[Telemakhos]

When the first-tier hostile leadership structure was eliminated in the first day of the war, and only after a month do the surviving enemies finally manage to damage a plane so severely that it can't return to a friendly base to land, is "quite useless" an adequate and accurate description of the technology used to prosecute that war?

[br121]

It's useful in saving the pilot's life. With less advanced tecnologies, more pilots would have been shoot down. It's useful in targeted attacks, but they have proved themself uneffective (at least for now) as the new leadership is alined with the objective of the replaced one. It's close to useless when it comes to making the war cost-effective, which start being a relevant metric when the conflict start lasting too long. Of course the US has a bigger economy, so all the news about cheaper systems damaging or destroying quite expensive ones may still lead to a US victory, but a costly one for sure

[rbanffy]

As the Soviet Union made us learn, you don’t need a big military victory to make your enemy spend themselves into defeat.

[rbanffy]

When you decapitate a well organised military, all you achieve is installing a new enemy you know little about you can’t predict their actions and that now know they are fighting for their own survival.

Not the best place to be.

Americans seem to underestimate everyone else.

[eqvinox]

Whether you have specific leadership or not doesn't matter much to (a) having to adapt to the enemy and learn what works, and (b) probability just doing its thing, more chances and so on, and (c) US leadership descending the oceans of stupidity all the way to the Mariana trench.

[rbanffy]

> US leadership descending the oceans of stupidity all the way to the Mariana trench.

And they voted for this not only once, but twice.

[tokai]

A month after the president claims total air superiority over Iran and complete destruction of their anti air capabilities.