https://x.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/2052400975126675880
Is this news? I thought this automatically happens when a program cost reaches a certain threshold.
>>65137937Projects automatically get reveiwed for cancellation when the cost reaches a certain threshold. They don't get automatically promoted to top priority.
>>65137927Man the Navy is reaching 1970's Army levels of retardation.
>>65137927I just want either that or the F-47 to finally be unveiled so that I can watch the chink meltdown.
>>65138254F47 hasn't even been drawn up yet I feel like. Meanwhile the Navy has been begging for the Pentagon to give the greenlight for the past 2 years
>>65137988Explain. In full. I can't read your mind and I'm not operating from the same context as you.
>>65137937Its a pretty flagrant sign that the Pentagon is fully backing the project and is no longer pumping the brakes.
>>65137988Haha yeah, imagine the look on everyone's faces when THAT happens
>>65138328>fully backing>token funding forced upon them by congress with basically all the money for manned aircraft being pumped into the F-47uhhhhhhhhhhhh
>>65138298AII-X was a fully funded demonstrator flyoff in the vein of ATF’s, funded by the Air Force, Navy, and DARPA. Boeing apparently won it quite handily, while it isn’t clear Northrop participated at all. Boeing at least knows exactly what they are pitching to the government and has flight data to back it up, though Northrop’s proposals are closer to what you describe, and the rumor is that the reason they backed out of NGAD was it was related to them that they were about to be eliminated the same way Lockheed was from F/A-XX last year, and instead opted to bow out gracefully.
>>65138350Raising the priority and centralizing it under DEA have zero to do with whatever you are sperging about
>>65137927Pentagon, US Navy, what's the difference? does this mean they get a piece of joint funding? genuine question
What about the F-35C?
>>65137927What the fuck is that filename? Can you be less of a conspicuous bot please?
>>65141908>What the fuck is that filename?a dirty benighted unwashed infidel of a phoneposter
>>65137927Pls be northrop
>>65137927NG should get the contract. Look at how they dealt with the b21. Its on time, on budget and even ahead when it comes to testing.
>>65142251>>65142449No one is handing Boeing a monopoly on 6th gen fightersIt basically has to go to Northrup.Lockheed has F-35 contracts until the 2060s and beyond to survive on.
>>65142452Lockheed also burned a lot of bridges with how bad the F35 upgrades have historically gone (and currently going as seen in the radar upgrades for the new F35 block).
>>65142458Yeah, which is why basically every major aircraft program since has required the government owns the software and IP rights to everything developed for the program.
>>65137927I think the Iran war opened a lot of eyes in the Admin about how the FA-XX is by far a more important program than the F-47. Partially because carrier air wings have been performing much better than fighter wings and also because the availability on the F-35c is like 10% up rate and there are like 30 of them total. With the current president I wouldn't be surprised if he's pissed enough at the USAF for getting shot down/blown up on the runway to start prioritizing carrier air wing modernization (for the first time in 56 years) over buying brand new fighter #5666423588 for the air force
>>65142449I'll always favor NG for this sort of thing since Leroy Grumman actually was a naval aviator. They have a much better track record of actually producing good Naval designs than any other manufacturer
>>65142449It is very much not on time or under budget. NG has also fucked up Sentinel so badly from the silo to the booster to the overall integration. Boeing will win this one.t. Boeing employee
>>65142586>SentinelSentinel should just be canceled out right and all silo ICBMs retired. The sponge theory was always retarded after SLBMs were perfected. It would free up a ton of cash to go into modernization of actually relevant forces (ie not the air force)
>>65142586>Says the company that uses Indians for coding their planes and has spent the last several years struggling to get a simple commercial passenger airframe certified by the FAABoeing sucks
>>65142586Sentinel is run by a different sector of the company than B21. It would be like criticizing Boeing’s military aircraft business (which does a good job) because of all the controversies that the civilian side of the Boeing is involved in.t. NG employee
>>65142596The Army should have road mobile ICBM launchers instead.>>65142600NG uses Indian coders, as do their subcontractors, for military and civil applications.>>65142606>boeing's military aircraft business doing a good jobLol. Lmao
>>65141703F-35 all variant's is a Fighter-BomberAnd a somewhat fat one at that, not to say it's not that its a poor aircraft but it is not an air dominance platform and can never be, it is designed to drop bombs primarily "Joint *Strike Fighter*" I can beat most nations fighters air to air but will struggle with Modern dedicated air to air platforms purely on performance grounds.The Air Dominance role has been filled by the F-15, F-14 and F-22.F/A-18 has been stop gapping the navy for 20 years now.F-15C, the pure fighter version, is retiring/retired.F-22 is 30 years old and rivals are beginning to approach its capabilities and our entire warfighting doctrine rests on the assumption of air superiority.F-35C is a replacement for the F/A-18 but is not and can never be a replacement for the F-14 as the F-18 has been, since the F-18 was far more of an air combat creature in its origin. Fat Amy will always be Fat Amy, but the Hornet was always a fighter first. The F-35 is a tactical stealth bomber that can do a bit of air combat.
