Please be open to feedback and constructive criticism from others, and consider their suggestions and advice when making decisions or forming opinions.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 11
It’s been said that generals are always fighting the last war. The U.S. military-industrial establishment spends billions of dollars on extremely expensive heavy armaments.
The war in Ukraine showed how light, inexpensive drones coupled with on-the-ground intelligence can destroy conventional weapons (attack aircraft) even on Russian territory.
Russia has learned this lesson and is using their own drones.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/russias-alarming-drone...
Russia’s Alarming Drone Incursion Into Poland
NATO stopped it but at a huge financial cost—a dangerous asymmetry that imperils much of Europe.
By Jillian Kay Melchior, The Wall Street Journal
Officials of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization congratulated themselves for stopping a Russian drone incursion into Poland last Tuesday night. NATO shot down the drones…
Over roughly seven hours, some 20 drones flew into Poland….
NATO still relies on scarce, expensive weapons to intercept plentiful, cheap ones. In starker terms: The West likely lacks a credible response to sustained large-scale drone attacks….
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte described how the alliance called on assets from Patriots to F-16s and F-35s, but the missiles they use can cost $1 million or more. At least some drones Russia flew into Poland were Gerbera decoys that cost around $10,000. The strike Shaheds cost $50,000 or more….
Ukrainian military intelligence said recently that Russia can now produce some 2,700 Shahed-type drones a month. It’s also churning out the decoy drones used to overwhelm air defenses. The payload-bearing Shaheds have a range of some 1,500 miles—enough to strike much of Europe, especially if launched from Belarus or Libya, where Russia is establishing a presence. That range is also enough to hit about 60% of Alaska, including Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau…. [end quote]
Cost asymmetry is an important part of the strategic aims of warfare. The Al-Quaida terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 cost about $250,000 but led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which cost the U.S. over $1 trillion and accomplished nothing.
A small part of the U.S. defense establishment is working on drone warfare and an even smaller part on defense against drones, cyber attacks and other low-cost attacks.
Everyone focuses on Russia because of Putin’s naked ambition to conquer and reconstitute the Russian Empire. But the next major war will probably be China’s attempt to conquer Taiwan – a much more delicate affair because the crown jewel is TSMC. China will be more likely to use scalpels instead of bludgeons to avoid damaging TSMC.
The U.S. defense establishment had better get with the program and realize that many empires have been bankrupted by expensive wars. We need cheap defenses to counter cheap attacks.
Wendy
No. of Recommendations: 0
China will be more likely to use scalpels instead of bludgeons to avoid damaging TSMC.
Doesn't matter. TSMC and the military will destroy the high-end production eqpt if China looks like it will take over Taiwan. The people who know how to make/use that eqpt (and related tech) will be evacuated to the US to prevent them from being forced to show the Chinese how the tech is produced and used.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Doesn't matter. TSMC and the military will destroy the high-end production eqpt if China looks like it will take over Taiwan. The people who know how to make/use that eqpt (and related tech) will be evacuated to the US to prevent them from being forced to show the Chinese how the tech is produced and used.
Color me cynical but Jerry you are right. The plans are long in place. Having tech chops in Taiwan is a ticket out with your family.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Getting back to Wendy's original contention, other factors have risen to the top of the stew in Ukraine. In this rock/papers/scissors/match game, cheap drones kill armor easier than armor kills drones. Neither side is able to safely cross the line into enemy territory with their sophisticated fights and bombers because of the likelihood that they will be shot down with much cheaper anti-aircraft missiles. The Ukrainians were able to sink the Russian flagship (and others) at their docks in Sevastopol and the Russian Navy had to move their fleet to the opposite side of the Black Sea. Ukraine is currently using long-range drones in the same mission that the US would use a strategic bomber.
Carried to a point when both sides can produce sufficient drones and ballistic and cruise missiles, there will be little efficacy of using aircraft for any task other than carrying massive bombs. In the same fashion, every weapon system should be examined and, if it has lost efficacy in modern warfare, be "deemphasized".
China already has submarine drones and I can see a day when fully-autonomous weapon systems will sit on the sea floor awaiting their orders.
One major problem in the US is that the companies which manufacture expensive weapon systems have factories scattered through the US and Congresspersons from those states and districts, will fight tooth and nail to keep their campaign contributions coming in and their constituents working in those plants.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 0
Jeff,
You are saying the Russians and Ukrainians can not cross enemy lines, but to what purpose? To destroy the cities. So heavy bombers are needed. The US has huge oceans in between. The aircraft carriers, even at a distance, matter. The Houthis have done nothing to the US aircraft carriers. We are able to defend them. As for the Russians, that is a much lower bar than we imagined.
