Ease of access mostly. Its hard to get at them, harder to replace them.

Israel probably deserves a legit resolution by now. But Britain, France and the US prevent that.

No, a UN resolution is like a “strongly worded letter to your immediate superior” All of the resolutions against Iran were enforced by the Security Council, which is the only reason anyone gave a shit.

She killed somebody, or even worse, pushed him to kill himself. She then took advantage of the attention to play the part of the grieving girlfriend.

I wouldn’t say that. Nuclear weapons are a tremendous money sink. Anything we can do to reduce them while maintaining parity would be a good idea.

Unless you want to spend another hundred billion helping Iraq pick up the pieces of Anbar and Mosul, devastating a region of an already poor country would be a terrible idea. Unless you want to kill every Sunni, defeating ISIS without addressing the sectarian divide would result in something very similar to ISIS…

They may be corrupt, but not suicidal. An AK is relatively easy to acquire, but heavy weapons can be traced.

It’s a BearCat, basically, with extra panels added for looks. Riot vehicles are supposed to look scary.

Exactly. The fact that the US spends so much in Europe is a travesty. If Europe is so worried about EU integration, the best place to start is defence.

I’m aware its planned, but I didn’t think it was finished yet.

I wonder if the B-36 could have taken the role of the B-52 with turboprops. After all, the most valuable aspect of the B-52 is now its size and range, not speed, and all the engine reliability issues of the B-36 came from carburetors, which wouldn’t be an issue today.

Why not B-3? Besides, this would be a cool name in like 2002, but we are already two decades in. They didn’t call the B-52 the B-20, right?

It’s supposed to be stealthier than the B-2, actually. And the Lancer is by no means a “stealth” plane, it has some RCS-reducing features, but it is still very visible on radar. Even an F-35 kicks it to the curb in that category. The reason we use the Lancer is that it is fast to station, can carry precision munitions…

They aren’t going to build these. They may build one or two, as demonstration pieces, but they don’t have the money to modify all of them. They get headlines, the US Navy freaks out a little bit, and they can parade it on RT, but it won’t add too much to their capability.

They lost more than a million men in that war. Of course they were heavily involved. It was a total war for China, and we used everything in the arsenal except nukes.

Sad that every vehicle in the US arsenal has to have desert camo by default.

A pleasant reminder that while China may be a shower with unsophisticated and blunt brute-force hacking, the US is a grower when it comes to the sort of tactics it has brewed up. Stuxnet is over seven years old, and this sort of capability grows exponentially more often than not.

That would lead to every country in the region ganging up on them. They may be zealots, but they aren’t willing to commit national suicide to send a message they wouldn’t be able to follow up on.

They HAVE slipped. Suez was a big slap in the face to both them and France. That being said, militarily, they are a close third to the US and Russia in terms of expeditionary capability. They have managed quite well, IMHO

True. They just share a very similar lineage, that’s all. The Tu-160 is actually pretty similar to a B-1 concept some years back, the B-1R. Also a Mach 2+ missile carrier with reduced payload.