4 ms·

Next time we have a real war I have a feeling there will be some very interesting dumb "hacks" used against all of these smart weapons.

twic 5y ago
Like a cluster bomb which sprays out rain covers. Devious!
ryanchants 5y ago
We already had that in Afghanistan. Our LAVs were being defeated by IEDs, so we spent a lot of money making mine rollers. The mine rollers were then defeated with 10 cents worth of lamp cord to separate the pressure plate from the explosive.
- echelon 5y ago
  In Afghanistan we were spending lots of money to not kill civilians and cause a PR nightmare. If we didn't care, we'd have carpet bombed the place. Or developed and used chemical weapons. In a real war, we'll be using tactical (not strategic) nukes to take out carriers and bases and supply lines, not toys that avoid collateral damage. If shit hits the fan, the strategic nukes come out and we all die.
  - jason-phillips 5y ago
    > the strategic nukes come out and we all die To borrow from the Bronze Age conflicts between the Egyptians, Hittites, et al, you don't want to annihilate your adversary because you still have to trade with them. Wars are just a strategy to establish a more favorable trading position.
    - sterlind 5y ago
      except when it comes to Carthage, then you have to salt the earth to shut Pliny up.
    - fnord77 5y ago
      and purge excess males from the population
  - swarnie 5y ago
    > to not kill civilians and cause a PR nightmare Estimates sit at around 240,000 deaths, great job. Still better then the Iraqi genocide mind....
    - adventured 5y ago
      > Estimates sit at around 240,000 deaths You're of course referring to total estimated deaths over 20 years from all supposedly war-related causes (which includes poverty), not civilian deaths directly attributable to the US. The Taliban - as the blood-thirsty conquering force attempting to enslave the population of Afghanistan for the past several decades - is responsible for most of those deaths. It's funny how many people try to pretend the Taliban don't exist, their murders don't exist, the consequences of their conquering don't exist, and their aims don't exist, when it's convenient. The actual civilian deaths in Afghanistan by the US is a very small fraction of the number you're quoting, which is the point of the parent comment. The vast majority of violent civilian deaths were from the Taliban and associated groups, via suicide bombings and other intentional mass murder events. And the vast majority of all deaths during the Iraq civil war, were Iraqi on Iraqi murders. The US stepped in-between the warring factions and tried to stop it, which cost a lot of US blood and treasure. This isn't hidden magic information. It's right there in the estimates along with the number you quoted out of context. They break out how they arrive at the death totals.
      - hindsightbias 5y ago
        The US destabilized Iraq, leading to the Civil War. Not like they’re innocents in the matter.
      - swarnie 5y ago
        This is a lot of words to say: "We destabilised a region and are responsible for the MASSIVE number of civilian deaths as a result."
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      Compare to the Soviet-Afghan war where the Soviets were not so nice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War > Civilians: 562,000–2,000,000 killed Most civilian deaths during the US war in Afghanistan appear to be from the Taliban themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban > According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 76% of Afghan civilian casualties in 2010, and 80% in 2011 and 2012.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    That's naive. Strategic and tactical bombing did jack shit besides kill or at least make life miserable for lots of civilians, and destroy lots of land for the foreseeable future in Vietnam. Afghanistan is highly mountainous. Carpet bombing doesn't work very well for caves.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      We pulled our punches in Afghanistan. Commanders on the ground were asking for air-dropped landmines to cover the areas that Bin Laden could have been using as an escape in Tora Bora in December 2001. Air-dropped land-mines would have made navigating those mountains much more difficult for Bin Laden, and may have killed him on his escape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR_mine_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR_mine_system --------- They may use IADs, but we have far better equipment for that strategy. We can deploy our mines from airplanes and just blanket an area if we so choose. But of course: this strategy means killing innocent civilians who accidentally walk on the mines. -------- Difficult Terrain works for both sides. Sure, its difficult for us to move in, but that also makes it difficult for the enemy to move around. Doubly so if landmines are secretly littering areas.
Someone1234 5y ago
The military is bored and loves to spend money on shinies. Everyone works hard to un-learn the most important lesson of war: In war, more of something beats less of something. And it isn't simply a "morer is betterer" argument, even strategically if you can place assets in multiple concurrent locations even if those assets are "dumber" then you're forcing the enemy to split their force into multiple beachheads. Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano ($18M~) Vs. F-35A ($79M~). One F-35A obviously beats one Super Tucano but does it even have enough weapons onboard to beat 4.3? What if you split your Super Tucanos between two locations, which one is the F-35A going to defend? And the Super Tucano is even the endgame here, the endgame is drone swarms. $1M~/ea and you have a 79-1 ratio, and it is indefensible and laughably so.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  The F-35 is useless for long engagements, dead if it gets into a dogfight, and can't fly near thunderstorms or it might explode. This is assuming it doesn't suffocate its pilot to death, because Lockheed still can't get the oxygen system to work properly. The finest plane $350M (and climbing) can buy (for the F35-B variant. The A variant is down to "just" $100M or so.)
- nradov 5y ago
  The primary threat is surface-to-air missiles, not other aircraft. A Super Tucano is simply not survivable against modern SAMs, nor does it have the sensors necessary to attack hardened ground targets. The F-35 at least has a chance.
  - Someone1234 5y ago
    The F-35 isn't completely stealth, it only offers a reduced sized signature for an aircraft of its size (no aircraft is completely, but the F-35 isn't even the best the US has in terms of stealth it isn't even in the top three). Before stealth small nimble aircraft avoided anti-aircraft fire by flying low where the horizon and or terrain would keep them shielded or provide physical barriers against missile intercept. That of course requires good low altitude, long duration flying which is also something the Super Tucano happens to excel at. I'd argue that the SAMs is an argument for "morer is betterer" since you're essentially pretending that the F-35 has perfect stealth instead of limited stealth, and relying on it being never shot down as your win condition (as opposed to building in losses and utilizing strategies not dependent on a technological advantage).

