Neither are ATACMs. They aren’t air force though.

What if they switched to shooting sand? Raining sand isn’t too deadly, it’s not dense enough right? And if it’s not lethal enough to the drones, then they can just up the caliber to shoot more sand.

How much obsolete tech does the WW2 infantry have, is the question - e.g. if it’s US troops then they’ll have Garands, which are only obsolescent, and they only need to stall until the modern air force can come help.

…actually, no. The modern air force could split up, put 10%ish of its forces into ROFLstomping the WW2 air force and the other 90% into supporting the WW2 infantry. So the WW2 infantry will always have air support from the moment the war starts. If the air force can obliterate a few platoons of modern infantry, then the WW2 infantry can scavenge some of their equipment and level the playing field a bit.

What exactly does “take a city” mean? If you’re not too squeamish then you’ll find you don’t need infantry, just a few MIRVs.

Aren’t those planes brought up to the air by actual planes? If modern planes have air dominance, then those plywood planes had better have a functioning plywood engine because there won’t be anything else to get them skybound.

Drones are army, they’re just a fancy grenade/pair of binoculars, when you think about it. Or maybe a missile.

If the modern air force can take out some modern ground troops, the ww2 ground troops could loot their corpses to be somewhat modern-ish ground troops. The modern air force could use radio to explain how to use the equipment, if they have access to wikipedia.

WW2 forces will get obliterated at nighttime, no night vision. Assuming modern ground forces are still alive by nighttime, that is.

If Russia drops a bomb, then NATO immediately deploys conventional bombs with their own air force on all Russian forces in Ukraine, and China/India both sanction Russia (which basically means the whole world is sanctioning Russia, since nobody will want to piss off the USA and EU and China and India - even NK might sanction Russia).

In other words, if Moscow drops a nuke then their military and their economy both disintegrate.

I think tanks would be their best bet - mounted machine guns and can carry lots of ammo, and if they’re surrounded and about to be overrrun then they can just drive away - through the zombies. It’s a tank, it has torque up the wazoo.

Actually, no, barbed wire would be their best bet - the blade doesn’t have to move if the zombies slice themselves apart on it.

In practice, just use both!

The reason chemical weapons are banned is because (they’re monstrous and) they’re useless. You can fire a chlorine shell and if the wind is juuust right, it’ll kill anyone within a few meters. You know what else will kill anyone within a few meters? A normal artillery shell.

Except, chlorine gas can be blocked by an airtight gas mask and a chemical suit. They cost less than $500 for complete immunity to the weapon. Good luck finding a $500 flak vest that’ll stop a mortar though. And meanwhile, if you want to press the attack and benefit from your chemical weapons, there’s one slight problem before you advance: there’s a bunch of chlorine gas in the way.

In other words, it’s an unreliable and inferior weapon that gets in the way of modern military doctrine. Although there are some good niches in shitty armies by dictators who are too paranoid of coups to give their junior officers any independence or proper kit. Like the Iraq army that the US army utterly steamrolled in 2005.

The right wing has been making loads of pro-Russia noise, but do also try not to alienate their popular support too much before they’re in power.

Realistically, Trump will sell out Ukraine to Russia if he’s offered a good deal, but there’s no point publicly destroying his ability to welch on supporting Russia before he’s paid to support them (if you can’t afford to walk away, you can’t afford to negotiate), and there’s no point in Russia paying him before he’s actually in power and able to make the US govt cave in the first place.