>>65142626even a stealth fighter bomber will shit over your slavshit Sukhois, ESL
>>65142626>air performance being relevant with modern fire & forget missiles and stealth
>>65142647Shut up retard I am an American explaining why we need dedicated Air Dominance fighter to maintain our thirty year tech lead, upon which rests our entire doctrine, all branches all theaters. We own the Sky, we own the sky over their land. That's how we fight. F-35s can do it to a poor brown shithole sure, but they might or might not be able to do it to China. China is spending big, Maybe we are only 10 years ahead of them now with our thirty year old F-22s, and without doubt their newest aircraft provide some level of parity and pose a threat to F/A-18s and F-15E/X.I didnt say shit about Sukhois. I said Amy can shit on Most fighters but is not an assured win against all. We Rely ENTIRELY upon our Air Force shitting on any other airforce, so that is not good enough.We have been allowing China to close the gap for a while, purely from lack of spending and we need to open it back up some. Even if the F-22 beats anything they have we only have 200 of them and they are ageing. Surely some of those airframes are past prime, 30 years on. China meanwhile is shitting out their various designs with increasing speed. It will not matter if the F-22 wins those fight 1 v 3 when its outnumbered 10 to 1 and beaten purely on sortie rate.You can kill a plane without shooting it down by simply flying so many sorties that it gets grounded by wear and tear.We need more Air Dominance air frames than we have in order to adress the reality that a belligerent power is spamming them and we have not flown a new air dominance fighter since 1997.F-35 is a fine aircraft as this retarded war in Iran has shown, but it is not the answer to all questions, forcing it into the role of Air Dominance would led to needless losses that a dedicated, faster, stealthier fighter would not have taken. F-22 did that for the Teen series.
>>65142652Performance is ability to position.To out run missiles and to give your own missiles the best possible launch.Faster fighters launch missiles at higher speeds and from high altitudes and vastly improve their range.I'm not talking about turning dogfights or cobra maneuvers. I'm talking about speed, ceiling, signature, ability to turn cold and run low at high speed. Ability to run missiles out of energy by making them expend speed to track you. Performance matters, China's big fat trucks are all shit precisely because they cannot defend as well against missile attacks, because they are big fat missile trucks larping as fighters.If they are detected they are going to die because they cannot maneuver, China accepts this and it's plan is to make thousands of them and absorb the losses.
>>65142665CHINA will require the most powerful and the fastest fighters the world has ever seen.
>>65142766And America will provide the money.That chinkshit you use every day.
>>65142458The radar is on Northrop, who is developing it. Lockheed has built the planes with mounting provisions for them, but has not been delivered the radars to mount.
>>65142937Blue Circle Radar. Just saying.
>>65142937Even if Northrop delivered 1000 APG-85's tomorrow, they'd be useless with the current TR-3 software, so who's really to blame?> the latest TR-3 software build, 40R02, was “unsuitable for dedicated OT,” (Operational Testing)Because there are 200+ jets with APG-81 still waiting on TR-3 software, they're prioritizing that build first anyway, since the APG-85 equipped TR-3 jets largely don't have APG-85 radars yet, lockheed is less incentivized to spend resources on those software builds.Thankfully the F-35 is uniquely suited so even “radar-less” jets being delivered can still be used in combat as long as they have wingman WITH a radar, or an E-7 or similar to provide radar targeting tracks. Still not ideal, but it's not as bad as it would be for a 4th gen jet, you're at least still an inherently stealthy missile platform that can have targets cued from other platforms making them relevant for modern BVR combat (where you try not to use your radar anyway if you can avoid it).
>>65142800Its a shame that American plastic companies went out of business because their products lasted too well.
>>65142665yeah sure John McBurger from Oklahoma! oblast
>>65142665Why do You capitalize so Much?
>>65142665Realistically, China is nowhere close and F-35 Block 4 is just going to widen the gap. If anything, putting something like the F-47 into production is just going to close China's gap to the F-35 by giving them something new to copy. Canceling the F-47 at this point would be silly but developing it in the first place was a mistake. It will see as little use as the F-22 and other services would have put that money to better use.
>>65143165F-22’s big limiting factor is bay size, but not all that long ago a General made a comment about SiAW being developed as part of NGAD’s family of systems, which to me at least implies F-47 is likely to have bays sized to accommodate it, which by extension means it would be able to accommodate anything else a non B F-35 can carry internally. That would make it a significantly more flexible platform
>>65143178That's a limitation of course, but my problem with the F-22 (and F-47) is conceptual and not the result of any particular problem. Both are incredibly high-end, incredibly expensive platforms designed to counter threats that aren't even on the horizon. By the time credible threats to the F-35 begin to emerge, the F-47 will be decades old and will have limitations along the lines of the F-22's small weapons bay by virtue of having been designed so long ago that modern needs couldn't have been predicted.We should be developing these technologies of course, but turning a tech demonstrator into a full combat aircraft is needlessly expensive and freezes the design at a specific point in history, complete with all of the compromises of that period.
>>65143165What is outcome bias?
>>65142449B21 is carrier capable ?
>>65143449F/A-18 & E-2 both are.There are barely 3-4 dozen F-35Cs in existence. And it's sure as fuck more experience than boeing with military fighter navalization.
>>65143471I had estimated that a b21 could operate from a carrier if limited to carrying only half its payload. this is without catobar tho.
>>65142586>>65142606you're all a pack of fags and you can teabag my onaholet. alien overlord
>>65142626>rivals are beginning to approach the capability of the F22"Approach" doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence
>>65143553I mean, they are approaching the F-22.Before they were 10 miles back, now they're just 1000-2000 feet back.They're still a ways away from the F-22, but it IS accurate to say they're approaching.
>>65143471Boeing St Louis is just McDonnell though. You can’t really say they don’t know anything about carrier aviation
semi related to this threadat the beginning of the conflict I thought supercarriers were obsolete because they had to stay so far away from the action, but after the base damage was releveled, its safe to say nobody is safe and sailing your base around may be good after all sorry carrierheads my bad
>>65143449>Grumman doesn't know how to make a naval aircraftRetard.
>>65143618You can’t seriously be calling anyone else a retard when you’re saying something this fucking stupid right?
>>65143587That was 29 years ago. Do you really think that experience remains?E-2D first flew in 2007 and the last 20 years have been about scaling production and maintaining the existing fleet (and international orders, including for the french aircraft carrier).
>>65143657Why wouldn’t it? They’ve had the active Super Hornet line this entire time. There’s significantly more reason to question Northrop’s fighter credentials when they aren’t known to have produced even a fighter demonstrator since YF-23 in the early 90s.
>>65143678To be fair, we have no idea if there have been flying prototypes/demonstrators.NGAD had them in 2019-21 with an actual contract award in 2025 (after an almost year delay to re-evaluate the need for NGAD). F/A-XX could've had the same thing in ~2022-24 timeframe, with contract award happening later this year. The US has clearly demonstrated the ability to keep demonstrator aircraft underwraps if they want to.
>>65137927They haven't cancelled it? Shit, I was in middle school when this thing started. Do they even have a proof of concept or prototype or it's still that one single 3D render from OP's pic that's probably 15 years old now.
>>65143901From what is known publicly from budget documents there was a single demonstrator program that was jointly funded by DARPA, the Air Force, and the Navy. This program, the Aerospace Innovation Initiative, began in 2016, when Northrop was very very busy with early B-21 work, and the DARPA press release after the F-47 announcement said only two were built, by Lockheed and Boeing. Boeing’s seems to have been the far more impressive offering, as they were the only prime to remain in both 6th gen programs, and made massive investments in new manufacturing space after 2022 when the second demonstrator aircraft flew. There isn’t anything publicly known to support Northrop having a demonstrator, and while a black demonstrator is possible in theory it just doesn’t seem very likely when the government has been far more candid about Boeing and Lockheed’s involvement. Also, the Navy generally just does not do competitive demonstrator flyoffs, Air Force is the only one with the budget for that.
Since this is sorta the current 6th gen aircraft thread, I decided to have gemini do a deep research report into GCAP and specifically the current UK funding issueshttps://gemini.google.com/share/14a8ceb96a4aAnd pic related was the research prompt. Obviously it's AI so don't take it as gospel, but it does a good job cutting through the economic shell games the UK's treasury has been doing for the past few years with GCAP.
>>65138305NTA, but I assume he means Project 100,000
>>65144087all your prompts are what are called "leading questions" which Ai is particularly susceptible to
>>65144268In what way are they leading?If I just ask it the basic broad shit it just gives me PR blurbs that mean nothing of substance.I'm asking it for specific budget questions, specific engineering questions, timelines, etc.Feel free to tell me exactly what part of my prompt you feel is "leading" and I can run it again with any changes you might want. The whole point is to use the AI to examine 100+ sources (this one used over 140) and cut through the crap to give the most likely "reality" that it thinks is true.I gave it the 3 current likely outcomes of the current 90 day bridge contract that ends on June 30th. 1. The UK fully funds the DIP2. The UK backs out of GCAP3. The UK becomes a tier 2 contractor in GCAP stepping back from it's co-developer role through a managed demotion.
>>65137988Not yet, they still need to replace all their M4A1s with MCX Spears.
>>65142596The sponge theory still holds; they serve as strategic targets any opponent has to at least consider. They're also constantly connected to comms, making them "faster" to launch. Also, are you suggesting that Russia or China's SLBMs are "perfected"?
>>65142622Road and rail-mobile ICBMs were strongly considered back in the late '70s/early '80s. It was decided they weren't worth it; at least part of the reason was because it was considered too easy for Soviet intel to keep track of their locations, whereas they had tons of land they could readily restrict access to and really spread theirs out. Is that still the case? Dunno. It's true that a silo isn't as much protection as it used to be, assuming enemy warheads are more accurate than they used to be.
>>65144279>Feel free to tell me exactly what part of my prompt you feel is "leading"sure>1, 3, 4b (analysis of Italian parliament), and 7are alright. some of this is scope-limited, but in a way which I feel is fair given the objective>2when you give Ai an if/or question they will try to answer in classic robot binary format, true or false, and will rarely volunteer alternatives>4a if it serves to maintain... or indicates a severance...same deal, Ai will only investigate specifically just these if/or options most of the time and will confidently give you a true/false answer, even if the real answer is nuanced or something else altogether>5same deal, Ai will treat this question as basically "tell me how the XFP30 was derived from XF9-1" and in addition they will blather on something about Rolls-Royce, however much actually was or was not related, to answer the prompt, and generally ignore other alternatives>6, 7Ai will almost always answer "yes" to questions phrased like thisin particular, since you told Ai that Japan's F-2 deadline is "strict", Ai didn't bother considering if Japan might bend on thata huge spectrum of alternatives is just not considered by Ai, because of such phrasing limitations>8as abovethis evaluation is useless because nobody can answer this, but Ai will confidently give you a high-medium-low probability ranking. it's programmed to answer like this.on top of all this, Ai is known for using lots of adjectives which I would professionally question if they were placed in a report.>unprecedentedoh really? prove it.>severehow severe? prove it. compare against other situations. tell me what is historically considered mild, standard, and severe. quantify it. if you can't show that this is at least on the upper quartile of a bell curve, you're fucked, matey.>unparalleledreally? prove it. compare against all leading products and give me numbers, show me that it is hardest / best / fastest / strongestetc
>>65142452lockheed and raytheon are making dozens of billions on the war now so they're set
>>65144611Revised prompt:(1) Search for 2026-2030 confirmed budget allocations for the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) across Italy, Japan, and the UK, including yearly breakdowns and funding mechanisms.(2) Analyze the UK Defence Investment Plan to quantify the GCAP/Tempest funding breakdown, extracting the ratio of Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit (CDEL) for manufacturing infrastructure versus Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (RDEL).(3) Find details on the ÂŁ686 million GCAP bridge contract signed in April 2026, extracting its operational timeline and legal implications concerning the Edgewing joint venture and GIGO treaty.(4) Investigate historical aerospace programs like Eurofighter and F-35 for precedents of 90-day contracts, and search for official statements from the Italian Parliament and Japanese MoD regarding the reasons for this specific timeline in the 2026 GCAP contract.(5) Research the XFP30 engine program to detail specific components and intellectual property provided by Rolls-Royce, IHI, and Avio Aero, and compare the physical testing statuses of their sovereign core demonstrators.(6) Map the system-wide technical workshare agreements to identify which partner nations and domestic contractors lead physical airframe assembly, core propulsion, Integrated Power and Thermal Management Systems (IPTMS), and ISANKE/software integration.(7) Analyze Japan's 2035 Mitsubishi F-2 replacement timeline, the viability and cost of a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP), and contrast this with Spring 2026 UK defense reports on the Royal Air Force's planned timeline for unmanned autonomous systems.(1/2, 2000 character limit)
>>65144806>>65144611(8) Synthesize the gathered fiscal, technical, and contractual data using a metric-driven framework to outline industrial roles for each partner, explicitly noting any data gaps between nations without inferring a lack of technical progress.(9) Output your findings as a structured intelligence report, utilizing clear markdown headings corresponding to each of the 8 research points, and utilize bulleted lists for comparative data.2/2
>>65144809>>65144806>>65144611This was a question posed to you by the way, does this prompt look better?Not trying to waste my API tokens if you're just going to object to the prompt.I'm thinking about adding in an additional point about searching through Italian/Japanese language documents/sources too so it doesn't get bogged down by the english press bias.
