I'm not a native English speaker, so it's possible I'm misunderstanding something (my apologies in that case). Here's my reasoning:

- The title is "F-35 is built for the wrong war".

- The article suggests that the plane was designed to deal with other threats, not with many cheap drones and missile salvos. That it's a bad tool for the tasks it is now is used for. It's not about war being right/wrong or good/bad.

- You ask "Is there a “right” war?".

These are two different discussions.

A terrible example, but it's like having a title called "Hammer was built for the wrong DIY project" and an article that points out that "they designed/bought hammers when they actually needed a screwdriver!" and you ask if "any DIY project is right". Sure, it's related, but that's a different point/discussion, isn't it? Not exactly something I'd expect to be upvoted, hence my initial comment.

I didn't reply to defend any war or to justify the use of any weapon. I also don't have a problem with anti-war comments. But these guys are talking about the F-35 not being good at dealing with cheap drones and missile salvos, while you're talking about war being good or bad.

As long one doesn't twist what I wrote or assume bad faith, it should be easy to understand the point I was trying to make and where I was coming from.

With this out of the way, and since I'm neither qualified to talk about the F-35 nor see the need to discuss if war is good (it's not), I will now leave the thread.