wehh i didnt mean to bully you... i like talking strategy...

i keep doing this. i swear im not dyslexic

i think i remember reading about a scenario simulation where a thousands-of-warheads scenario kills fewer people than a hundreds-of-warheads one? because striking first with thousands gives you a real shot of taking out their missiles first, with hundreds you can't have any hope of saving yourself

basically. like, why use a rod instead of a warhead? because you want to penetrate meters of concrete or rock to hit a silo or command post. why do that? because they haven't launched yet

let's be honest with ourselves though, the real utility of a non-nuclear kinetic weapon in orbit was only ever going to be aggressive. the less monstrous and indiscriminate a strategic weapon is, the more aggressive and destabilizing it is

not necessarily, i think we're entering (or have entered) an era where the stronger nuclear powers can really turn the screws on weaker ones without advanced delivery systems, and where land-based ballistic missiles alone are little scarier than planes with gravity bombs have been for decades (not)

look when i say "deorbit" i clearly mean "pre-emptive first strike" in this context. use it or lose it. so not a score unless you can keep it from hitting any target

no more than ten to twenty million, tops

also, nothing beats missile silos in cost except maybe transporter erector launchers (im not sure about that) but silos are also effectively visible to everyone who has a reconnaissance satellite (so everyone worth considering)

which is way more difficult than intercepting in space, especially if you forget the kinetic part and park a hypersonic glide vehicle in orbit. intercepting a non-maneuvering satellite in space in a first strike situation is easier but they'd probably deorbit themselves in response?

well, i'm less sure that the technology exists currently to intercept an orbital weapon? the best existing anti-ballistic missiles want to intercept the target in the midcourse phase, but an orbital weapon starts most of the way through that and you could only hope to intercept it in the atmosphere

i'm the student who can't think of a single idea

if there was even a single thing that maybe doesn't feel great about the unmodified brisfit it's having one single machine gun. but you can toss another two lewis guns on there. it looks silly but you can hardly notice they're there with this engine. anyway these cows deserved it

feels bad to call the plane "rugged" because normally when people describe a fighter as durable it feels like a consolation prize "oh it can't turn but its okay at being shot at." but when wings like to snap off ww1 planes pulling out of dives it means the brisfit can really turn harder than them

this one's over verdun. the overall feeling in a flight simulator (or flying in real life...) is that everything manmade becomes pretty small so seeing a manmade destruction that goes about as far as you can see is kind of panic worthy

im honestly trying to think where this conception comes from

Nope! Aliens are the good guys

that's fair they make ugly planes.