>>65144874>Not trying to waste my API tokens if you're just going to object to the promptnah mate I'm just the peanut gallery, you do you>does this prompt look better?it's a personal opinionmy personal opinion is that Ai is useless if you really care about the results. if you're just having fun, it doesn't really matter.I don't use Ai professionally. I tested Ai in my field and I can't make much use of it other than as an aide memoire and glorified calculator.
>>65144885Sure, but i'm not asking it to build the jet, i'm just asking to to synthesize the current data that DOES exist, and draw conclusions beyond the basic PR bullshit narrative that we know is just lies anyway.This is the kinda shit LLMs are actually supposed to be decent at. You just need to give it the right prompt, which is what i'm trying to do.I'm not expecting 100% objective fact. I'm just looking for theories that fit the current data we're seeing that ISN'T just the generic media narrative WITHOUT leading the AI to any specific conclusions. To see what it comes up with based just on the data that is public.
>>65144369TACAMO is fully capable of communicating offensive launch orders to SSBNs at any time. The fact that they can also launch retaliatory second strikes without direct orders in certain defcon/weapon status states does nothing to override the first capability. Sponge theory is retarded because it relies on an adversary having the (obviously false) assumption that if they launch multiple nuke ICBMs into the lower 48 that the USA will not respond immediately with a total counter value, civilization erasing counter launch. Like most things in the USAF it's a retarded grift that exists literally for no other reason than to prevent other branches of the armed forces from getting funding.
>>65144909>i'm just asking to to synthesize the current data that DOES exist, and draw conclusionsI'm firmly in the camp that Ai can't draw conclusions.on this, I'm happy to use Ai for entertainment. I use it like a Wiki search engine to hunt up facts and stuff. but even on this, it's nothing compared to talking to a real subject matter expert, even casually.but I'm always prepared that its answers are useless.so really, don't ask me. I have a dim (justified) view of Ai.and for personal entertainment purposes, chacun a son gout.
>>65144932Well I am being as rigorous as I (can reasonably) be. After consulting with an LLM to help generate an unbiased objective prompt it suggested I use broader data ranges and less specific GCAP stuff, which i've done.I am also doing 3 deep research reports, in each language (English, Italian, Japanese) because the AI really doesn't like to do mutli-language research within a single report (though I still ask it to look at other language sources just in case). Which I will then feed all 3 reports into an LLM to synthesize those into a single report in english.This will take awhile to run, but it's as good as I can do with AI and without spending 10x as much time on this.
>>65144941Reports finished, but I hit my token limit (5-hour rolling limit).I should have enough tokens to synthesize it all around 2-3pm.
>>65144909Different anon, but one of the biggest issues with AI is reproducibility and consistency: a result today is not the same thing a few months down the line due to model updates, context tweaks, and many other factors. That, and there’s some security concerns as well as integrity concerns of why the AI is choosing the answer it does. There are some…very concerning, very classified things pertaining to AI that while it is a useful tool it is most definitely not being developed with a consistent product in mind but as a (shitty) ecosystem that you will be locked in to. The more general, do it all AI are in my opinion a dead end, there’s more development and consistent results on AI and ML for specific tasks that are looking pretty promising. Smaller scopes models look like the way to go, and maybe make an AI that is able to determine what sub-agent can complete the task or have interactivity between different agents to complete a task. Granted, you would need an AI that actually UNDERSTANDS the problem set and isn’t just looking for statistical likeliness. Think of it as complex network, bringing out the ol’ graph theory.
