32 ms·

The F-22 is likely one amazing airplane. If we in the US don't need the F-22, then it's way too expensive. If we do need it, then it's maybe quite cheap. In a

• Evolved 12y ago
  The movie buff in me enjoys the fact that a lot of this can be summed up with 2 quotes from Iron Man 1. "Tony Stark: Well, Ms. Brown. It's an imperfect world, but it's the only one we got. I guarantee you the day weapons are no longer needed to keep the peace, I'll start making bricks and beams for baby hospitals." and "Tony Stark: They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire. I respectfully disagree. I prefer the weapon you only have to fire once. That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far." The R&D costs far exceed the actual production costs and on a side note it is interesting and pleasing that lots of this R&D eventually makes its way into consumer products likewise how technology from racing (esp. Formula 1) makes its way into consumer vehicles as well. That being said, another way to win a war against a technologically superior foe is just as the article suggests, being willing and able to win the battle of attrition. Example: U.S. Sherman tanks vs. German Panzers and Tigers. However, it is our unwillingness to sacrifice lives that has led to these R&D breakthroughs so one could argue that we have in fact won by finding ways not to lose. Although, just like what the article states, if we lose a war because we're not willing to win the war through attrition then the war didn't serve any real purpose at all.
  • graycat 12y ago
    Let's communicate more clearly than the OP did: The US could have won in Iraq in Gulf War I and II and in Afghanistan. How? Kill everyone who resisted. How? That's the strange part: For US military technology, killing lots of people is nearly as easy as pushing some buttons. E.g., an Iraqi officer was amazed -- praise from an adversary is especially welcome: There was an Iraqi tank parked tightly between two buildings, and the US put a missile on the tank, destroyed it, and didn't hit either of the buildings. The officer said: "American military technology is beyond belief". Well, it was to him. The biggie point was, the US didn't want to kill that many people in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead a main goal was to help them get a good constitution, elections, elected government, government of laws instead of something else, freedom of speech, the press, assembly, religion, have well trained police, etc., roads, schools, hospitals, move into the 20th, maybe the 21st century, become a good member of the nations of the world, etc. Why that goal? Because the US does not want to be seen as an imperialist or colonial power or an occupying force. Instead US policy since WWII has been to help US security by having other countries be democratic with strong economies hoping that that combination will keep down shooting. Indeed, after Gulf War II, W was against doing a lot to occupy and govern Iraq and, instead, stated that "The Iraqi people are perfectly capable of governing themselves." Well, not exactly "perfectly"; maybe after some civil wars, etc. Well, for the cases the OP mentioned, that US goal of democracy, etc. flopped. Why flopped? In both cases, Islam had more power to run the place than anything the US brought unless the US just killed a lot more people, likely most of the Mullahs. The US didn't want to do that. Could the US have done that? Sure: Easily. Just push some buttons. Trivial. But would also kill a lot of dogs, cats, women, children, peaceful people, etc., say, like the US did in WWII fire bombing cities in Germany and Japan, or, say, like Germany did in their bombing of London, Warsaw, etc. Actually one broad lesson is that actually freedom of speech, the press, assembly, religion, etc. is often much less welcome, sometimes even in the US, than the US founding fathers assumed! The core of such freedoms is that people need not conform. Alas, a too common response to differences from such freedoms is to pull a trigger or plant a bomb. Saddam said that we'd have a heck of a time keeping Iraq together -- we're learning that now. Saddam did keep the place together, but he borrowed from the Stalin playbook. The US thought that that was cruel -- it is. But maybe more Iraqis have died per month since Gulf War II or I than before it. Maybe what Joe Biden often said would be the right stuff -- partition the place into separate regions for Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. With some irony, one interpretation of what is going on now is just that. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Mullahs are not much afraid of US weapons because they know that the US would be reluctant to kill enough Afghans to make those weapons defeat the Mullahs. But for someone like a Saddam who wants to have a big army, air force, etc. and invade their neighbors, as in Gulf War I, the US can win in six weeks of bombing and 100 hours on the ground. For any country that wants to use nuclear weapons, the US still is awash in weapons only "have to use once". In Viet Nam, the situation was similar but otherwise somewhat different: The US could never find anyone to support in Saigon who could also get enough support of the people of South Viet Nam. But in Viet Nam, the US could have won there, too: Just be willing to kill a lot more people. Sadly, a lot more, even a lot more than we did kill, which was sad enough. When my HP laser printer quit, I got a Brother printer. It's terrific, and it's made in Viet Nam. Good for Viet Nam. I never understood just why the US had so much trouble in Viet Nam: We should have been able to have sat down with Ho and cut a deal: The US will give you a lot of stuff, darned near anything you could want in products, technology, universities, medical care, development loans, roads, bridges, hydroelectric facilities, telephones, good trade agreements, South Viet Nam, etc. if you would just quit going to Peking and Moscow for free lunches and trash talking the US. Should have been a good deal for both sides. For Iraq? Just sit down with Saddam and make him an offer, personally, one on one, he couldn't refuse. For the German Tiger tanks, from all I've understood from the history, the US managed mostly to avoid the Tiger tanks in tank to tank battles. Instead: (A) We avoided those tanks, e.g., during the Normandy invasion, due to US air superiority, the Germans had a tough time even getting Tiger tanks to Normandy. (B) Otherwise in Europe, the US killed Tiger tanks heavily from the air, e.g., from P-47s. (C) Otherwise, say, in North Africa, the US used artillery. In the Battle of the Bulge maybe the Tiger tanks were low on fuel. Maybe the Tiger tanks were in a "battle of attrition" tank to tank battles with Russia at Kursk. Broadly in conventional war, win the air battle, and the rest is routine and not in doubt. That's what the US did to both Germany and Japan and to Saddam in Gulf War I. And that's what the Battle of Britain was about: Germany knew that they had to win the air war before invading England, Germany was not able to win the air war against the British -- mostly because the German planes did not have enough range. And, in short, winning the air war is the purpose of the F-22 now.