Readit NewsI can understand this argument.
> The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases.
But I don't understand this one. Isn't a drone attack a drone attack? The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens. You'd have to defend your expensive weapon systems in either case.
Don't we need a new strategy that isn't entirely reliant upon extremely powerful, but extremely expensive hardware? I'd imagine you still want your expensive pieces, but that you want a compliment of inexpensive combat items and fortified bunkers as a line of defense to protect them when not deployed.
A jet like the Gripen can move basically instantly to basically anywhere and then it's hard to find, especially because it can just move again
No it is not
It is often difficult and expensive, relative to letting Facebook (or the like) do the hosting.
But VPSs are a thing, you can run almost any software on them.
Stretching the analogy: Build your castle on your own bedrock, and build "forts", or "outposts", on the enemy territory
Ignoring Facebook et. el. is stupid, but depending on them is fool hardy
Granted, there are some working-age people who buy a vacation home with the thought of moving into it permanently a decade or two into the future, but those plans entail a lot of uncertainty (health, closeness to family) and of course once they move, it is no longer a vacation home.
So there is no realistic scenario where hoa reserves factor into home price