The Constellation class frigates had no mission. Just like the failed LCS classes before them, they aren't survivable in a modern high-threat missile environment: weak radars, small magazines. And if they can't survive themselves then they're useless as escorts.
I guess they can be put to work intercepting smugglers in the Caribbean Sea or something.
Russia has been attacking Ukrainian cities with missiles and drones since the beginning of the conflict. But Russia simply lacks the capacity to fire-bomb cities on a large scale. They only have a handful of operational heavy bombers left and no real ability to manufacture more so they're unwilling to risk them.
Strike the stuff that can't move: government offices, factories, bridges, dams, power plants, ports, logistics hubs. The heavy B-2 bombers are themselves quite survivable, and were in fact used in the initial strikes.
Government offices are hardened against strikes, and they are going to be located beyond the reach of F-35s anyway in case of a war with Russia or China.
> bridges, dams, power plants
A war crime, btw. Bridges and dams are also notoriously hard to destroy.
> The heavy B-2 bombers are themselves quite survivable
They are, but less so compared to lighter aircraft.
A carrier can likely get far enough to generate a miss. Missiles and drones have very limited sensors so in order to hit anything another platform has to cue them with a fairly precise target location. In other words, an adversary like China would need to have enough satellites, submarines, and/or patrol aircraft to maintain a continuous target track long enough to make a decision, launch the weapons, and have them fly out to the target. Current thinking is that China could probably do this inside the first island chain but would struggle to put the pieces together further out in the open Pacific Ocean.
Even if Russia sees a particular tactic or weapons system as an existential threat it's questionable whether they have the capability to escalate further. I mean they can threaten nuclear strikes on Ukrainian population centers but would anyone believe that the threats are credible?
TBF a proxy of one of the nuclear superpowers (ie Ukraine using US arms) is quite different from a run of the mill non-nuclear country retaliating against an invasion using conventional arms manufactured at home. The former invites MAD while the latter is predictable and boring. Seeing as they are the substantially larger aggressor presumably they can pull out of this war of attrition whenever they feel like it.
And that's fine if you're just writing a toy program for personal use. But it's deeply problematic if you have to rely on that library for anything important. This type of lazy approach to the software bill-of-materials has gotten a lot of organizations into trouble with exploitable security flaws.
Even in a hypothetical situation where the USA had no aircraft carriers our military probably would have conducted some raids to delay Iran building nuclear weapons. The initial strikes against nuclear facilities were done with B-2 bombers launched from Missouri.
The threat that President Bush issued in 2002 was due to Iran being a state sponsor of terrorist groups, which was true then and is still true today. Historians can argue over whether that threat was a good idea at the time but it's too late to retract it now. We have to deal with the actual situation as it obtains today.
As for what Iran's leadership decided and when, we really have very little visibility into that so don't believe anything you hear. We're not even certain which faction is really in control of nuclear weapons policy. (This isn't an endorsement of the recent attacks.)
That's bullshit. He denounced half of all developing countries for sponsoring terrorism. And forgot to denounce all the ones that sponsored the terrorists that had just attacked the US.
> As for what Iran's leadership decided and when, we really have very little visibility into that so don't believe anything you hear.
The had elections at the time, and voted in the candidate promising nuclear weapons at the next year. So no, that's lying propaganda again.
Half? There were approximately 133 developing countries (depending on how you count) during the George W. Bush presidency so please to give us a list of 66 that he "denounced" for sponsoring terrorism.
Of course the reality is that going back to 2001 the US government has only ever designated seven countries as state sponsors of terrorism. Those were: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Libya, and Iraq.
Elections in Iran don't necessarily mean much in terms of nuclear weapons policy. It's not clear whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually had much power to impact weapons development one way or another. The real decision making authority appears to lie elsewhere.
reply