I didn't hear a science problem anywhere in your rebuttal. Sure, it would be a huge, expensive, long term project, but there is no science reason it can't be done. For water we could easily drop comets on it till we achieve the appropriate amount of water. Natural cyanobacteria would indeed take a long time but it does work, genetically engineered ones could do it a lot faster. FYI, we can filter carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere, it's just not cost effective to do that rather than just reducing emissions.

Ok, so it's interesting and possibly feasible but why would we want to? Unless they're going to be supervising a terraforming project on Venus I don't see much value in putting a colony there.

Fixing that is merely a matter of engineering and resources, we already have the science.

Actually they're not facts, they're theories backed by very strong evidence. A small distinction but an important one.

That's a good point.

Sure, but sometimes that is worse. If the Allies had intervened earlier then the Nazis would have never gotten rolling in the first place and the death toll for WWII would have been several orders of magnitude smaller.

In some cases yes, in other cases we should be fighting and aren't. The reason being that some armed conflicts are necessary. I'm not pro-war, I'm just saying that we can't hide our heads in the sand and hope the bad people go away.

Hmm, I suppose it depends on how heavy you want the armor. Certainly you can't go as heavy as the A10. I'd have to defer to an expert on that one.

Well the navy doesn't agree:

"Bitter experience in war has taught the maxim that the art of war is the art of the logistically feasible." - ADM Hyman Rickover, USN

The Army doesn't agree:

"Forget logistics, you lose." - Lt. Gen. Fredrick Franks, USA, 7th Corps Commander, Desert Storm

The Marines don't agree:

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." - Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps)

The Air Force doesn't agree:

“Be nice to your mother but love your logisticians...” -- Gen Charles A. Horner, USAF

Famous military experts don't agree:

"There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war." - Carl von Clausevitz

"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics" - Sun Tzu

"My logisticians are a humorless lot ... they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay." - Alexander

“You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.” – General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Of course it is, any plane not special built for it's role is going to be less effective for that role. The question is how much specialization do you need vs. the increased logistics complexity. The F-35 tries to wear too many hats, that's for certain, but I would argue we really only needed one more airframe. The F-22 for air superiority, what the F-35 should have been for air interdiction and multi-role use, and a heavy close air support VTOL. The worst design compromises would have been avoided and it we'd have a much better product without too much extra logistics complexity.

So far there haven't been any game changing technologies that eliminate the need for aircraft. Eventually high powered lasers, new sensors and sophisticated tracking systems might make planes obsolete, in the meantime they're still pretty critical. If you have planes flying around trying to kill each other it's inevitable that they're going to end up close at some point, in which case you're going to want A) a gun and B) a way not to get hit by the other guy's gun.

I can also imagine purple unicorns that vomit rainbows. The fact that I have a good imagination doesn't change reality.

Earth?
The next time we fight someone who isn't a total pushover, yeah there will be some dogfighting. As long as we keep kicking over the anthills of third world dictators, no, not so much.

Well, it's a trade off. More types means more complicated logistics and that's bad. You want as few types as you can get away with while still having enough types that they do the job well.

The most important roles for separate fighter designs:

Air Superiority (shooting down other planes)
Air Interdiction (precision strikes against ground targets, often in the face of air defenses)
Close Air Support (direct support of ground troops)

There are a number of specialty roles like aerial recon, suppression of air defenses, forward air control and such.

The air superiority role really needs something purpose built like the F-22 as it has a unique set of requirements and compromising them really reduces it's effectiveness.
The air interdiction role can usually handle being a multi-role aircraft as long as you don't go crazy with it like they did with the F-35. The main purpose is as a fighter/bomber but they can be modded to air defense suppression, recon and a variety of other specialty tasks.
The close air support role needs to be purpose built due to the need for heavy firepower, high armor and usually VTOL capability.

The AC130 is a fun platform but not a replacement for the A10. The Air Force hates the close air support role with a passion but refuses to let the Army take it due to budgetary squabbles.

If resources were offered and refused then either they didn't believe you or you have the wrong IT staff.