227
He told the New York Times that he thinks the U.S. will “very likely” find itself in a three-front war with China, Russia, and Iran. As a result, he said, the Pentagon should continue developing autonomous weapons at full speed, pointing to big mismatches in how far the U.S. would be willing to go while fighting a war compared with other countries.
He's also got plenty of financial incentive to say shit like that. War on all 3 of those fronts would be so untenable with the state of things and he knows that which is why he's advocating for more drones but really? How realistic is that? China's drones are at least as advanced as ours
We have the arsenal to win all 3 wars almost instantly. Until now, no leader was stupid enough to take that route, but we have Trump.
Don't try to logic this situation with reasonable military tactics.
Define win because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
The only tactic with “almost instant” results would be the US just nuking everything, which A. is definitely not a “win” by any definition, and B. is an insanely irresponsible assumption that there wouldn’t be substantial collateral damage and that’s if you were inhumane enough to ignore the lives of everyone living in the targeted countries to begin with.
Or somehow do you think the US could win a conventional war against three separate countries “almost instantly”, after it took 2 decades to make absolutely no lasting changes in Afghanistan? In which case just lol.
If Trump authorizes nuclear strikes on Russia, China and Iran, it is the secret services patriotic duty to put a pewpew seed in the old rooster's noggin.
Whoever launches nuclear weapons definitely loses and drags their economic allies down with them.
I wouldn't call global nuclear annihilation 'winning'.
Trump would, and he has the keys.
Hallelujah. Hallelujah.
As another poster pointed out, this is…not true.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-stockpiles-missiles
https://www.heritage.org/missile-defense/commentary/its-past-time-re-supply-our-munitions-depleted-us-navy
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-missile-defense-under-strain-213274
https://trt.global/world/article/91a89e6ad503
https://cde.news/u-s-military-missile-arsenal-under-strain-amid-global-conflicts-and-aging-infrastructure
I believe they are referring to a far blunter instrument of death which would only purvey loss on a scale that is unprecedented and difficult to imagine.
Again, as the other respondent pointed out, the overwhelmingly likely end result of a nuclear exchange is hardly a “win” for any party.
Oh yeah, I just finished editing to add that part to be more clear of my opinion on the subject. There will never again be a nuclear “win” in human history, and in truth I wouldn’t even count the first.
Blam
No you don´t. You couldn´t win in Vietnam or Afghanistan, the latter with the help of NATO (Rmember, srticle 5 was invoked by the US, and some of us European deeply regret to have helped and sent our soldiers die for the US).
Don't be absurd, you most definitely do not have that. You have the arsenal to ensure mutual destruction between you and your nuclear armed enemies.