But, such a shame people don't understand what survival to the fittest means.
Bombers/planes are expensive. Some people think that if you are rich then having expensive toys is good. Less people are able to buy them so you should win the wars against almost all poor countries.
Right, it is a basic asymmetric situation. Survival to the fittest, is about using your advantage.
Well, how expensive is it in a poor country to build and destroy an expensive plane?
Stealth plane are stealth. They tend to absorb waves. Thus if you have a distributed grid of electromagnetic emitters you probably have a very cheap radar very efficient for detecting stealth plane. Once you have a vector, shooting a plane that has a given cone of future is quite trivial.
Well, that is called a mobile network. I am no genius, but I see a potential for reverting the assymetry. Ok, maybe I am wrong. But, war is assymetric. If you can invest 1% of the sum in military expense compared to your ennemy to defeat him, then you win in much more cases.
The fighter vs missile is known since they droped the MACH 4 plane studies (dassault).
The point about war is we can't prepare for it because we never know how it will look like.
My stupid opinion is: it is better to avoid war, and invest the saved money in education of fine citizens that will be smart in face of a new situation called war so that we may survive.
But one can also build very expensive planes... that can be defeated with very small cheap education.