As we used to say in the security profession, the weakest link is not the software, or the hardware, it's always the wetware.

Just be evil . . .

I find it difficult to believe that you are quite so uninformed about the real situation on the ground, but if you're a professional troll you're really bad at it.

Radar installations:

"Blinding the US? How Iran destroyed the $1.1-billion American missile radar in Qatar"

https://www.firstpost.com/expl...

Bases in Middle East:

"13 U.S. Bases in Middle East Nearly Uninhabitable After Iran Missile Strike"

https://defencesecurityasia.co...

Ship transits:

"commercial ship transits of the Strait of Hormuz per month"

https://www.globalmilitary.net...

I find it difficult to believe that you are quite so uninformed about the real situation on the ground, but if you're a professional troll you're really bad at it.

Exactly.

Oh, you got a job as one of the Pentagram's force of "Cyber-warriors" I take it? I'd rather live under a bridge than become a war-whore, but to each their own I guess.

It's between Chums Corner and Interlochen (Interlochen State Park also hosts one of the few stands of virgin white pine in the state.)

Perhaps you missed it, so I'll bold the important part:

1) Article 5 only requires other NATO nations to respond as they feel appropriate to their own national interest. Full involvement is not required.

What national interest does the the US have in any Estonia or any of the Baltic chihuahuas, other than as a foil to annoy Russia with?

Two considerations:
1) Article 5 only requires other NATO nations to respond as they feel appropriate to their own national interest. Full involvement is not required.
2) Estonia is small enough that Russia could overrun the entire country in a couple of days, long before the NATO bureaucracy would be finished dithering about whether to respond or not.

As has been demonstrated in Ukraine and Iran, the US is now a paper tiger, with a military armed with finicky, high tech weaponry which is easily overwhelmed by a flood of low cost disposable drones. For example the multibillion dollar THAAD system protecting (for the gods only know what reason) Israel was disabled by some drones costing about the price of a used BMW attacking the long range radar systems it relied on.

The crash was near Grawn, well away from the areas that are nice to live in. Last time I was there Grawn had more trailers than stick-built homes. Migrating waterfowl love the corn fields and small lakes in that area.

The point is why do we "need" so many pilots when the only countries we reasonably need to protect against are Mexico and Canada?

Not in the US, we're at least a decade behind the curve and our sclerotic military procurement system looks to keep us there.

Iran is a major user of drones, which is why they control the Straight of Hormuz and have destroyed most of the US bases in the region. They took out a billion dollar radar installation with a drone that costs the price of a used BMW to build.

Except there's no reason for them to go into combat, unless you actually think Mexico or Canada are going to invade.

Waterfowl are beginning migration there this time of year, cornfields and small lakes near Grawn draw clouds of them. (Grew up near there.) There are no safe altitudes around there this time of year. Of course Texas Guardsmen wouldn't know that.

Do keep in mind that the "70%" number includes people who are living together as a couple but not bothering to get married, many of whom stay together for a lifetime.