Another F-22 thread

[Aramike]

It has very little to do with the cost, while that is a factor, its not the driving factor in reducing the amount of F-22s we go with.

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, funded on this scale completely has to do with cost.

The question I have along with the White House is what war do we lose without this aircraft? What war does this plane tilt towards our favor?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Potentially any war against an opponent that figures to buy and learn to operate all the equipment I've mentioned on the previous thread.

It might not go quite so far as military defeat. But Americans are used to quick, easy victories. Any doubt that they can do this will mean restraint on their part where otherwise they may decide on a bombing campaign more because they can do it with impunity than because it is nationally vital. Any time they hold back, the other side wins.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Americans are used to quick, easy victories.

Which war(s) got Americans "used to quick, easy victories";
WW1, WW2, Korea, 'Nam or Iraq?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Letum

Which war(s) got Americans "used to quick, easy victories";
WW1, WW2, Korea, 'Nam or Iraq?

Remember even in WWI and WWII, America "enjoyed" some of the lowest casualties. There is a "healthy" sized list, but look at the others (say the USSR list) and...

But I was talking Desert Storm I, mostly. That was the one that started it all.

Look at Iraq II. Regardless of the morality of that one, in casualties it just wasn't that bad for the Americans by most standards. Except for American ones. It is the price of DS I, which probably permanently knocked at least 2 zeroes off American tolerance to casualties.

It seems that you are getting offended at my implication that they are soft. Yes, I'll argue Americans are relatively soft in this respect. This is not such a bad thing when you consider Americans did a lot of things RIGHT to get to the point where they can get this soft. Japanese soldiers in WWII were very "hard" against losses, for all the good it did THEM.

However, it also means America must CONTINUE to do the right things to keep its precious advantage for as long as possible.

[Safe-Keeper]

Either the US will be seen as strong or week, and much of it depends who is president. Where do you think the US stands now?

The US has just had eight long years under a "with us or against us" cowboy, and you saw how well the International community reacted to that. There's more to international politics and diplomacy than flexing your muscles, insulting those who disagree with you, and throwing threats around like a monkey with a lifetime's supply of dung.