The 'superior' distributed architecture you hyped failed to capture even one of the two individuals in their territory, and failed to a non-distributed centralized world spanning synchronized architecture. I was simply pointing out your superior model failed. The model you hyped has no military benefit, it only serves to act as 'terror cells'. In this case lobing missiles at civilian shipping/civilian infrastructure in neighboring countries.
The important information was the US was able to rescue their people, loss of equipment doesn't matter. When we removed Bin Laden we lost an helicopter. Equipment loses that don't degrade our capabilities don't matter to the US.
There were ZERO American casualties in an operation in Iran, where the USA basically setup their own airfield, and Iranian forces tried to engage.
Nuclear armed nations with the most expensive military controlling massive logistics supply route attacked and lost the war and were forced to escalate to nuclear detonation and then to ceasefire talks.
Buddy. That is not how winning looks like.
If casualty count is your criteria, then Soviet Union was defeated in world war 2 according to you.
If you think distributed architecture is about rescuing a bunch of people, then clearly you haven't done any serious work in your life. Go write some code and build some distributed systems.
