You can theoretically shoot down any missile, but you can't shoot down every missile. But America never faced that situation so never thought about it.
One path to avoid MAD is through a limited strike on US. Missile defense systems theoretically protect from such strikes, though perhaps not from coastal sub strikes. A single nuclear strike on US collapses the country. With multiple theater wars/enemies, port detonations have no certain accountability for the strike.
Hahahahah no a single strike would not collapse the country genuinely do not understand how anyone is that silly to think that. Absolutely laughable.
You think everyone lives in one city? You'd cripple Moscow or Tokyo with one strike and really fuck up their country but places like China and America have too many population hubs one strike would not cripple them at all especially when you calculate the American military bases globally positioned for exactly what your peabrain thinks.
LMAO, "Russia now beat them in peer warfare". How long has Russia been trying to fight and losing against a small country with basically no military budget?
This article is WHACK. Even if it was true-ish it misses love key point. The US Military industrial complex is MASSIVE. In a real conflict, it can easily pivot to more effective technologies, especially if they're cheap and Iran has "basically open sourced them".
I'm no US fanboy, but to call the US Military weaker than Russia after what we've seen of colonialist behaviour on both sides in the last 25 years, you'd have to be completely off your gourd.
How long has Russia been trying to fight and losing against a small country with basically no military budget?
There is a war of attrition in which Russia is winning by most important measure of gaining vs losing territory. It has equipment superiority over Western backed Ukraine. Production capacity that is higher than the west.
The US Military industrial complex is MASSIVE. In a real conflict, it can easily pivot to more effective technologies
While massive, it is extremely wasteful, and the technology shifts it has committed to are expensive and underperforming. F35s have low reliability/flight time. Littoral ships scrapped 5 years after comissioning, refueling ships in long dry dock time. Boeing troubles is a hallmark of a US defense system that only cares about spending money instead of results/quality/value, with CEOs simply good at bribes and promises instead of caring about execution.
LMFAO. Russia? Superior military manufacturing capability than the West??? God that's funniest thing I've read in a month. China? Absolutely true that by some measures has superior military manufacturing capability than the US, or the EU. Russia is a joke, please keep this completely detached from reality content to hexbear or whatever tankie community your main account is in.
It's cope. It means nothing. Speculating on the effectiveness of warfighting technology before a peer engagement is just flag-waving. A stealthed craft deploying guided munitions at half a mile is a lot less likely to be countered when compared to a medium-range ballistic missile from 30mi out, for example, despite the risk of a manned craft behind enemy territory. On a cost analysis, we can't speculate on profitability until we know just how many of those munitions will be screened during an engagement. You fire 100 $5k rockets vs. 2 $250k cruise missile, the benefit only comes from the amount of bang that reaches the target.