Like when the polish tried to stop hitlers blitzkrieg with horse drawn artillery and dragoons and whatnot. Didn't work out for them, I feel like thats what the F-35 is, some kind of flying "maginot line" or soemthing like that. It looks good on paper but is functionally useless for future conflict.
Seems like the opposite? The F35 is a highly stealthy missile delivery system. If someone brings down the US Power Grid, then the F35 can shoot down air-defenses and prepare a large-scale bombing run.
Aside from ICBMs / Nukes, it seems like superiority weapons are the best weapons of war.
----------
Cyber is incredibly important in today's world of spycraft and intelligence. But if war actually starts, then the little cyber toys don't really hold a candle to straight-up killing a bunch of enemies.
Now, one might be worried about the philosophy or ethics about building incredibly powerful and expensive weapons of war. But with regards to efficacy? A stealth fighter that is nearly undetectable by enemy radar that is equipped with multiple long-range missiles that can be delivered beyond the horizon is going to be a useful tool.
I don't care how good your black hat is. They probably won't survive a missile to the face. That's basically what the F35 represents.
Indeed: black hats seem to have some degree of "kids gloves" on. It doesn't seem very common for Militaries around the world to respond with lethal force vs a hack attack.
North Korea hacks the USA. Response?? Sanctions. Mostly non-military. Because if we responded FOR REAL, then it'd be seen as an unnecessary escalation. China repeatedly hacks the USA. Again: we mostly have a non-response. Its not worth it to respond with real force.
One day, real military force will become necessary to use (And I hope this day will come long after I die. But... its best to be prepared just in case...). And no number of black hats will be able to make a true military threat to another nation. At best, cyber warfare will be a precursor to actual war: a step in the escalation process.
You can't just blow up anything and everything, at least not without long term foreign policy repercussions(e.g., Iraq). How are you going to trackdown and blow up a team of hackers when they can be ANYWHERE? And not co-located.
In 2018+ a handful of well trained cyber threats can do more disruption than a F35. We need to update our "software".
> You can't just blow up anything and everything, at least not without long term foreign policy repercussions(e.g., Iraq)
And how is this any different from a potential cyber-attacker attacking the US? They can't just harm the US without repercussions either.
But at the end of the day, death is permanent. If you want someone to die, shooting them with a weapon is outrageously effective.
The fact of the matter is: the current world order has a lot of bluster. But we generally don't want to kill each other. That's why Cyber is so "effective", because we aren't killing each other. We just sorta annoy each other with relatively minor inconveniences.
If we REALLY wanted to kill someone, we have ICBMs and other such weapons of war. But really, we don't like killing people. So we don't use those tools. The F-35 is one such tool, in preparation for the day that we might start killing each other for real.
