That is cool
not bad equipment;)
That b-2 has some nice weapons
During 1999 nato agression we take it out… Not so invisible
woow. . . Bom
Unload that shit on Ramadan.
+FEMINIST KILL ALL MEN Hmm a bit rude… Why should they do that during Ramadan?
Quero um desse pra mim…
Now why isn't that going after ISIS?
Attacking ISIS with this would be like attacking New York street gangs by bombing New York City. Ridding ourselves of ISIS will require the personal touch, and you can't do that from bombing altitude.
That is beautiful.
Death and Destruction never looked so beautiful
My all time favorite B2
Load em' up & let em' fly!!
Now that's ammo
May be not but it wood most definatlley rid us pf a few of em .
It could wipe out ISIS by itself. .
As amazing as that bomber is, it is the wrong tool for the job.
The bomber was designed for larger scale war against nations and their armies. You leveled whole swaths of land. Everything within the target zone that wasn't armored and avoided a direct hit was either dead or dying.
Such a blunt instrument would only victimize civilians and make the US more enemies.
As +Jeff Clough noted, you can't solve the problem from bombing altitude. By killing from above/afar, it makes it stupid easy for terror groups to demonize the US and its troops.
We'll need the bombers for future large scale wars. But for the war waged against decentralized terror groups, it's probably more apt to view it from the point of view as a disease. We need to immunize people against the toxic cause so that their numbers don't increase. Make it so that their safe havens turn them away. And work tirelessly and accurately, to route those who have sided with those groups, whittling down their numbers.
Otherwise, it becomes a protracted war filled with endless skirmishes that ends up costing lives needlessly.
Sooooo much democracy !
+Jeff Clough agreed, we need to get back to "old-school" CIA cold war intelligence gathering
+Annette Gutierrez, I'd prefer a cold war to this rabbid terrorism, but ISIS wants a very hot "war." Plus, a cold war requires diplomatic channels to be open. I'm afraid this is going to get even more bloody than we've already seen.
+Jeff Clough yes, but we need smart guys on the ground, not "soldiers," per se, but intelligence gathering by individuals that can get behind enemy lines, infiltrate their camps
Plus when the CIA was in its infancy, diplomatic channels were hardly a concern, as most of their clandestine activities were off the books
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *