I am really busy nowadays, so I will be keeping this short. Iran sent a drone to photograph a US aircraft carrier recently (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/29/iran-drone-us-navy-ship-aircraft-carrier-photos). It wasn’t shot down because the US Navy was very sure that the drone was unarmed, namely, without any explosive on it. How did they know? Did they scan it remotely for chemical composition analysis? What if the explosive was inside the drone? In any case, a better way to attack the aircraft carrier would be to use a small drone with a water drill that can install a small bomb inside the surface of the hull of the ship, using the speed of the carrier against water as its power source. You can make it really small and undetectable. However, I am not thrilled, because this type of drones lacks range. Even if they swim, they cannot match missiles. Speed matters. Iran is lucky due to its geographical military advantage. This type of attacks can only work in a rather small number of scenarios. You want a generic weapon and mass produce it. Quantity matters. Range matters. Speed matters. I am not a big fan of drones as the first line of attack or defense. Drones are meant to be the pets of your soldiers, the last line of attack and defense. Drones are meant to save human lives in the battlefield.
Well, I am saying this because US is such a big fan of creating imaginary enemies. US fights imaginary enemies, justifying billions and trillions of dollars in defense spending every year (http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/01/cheap-drones-exquisite-weapons/125216/?oref=d-dontmiss). Who is attacking US with drones? Iran? Definitely not Russia, who always has nuclear weaponry as their top priority. If you dare touch Russia, come and receive your instant death. Who cares about sissy aircraft carriers? Just wipe out the entire US homeland. Nuclear supremacy is an ongoing pursuit of any nation serious about their security. I say only US and Russia are serious enough about national defense today. China is always a little delusional. Cyberwarfare? Just give me a break.
So, Obama is pushing for US nuclear modernization (http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/01/obama-about-launch-new-nuclear-arms-race-theres-better-way/125174/?oref=d-dontmiss). Though the American plan is not as concrete as Russia’s, there are heated debates about what should be done. For a military strategy, we should all try to maintain a nuclear triad. It’s just too bad that nuclear warheads are too heavy and too sensitive that we limit their delivery methods to merely 3. In reality, we want as many methods as possible. Meanwhile, we want to make sure that those methods are generic enough that we can use them also for conventional warfare. After all, we may never actually have a nuclear war. Why make lots of weapons that we will never use? So, make them generic enough so you can use them for other purposes also. Waste is rarely appreciated. Truck-based nuclear missiles are not outdated. In fact, they are so versatile that you may want to build lots of them. They are the mobile satellite launch pads that can adapt to any orbit you want. You might also try to make them reusable, if the extra cost is low enough. At war, you want the capability to launch a satellite within 5 seconds on demand, easily achievable with these mobile platforms, trucks, aircraft and watercraft alike, all of which can park underground to avoid an instant nuclear wipe-out. Make your satellites as ready as interceptors today. Now, we are talking about a real space force, agile enough to be called military.
It is an exciting decade for many Americans, because US is committed to building its next generation of air force, all ears (http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/01/meet-air-forces-new-acquisition-system/125102/?oref=d-dontmiss). Anyone in the world can write them a proposal, at all levels, strategic and tactical alike. US is humble and listening, ready to be your best friend.
That’s about it.