We often hear throwaway lines like “if <country> had this tech, then they would dominate <other country>”.
There are major flaws with this argument and here is why.
Anyone with a little bit of military training / RTS experience / knowledge of world historical conflicts should know that having the ability to produce very advanced units doesn’t suddenly mean you stop fleshing out your fleet with your much more cost effective legacy / contemporary units. The first reason why is because to stop producing legacy units would immediately give away your element of surprise, the second reason is because it is prohibitively expensive to build an entire fleet of such craft, and the third reason are the practicality of different use cases for different types of vehicles and craft. Adding even a dozen gravity/medium defying UAP into your fleet wouldn’t suddenly mean you win every war.
If they are not man-made, but in our possession, they are priceless, and would not be worth risking, nor throwing their element of surprise away, for a conflict like Ukraine or Taiwan.
If they are man-made, they probably cost orders of magnitude more than the most advanced aircraft carriers to produce. Probably hundreds of billions, maybe even trillions of dollars per craft.
In both scenarios, there are probably very few people with the know-how and trustworthiness to operate them, and potentially, those people are not even trained to fly them in open conflict.
So again, prohibitively expensive, and therefore not worth risking for a relatively small conflict.
No, these craft are World War 3 winning last resorts that could checkmate another country if they tried to engage their ICBM nukes. That is pretty much the only scenario I see them being used for, in conflict. Other than that their use case is probably rare, highly secretive stealth CIA operations.
Thoughts? Agree, disagree?
submitted by /u/spectrelives
[link] [comments]