary
$40k-$50k. That is US funded Israeli teacher salary. Not a US one, right?