[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

"have a near peer war that does not go nuclear."

All the near peers that could threaten air superiority have nuclear weapons - when in the history of war did the losing side in a near peer war hold back from using effective weapons? Why did we desperately and immediately resupply Israel when they appeared to be losing during the Yom Kippur war?

It is road side bombs and IEDs that are killing US troops not Taliban fighter planes or Russian submarines. Current military spending priorities don't meet current needs. 150 million dollars can put a lot of "boots on the ground" with proper equipment and support for the current mission.

There has yet to be a true near-peer war where both sides had sufficient nuclear weapons to ensure mutually-assured desruction.

Concerning ourself only about IEDs and the Taliban puts us into the same bind we found ourselves in in the desert...wearing jungle fatigues and driving tanks and lightweight humvees. We always seem to prepare to fight the last war, not the next. Unfortunately our enemies seem to change and they tend to adapt...

We can put more "boots on the ground"...but we have no one to wear them. Force multipliers are the only resort.