The US, UK, and Au submarines around Taiwan and elsewhere can move off further. China will send ships into deeper water to defend against their offensive positions against Taiwan. Our longer-range weapons can take out troop carriers in the straits.
We are hardly helpless.
Portrayed as helpless, let's spend more money. I agree, let's. Just do not let the propaganda be facts between all of us as friends. The public is getting a good song and dance. Nonsense as it is and always is.
You can not say we overfund the military without the worst of repercussions.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Neither side is able to safely cross the line into enemy territory with their sophisticated fights and bombers because of the likelihood that they will be shot down with much cheaper anti-aircraft missiles. The Ukrainians were able to sink the Russian flagship (and others) at their docks in Sevastopol and the Russian Navy had to move their fleet to the opposite side of the Black Sea. Ukraine is currently using long-range drones in the same mission that the US would use a strategic bomber.
Carried to a point when both sides can produce sufficient drones and ballistic and cruise missiles, there will be little efficacy of using aircraft for any task other than carrying massive bombs. In the same fashion, every weapon system should be examined and, if it has lost efficacy in modern warfare, be "deemphasized".
I am reminded of the episode “A Taste Of Armageddon” from the original Star Trek series. In it the war (now 500 years and counting) is done by computer simulation and the people who are “hit” simply walk into disintegration chambers, although nobody really remembers why.
Kirk & crew get involved when the computer running the simulations decides that the Enterprise has been destroyed, so all its inhabitants are required to report for this “sanitized” version of war.
That’s what this “drone” warfare reminds me of, remote, even AI piloted miniature craft delivering death in discrete packets, neither side willing to give up, neither side able to achieve victory - and the war goes on.
We humans are an insane species.
Man: We are going to travel for millions of miles on a spaceship, and you’re invited.
Other man: I guess we all have to learn to get along for quite a while then, right?
Man: Yes, that will be very important.
Other man: Terrific! What is the spaceship called?
Man: Earth.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mankind was insane. If that is one setting on the stove top, we are tuning up the heat.
No. of Recommendations: 1
What country will be the first to use tactical nukes on drones?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Tactical nukes are swatting a mosquito with a bus. All that is needed to disable multiple drones is an emp device. Detonate said device over the zone desired to defend and drone’s electronics are destroyed.
No. of Recommendations: 0
The drones are disposable. The factories are producing 1 million per year plus for each side.
No. of Recommendations: 0
What country will be the first to use tactical nukes on drones?
Probably Russia, especially if they have to try to confront NATO.
NATO has superior military power, so Russia will try to actively avoid confrontation. However, no way to tell how much Putin thinks he can get away with.
No. of Recommendations: 4
We need cheap defenses to counter cheap attacks.
One end result was described in Neal Stephenson's cyberpunk classic "The Diamond Age." In the not-so-distant future, wars are fought with drones, but the drones have become smaller and smaller and become cheaper and cheaper, to the point where they are microscopic, called nanites or mites and are produced in the trillions. The nanites conduct surveillance, sabotage, and the like.
So a government over a contiguous territory isn't important for waging war anymore, all you need is a large group of people who think the same way you do. Then you send off your nanites to enforce your culture and philosophy on groups you disagree with.
The opposing group is countering with swarms of their own nanites. The nanites do battle, resulting clouds of black soot settling down to the ground as the nanites annihilate each other. Everyday people refer to this as the Toner Wars.
The future is already here. It just isn't well distributed.
No. of Recommendations: 0
The further we go back in time the bloodied we were.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Beware overdrawing lessons learned from Ukraine. No doubt there are some, and really good ones at that...but the world's best and largest militaries aren't for a second thinking "oh, hey let's get rid of all our high end stuff for this cheaper not as good stuff."
Love or hate Israel, they've definitely done a number on Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran in a very short time that has been both highly effective and definitely not low tech.
Mixing the two: The fact of the matter is find a drone factory anywhere on the face of the planet, if the right military decides to blow it up, it's gone. Ukraine, for many reasons, doesn't get to wage much of a war on Russia. They are pretty much on the receiving end only.
