and on the issue of nuclear weapons: yes, its horrible that he's trying to reduce the pointlessly powerful weapons that cause more harm than good to the environment. We don't need nuclear weapons. And while I know other countries are going to continue to make them, that doesn't mean we should. Besides, we have defenses against nuclear attacks that don't require us to have nukes.
Absolutely disgusting, your post. Just liberal garbage. Nuclear weapons don't harm the environment you dumb loving twit. The nuclear material sits inside a warhead all cozy until someone decides to start a nuclear war. Doesn't mean we should? Are you loving handicapped? Why do you the Soviet's didn't try to pull stuff for 45 years? You launch at us we launch at you. There are absolutely no defense against any capable adversary such as Russia/China. Sure, you can lie to yourself saying we have interceptors; want to know how many of those we have? 26 Ground Based Defense Interceptors. Now lets take a lovely look at Russia's main ICBM; the SS-18, hm whats that? 10 Warheads a missile? Hm... and they only have about.....450 of them? Do the math. The only defense we have is against small attacks with our Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, Standard Missile 3, and the THAAD.
The only defense against nuclear weapons is to ensure the enemy that whatever they do to you, you will do back; it was the main Doctrine of the Cold War, Mutual Assured Destruction.
and for our army, quality of quantity. As the use of drones increases, the need for soldiers goes down. Thus resulting in less soldier casualties.
There is only so much quality can win, 440K vs 2 million+ million does not seem like something that would be in our favor.
Drones are not silver bullets, not even close. They are still early and rely on data-links that can be jammed or interrupted, a drone without the controller is a target.
And there is no replacement for boots on the ground, no-matter how much advanced aircraft you have.
