content: The victory plan you propose requires a steady supply of smart bombs delivered by a small number of high-tech planes. I am more interested in what happens after a combined nuclear-biological sneak attack.  ... it doesn't need to fly with no wings, no tail and on fire like the A-10 can  What happens when the factories and supply depots were destroyed 5 years ago, and we only have the parts to keep one wing and no tail working? The countries with A-10s conquer the rest. The purpose of the military is assured survival. Not lowest cost in cherry picked scenarios. Assured survival in every scenario. When the satellites are a dust ring, GPS is an old wife's tale, the power grid barely functions, and food is scarce, what would be the best? I'm guessing that an indestructible flying brick armed with a death canon would be useful. P.S. This is not to say you are wrong. Your argument about cost is really an argument about why we cannot afford the survivable solution and the most potent solution. And that leads to the issues of economic stagnation and the national debt. We need to run an economic surplus that can pay for survival and supremacy. In other words, MAGA.