brehThis is one of those coversations that goes no where. I get it we could wipe any one out with a nuclear strike and be done with it. We have nukes and don't use them.
These terrorist wars require millions of little shoot outs. That's the only kind of war we are fighting for the foreseeable future. We could litterally destroy most of our nukes right now we aren't planning to use them and neither is any nuclear power.
nukes ain't even a part of the discussion. there's nothing they do that a cruise missile or no fly zone can't do better. by the time the fighting gets back down to a level proportionate to the role of the average soldier, scattered/mass drops are literally the worst way to introduce them into any theater theater.
airborne can't even tackle scattered asymmetrical resistance against a technologically inferior adversary in terrain that doesn't permit armor. what's the point in them if they can't do that?
and there are single person, easily carried air defense weapon systems that are generally obsolete by every current standard - that are more impactful than anything seen the last time paratroopers were relevant. and you're talking about iran like they're somehow weaker than iraq was during the gulf war. i get pride in your profession but you're brushing aside a lot and watering down everything else
we shouldYou're talking about wars that will never happen again. By that logic we could reduce the military by half and just let the bombers. and subs go after terrorists deep in the heart of the Sahel.
a lot of these units are absolutely fukking useless. at least air rescue and special operations have a clear, defined purpose. there isn't a single place on earth where a mass drop makes sense. shyt, go back 30 years and you won't find one.