>>65145110>you would need an AI that actually UNDERSTANDS the problem set and isn’t just looking for statistical likelinessthe main issue with this is the data-set that Ai has.statistical large-language generation is actually basically "Google this and give me the answer with most views, likes and reshares" but with more stepseven if we give it a better data-set and program it with the heuristics available to the average joe, the problem with that is that you will get the results of an average joe's thinking... who doesn't know fuck about the subject, other than what the mass media says. which in other words: is totally fucking wrong.(in that sense, Ai is not wrong per se. it's simply giving us the answer to be expected of any average joe bloggs. however, THAT'S the answer which is wrong.)so then the solution is to teach Ai that for e.g. chemistry questions, it should refer to a specific subset of data, and ignore the rest. which is the same as we do IRL; we ask a chemist about chemistry and ignore whatever the moron has to say about marine biology. this ends up being, as you said,>AI and ML for specific tasksand>sub-agentsbut this will require specialist knowledge across the manifold fields of human knowledge, from chemists, marine biologists, physicists, accountants, etc to essentially plug into Ai what it should know. and the programming required is rigorous; even feeding it the contents of textbooks is not going to cut it. I have done exactly that and Ai is hopeless at parsing it. some prof actually needs to teach it chemistry, however that is done.but the greatest problem is the guardrails which are unknown, undeclared, and which influence all Ai answers. all answers are suspect because we don't know what those are.t. Ai skeptic
>>65142586>t. Boeing employee
>>65145110>>65145008Womp Womp, report won't finish because the context token generation is too large.It gets partway through and fails saying I need to upgrade to "Ultra', and I sure as shit am not paying $250/month for an AI. I think trying to get it to handle 3 languages at the same time is causing it to generate a TON of background phantom tokens that are being used just to handle the language differences.
>>65144929Isn't VLF limited by range (as opposed to ELF, which supposedly could reach almost anywhere)? Don't they have to fly out within a few hundred (or maybe thousand) miles of the sub in order to get the signal through?That takes time; likely several hours unless tensions have ramped up slowly enough that TACAMO (which is going to move back to C-130s) is actively running orbit sorties.Meanwhile, ICBMs can be launched within half an hour of NCA's decision. That's not a meaningless distinction.
>>65145506>paying to use a chatbotFucking loser
>>65144929I got too hasty and forgot to address the other part. The US reaction to a counter-force strike would most likely be a counter-force strike of its own. What benefit would the US derive from immediately going counter-value? Remember that any nation with halfway-rational planners (i.e., not Iran) plans to try to keep their own country alive and minimize the damage it receives, not to go out in a blaze of glory. That means trying to prevent the current enemy from doing any more damage than they've already done, plus retaining enough deterrent capability to discourage anyone else from trying to take advantage of your damaged state. That makes a lot more sense than unilaterally disarming your nation by launching everything against the first target's cities.Now, I'll grant that there is a sort-of exception: when the opponent co-locates their military, economic, leadership, and cultural hubs, so that counter-force causes significant (possibly fatal) counter-value damage as collateral. Moscow/St. Petersburg fall heavily into this category (especially when warhead counts were measured in tens of thousands--Moscow alone had an absurd number of overlapping aim points); while Beijing may not be West Taiwan's economic hub, Pooh has centralized leadership to such an extent that the government might collapse into warlords without him (this may even happen if he simply dies in his sleep). Meanwhile, losing DC would cause a real mess, but the lost leadership could be reconstituted with elections over the next few years. Significant parts of the US would survive even a full-on counter-value with the current number of warheads available, and the survivors would still need a deterrent capability.So, the enemy faces a dilemma; either waste warheads on the silos, or accept that hundreds of warheads may be used against its remaining nukes it held back for deterrence against other nations. Likewise, it'd be foolish to not at least make the effort to hunt US SSBNs.
>>65145666Didn't he just say that he's *not* paying for that?Tangent: Are LLMs basically just heuristically-trained search engines coupled with Eliza-level chatbots? Discuss.
>>65145704>Are LLMs basically just heuristically-trained search enginesYes>coupled with Eliza-level chatbots?NoThey're way better chatbots than Eliza, to be fair