What capable militaries are learning and adapting to is don't use expensive stuff to defend against cheap stuff...and that is rapidly occurring. Warfare is the ultimate rapid learning environment...not wanting to get killed tends to be highly motivating.
No. of Recommendations: 0
as a NS fan :
the fragile global innovation and supply chain will have to stay intact to keep slowly approaching nano-warfare w/deflationary costs.
the future of drones will be multi-scale macro, and is here.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I thought I had already addressed the questions (maybe statements?) previously posed to me in this thread (assuming no nukes for simplicity):
Him: You are saying the Russians and Ukrainians can not cross enemy lines, but to what purpose? To destroy the cities. So heavy bombers are needed.
Me: To destroy cities, you have to deliver a pile of high explosives. These can be delivered all at once by "strategic" bomber or over time (as the Israelis seem to be doing with fighters and tanks or by artillery, drone, glide bomb or cruise missile as is common during the Russian-Ukraine war.
Him: The US has huge oceans in between. The aircraft carriers, even at a distance, matter.
True, aircraft carriers are able to project force far from home. The are essentially floating airports to launch planes which then act as mobile artillery, surveillance instruments and vectors to intercept opposing planes. Because of their great value (in cost to build, assets aboard and length of time to replace, they need to be defended by an accompanying flotilla of other warships creating an incredibly expensive task force. The US has airbases across the world, remote refueling capability as well as ships capable of launching cruise missiles. I'm not sure whether what aircraft carriers add to the mix, is worth the price in modern warfare. They were the winning factor against battleships during WWII 80 years ago, but both offensive and defensive weapons have changed a great deal since then.
HIM: The Houthis have done nothing to the US aircraft carriers. We are able to defend them.
The Houthis have not demonstrated the ability to hit warships with their missiles. Certainly not an aircraft carrier defended by a fleet whose primary function is to protect it in an area which is scattered with US airbases. That said, the US hit the Houthis with enough missiles that the Defense Department was concerned that they were running through the resources which might be required to defend Taiwan without accomplishing any change in the Houthis actions.
Him: As for the Russians, that is a much lower bar than we imagined.
The Russians have lost over a million casualties so far during the war with Ukraine, not to mention thousands of armored vehicles and major military assets. Think of the trauma to the US of our losing 58,000 combatants in Vietnam. And yet, they continue to fight.
Him: The US, UK, and Au submarines around Taiwan and elsewhere can move off further. China will send ships into deeper water to defend against their offensive positions against Taiwan. Our longer-range weapons can take out troop carriers in the straits.
Two points: First of all, China and Taiwan have substantial interconnected commercial interests. There is also substantial bi-directional tourism. There is no particular advantage or need for China to invade Taiwan - other than if they are goaded into it by, say, the US.
Secondly, what is obvious to you is certainly obvious to the Chines. Recently, they have been demonstrating unmanned "drone" submarines which can silently sit on the ocean floor waiting to be called upon. There is also what amounts to an inverse-square law of force when it comes to logistics and Taiwan is a hell off a lot closer to mainland China than it is to Hawaii or even Japan. Also consider that, 50 years ago, a far less capable Chinese army whipped our behind on the Korean Peninsula after McArthur underestimated their caution not to cross the Yalu River (I highly recommend reading "The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War" by David Halberstam.
If push comes to shove, in the absence of nukes, China would prevail.
Him: We are hardly helpless.
I never said we were helpless, but rather that we are squandering a great deal of money on fighting the last big war instead of the next one.
Him: Portrayed as helpless, let's spend more money. I agree, let's. Just do not let the propaganda be facts between all of us as friends. The public is getting a good song and dance. Nonsense as it is and always is.
We have renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War, just to show how tough we are. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to blow up the military of the incredibly strong Houthi tribe of Yemen without results. We continue to fund immensely expensive weapon systems just to keep employment in states where defense contractor's lobbyists support election campaigns of Congressmen which shortly afterwards have to be replaced by even more expensive systems - yet, the war of the future may negate their efficacy - yet holding a discussion to that effect is considered blasphemous by those who think throwing more money into the military is the answer.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 0
We have renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War,
You are overseas; these inept moves were making the world snicker. I'm not sure they are snickering anymore.
Is your main point that it is a waste of resources? Not doing it invites war and a worse waste of resources. But yeah, in the eventuality of war we will back down. It is not just Taiwan. There needs to be a counterweight to China across the globe. Our military creates a dance for China's military. Human beings get wired not to go to war.
