4 ms·

Nah. Humans can't fight cruise missiles either, yet it hasn't changed to where one side gives up when the other has cruise missiles. Humans aren't that logical

• marcus_holmes 5y ago
  I thought Patriot and all those Isreali firework shows were anti-missile defences?
  • AlexandrB 5y ago
    The Venn diagram of people who have cruise missiles and people who have anti-missile defences is a circle. I think parent was talking about various guerrilla fighters/terrorists who have neither technology but still engage in conflicts with those that do.
    • epicureanideal 5y ago
      Cruise missiles are expensive. In theory a million person guerrilla army that stays somewhat spread out can be too expensive to use cruise missiles against effectively. But small, cheap drones…
  • baybal2 5y ago
    You can't shoot down modern cruise missiles with any kind of reliability. Qassam missiles are straight, dumb ballistic missiles with no guidance.
  • ska 5y ago
    I thought all of that works pretty ok against relatively slow and dumb missiles only though, no?
• rajin444 5y ago
  > Humans aren't that logical. I think they're perfectly logical. Superior force (in the context being discussed) makes you better at war, but not ruling. Advances in military tech will probably reduce the overall bodycount of wars, but they don't solve the insurgency problem.
  • darig 5y ago
    Of course advances in military tech don't solve the insurgency problem... they create and nurture the insurgency problem.