I didn't down/up voted anything, but the title/article/thread is about piece of equipment not being a good fit for a war that happens in 2026, not if war is good/bad or right/wrong.
It's like saying that war is bad in a discussion about developing biplanes before WW2. Yes, war is bad, but that's what people are talking about.
I don't know if there will be a WW3, but there's a war in Iran, there have been drones entering NATO airspace, etc, and the F-35 is used right now for that. Is it a good plane for the threats you find today? That's what the thread/article is about, not if there will be a WW3 or if war is good or not, and that's why we shouldn't be surprised to see downvotes on comments that are talking about something completely different.
I'm not a native English speaker, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding something (my apologies in that case). Here's my reasoning:
- The title is "F-35 is built for the wrong war".
- The article suggests that the plane was designed to deal with other threats, not with many cheap drones and missile salvos. That it's a bad tool for the tasks it is now is used for. It's not about war being right/wrong or good/bad.
- You ask "Is there a “right” war?".
These are two different discussions.
A terrible example, but it's like having a title called "Hammer was built for the wrong DIY project" and an article that points out that "they designed/bought hammers when they actually needed a screwdriver!" and you ask if "any DIY project is right". Sure, it's related, but that's a different point/discussion, isn't it? Not exactly something I'd expect to be upvoted, hence my initial comment.
I didn't reply to defend any war or to justify the use of any weapon. I also don't have a problem with anti-war comments. But these guys are talking about the F-35 not being good at dealing with cheap drones and missile salvos, while you're talking about war being good or bad.
As long one doesn't twist what I wrote or assume bad faith, it should be easy to understand the point I was trying to make and where I was coming from.
With this out of the way, and since I'm neither qualified to talk about the F-35 nor see the need to discuss if war is good (it's not), I will now leave the thread.
I didn't down/up voted anything, but the title/article/thread is about piece of equipment not being a good fit for a war that happens in 2026, not if war is good/bad or right/wrong.
It's like saying that war is bad in a discussion about developing biplanes before WW2. Yes, war is bad, but that's what people are talking about.
WW2 happened. It is not a foregone conclusion that there will be a WW3.
I don't know if there will be a WW3, but there's a war in Iran, there have been drones entering NATO airspace, etc, and the F-35 is used right now for that. Is it a good plane for the threats you find today? That's what the thread/article is about, not if there will be a WW3 or if war is good or not, and that's why we shouldn't be surprised to see downvotes on comments that are talking about something completely different.
You are talking as if war in Iran is a natural process that people have no involvement.
Having such articles in 2026 is a shame to begin with.
“A piece of equipment” is used to attack living bodies, if you don’t get the point, well.. there is no point to argue with you.
I'm not a native English speaker, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding something (my apologies in that case). Here's my reasoning:
- The title is "F-35 is built for the wrong war".
- The article suggests that the plane was designed to deal with other threats, not with many cheap drones and missile salvos. That it's a bad tool for the tasks it is now is used for. It's not about war being right/wrong or good/bad.
- You ask "Is there a “right” war?".
These are two different discussions.
A terrible example, but it's like having a title called "Hammer was built for the wrong DIY project" and an article that points out that "they designed/bought hammers when they actually needed a screwdriver!" and you ask if "any DIY project is right". Sure, it's related, but that's a different point/discussion, isn't it? Not exactly something I'd expect to be upvoted, hence my initial comment.
I didn't reply to defend any war or to justify the use of any weapon. I also don't have a problem with anti-war comments. But these guys are talking about the F-35 not being good at dealing with cheap drones and missile salvos, while you're talking about war being good or bad.
As long one doesn't twist what I wrote or assume bad faith, it should be easy to understand the point I was trying to make and where I was coming from.
With this out of the way, and since I'm neither qualified to talk about the F-35 nor see the need to discuss if war is good (it's not), I will now leave the thread.
1 reply →