DARPA’s new X-76

And this strategy was enormously effective. Absent U.S. intervention, Europe was fucked.

> The Allies just made ships faster than they could be sunk.

Not "the Allies" - just one Ally, separated by an entire ocean. No such separation exists today.

> Today the US has 55 fast attack submarines, each of which can carry about 50 torpedos at a time. So with 100% of your subs deployed you can sink maybe 250 ships

We had torpedo bombers in 1940, as well, submarines aren't the only ASW mechanism that exists. How many sunken ships in each port will bring them to a grinding halt? Are they magically going to tug millions of tons of steel out of these harbors?

> China produces 15 ships per day

When their shipbuilding operations aren't strategically bombed into oblivion, sure.

> it can import food from its neighbors by land connections

Now it's a World War - why would this be allowed?

> grows 700 million tons of grain per year

With several hundred million of those tons of grain (along with vast amounts of other relevant food calories - livestock, etc.) being grown in the Yangtze basin, courtesy of the fact that the Three Gorges Dam is allowed to exist. Why would the U.S. allow that dam to remain intact? This one structure is a cheat code: knock out 50% of enemy food production, displace or kill hundreds of millions of people creating a mass humanitarian crisis and subsequent Cultural Revolution, and hobble huge amounts of industrial production. Short of theoretical attacks like EMP, no such non-WMD single-point-of-failure exists anywhere in the United States.

Nuclear response is truly the only thing keeping the peace.

Autonomous flight control software is still only able to handle the simplest missions. Maybe that will change in a few years but for now anything complex requires a remote pilot, and those communication links are very vulnerable.

Torpedo boats didn't make Battleships obsolete. Aircraft carriers did. Because they could do the same role but better.

AntiTank rifles didn't make tanks obsolete. Neither did anti-tank mines. Nor anti-tank rocket launchers, nor anti-tank artillery, nor really freaking good anti-tank missiles, nor anti-tank helicopters etc etc. Turns out, putting a box of steel around soldiers is pretty much always better. IFVs are even less survivable than a tank in all cases and they have only become more important and prominent because what capability they provide is what matters.

Artillery and Air power did not make the army obsolete. Air power did not make Artillery obsolete though the USA wanted that reality.

Submarines didn't make any boat obsolete.

SAM systems did not make planes obsolete. Hell, America decided the solution to missiles aimed at your planes was fly planes at the missile launcher! And it works because war is stupid.

"Cheap drones" only work against things that haven't yet adapted to cheap drones in the exact same way that Navy had to adapt to anti-ship missiles. With EW, those "cheap" drones get less cheap. With any sort of advancement in protection, those drones get less cheap. War is about achieving physical control, and you can't really do that with cheap drones. There's always back and forth in weapons systems. We still use bayonets in the right circumstances!

Cheap drones cannot establish air superiority, and certainly not air supremacy. Actual air combat drones are far more expensive, involved, and in development than quadcopters.

The primary power drones bring is ISR, making the entire battlefield utterly transparent, including at nighttime. That's insane, and really really bad for any of us who might be forced to fight in the future, as lethality to the average soldier is likely to go up.

The real reason stealth is needed is as a counter to GBAD. Modern anti-aircraft missiles are incredible lethal.

It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy.

WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.

Tasteless joke, dude.

You're calling a direct quote of a testimony given by one of Epstein's victims "hearsay". ctrl+f "bit" in that PDF.

Pretending to be oblivious to the many complaints that the attacks in Iran are another attempted distraction from the Epstein files isn't fooling anyone either.

You may feel like it's "off-topic", but I don't see why people should be allowed to talk about and glorify military techology, but not voice their disgust at it, how it is used, or why.

>___ stated Epstein introduced her to Trump who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out. (date range 1983-1985, ___ would have been 13-15)

Your confession that you would bite Trump's penis too if he forced your head down on it is perfectly understandable, and no one would blame you. And he probably would have punched you in your head and kicked you out too, just like he did to the child he molested. But you're probably not his type: you're not an underaged girl, his own daughter, or a Slovenian prostitute (I presume). You best stick to enthusiastically licking his boots, carrying his water, and defending his integrity.