twic 5y ago

Like a cluster bomb which sprays out rain covers. Devious!

ryanchants 5y ago

We already had that in Afghanistan. Our LAVs were being defeated by IEDs, so we spent a lot of money making mine rollers. The mine rollers were then defeated with 10 cents worth of lamp cord to separate the pressure plate from the explosive.

echelon 5y ago
In Afghanistan we were spending lots of money to not kill civilians and cause a PR nightmare. If we didn't care, we'd have carpet bombed the place. Or developed and used chemical weapons. In a real war, we'll be using tactical (not strategic) nukes to take out carriers and bases and supply lines, not toys that avoid collateral damage. If shit hits the fan, the strategic nukes come out and we all die.
- jason-phillips 5y ago
  > the strategic nukes come out and we all die To borrow from the Bronze Age conflicts between the Egyptians, Hittites, et al, you don't want to annihilate your adversary because you still have to trade with them. Wars are just a strategy to establish a more favorable trading position.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    except when it comes to Carthage, then you have to salt the earth to shut Pliny up.
  - fnord77 5y ago
    and purge excess males from the population
- swarnie 5y ago
  > to not kill civilians and cause a PR nightmare Estimates sit at around 240,000 deaths, great job. Still better then the Iraqi genocide mind....
  - adventured 5y ago
    > Estimates sit at around 240,000 deaths You're of course referring to total estimated deaths over 20 years from all supposedly war-related causes (which includes poverty), not civilian deaths directly attributable to the US. The Taliban - as the blood-thirsty conquering force attempting to enslave the population of Afghanistan for the past several decades - is responsible for most of those deaths. It's funny how many people try to pretend the Taliban don't exist, their murders don't exist, the consequences of their conquering don't exist, and their aims don't exist, when it's convenient. The actual civilian deaths in Afghanistan by the US is a very small fraction of the number you're quoting, which is the point of the parent comment. The vast majority of violent civilian deaths were from the Taliban and associated groups, via suicide bombings and other intentional mass murder events. And the vast majority of all deaths during the Iraq civil war, were Iraqi on Iraqi murders. The US stepped in-between the warring factions and tried to stop it, which cost a lot of US blood and treasure. This isn't hidden magic information. It's right there in the estimates along with the number you quoted out of context. They break out how they arrive at the death totals.
    - hindsightbias 5y ago
      The US destabilized Iraq, leading to the Civil War. Not like they’re innocents in the matter.
    - swarnie 5y ago
      This is a lot of words to say: "We destabilised a region and are responsible for the MASSIVE number of civilian deaths as a result."
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Compare to the Soviet-Afghan war where the Soviets were not so nice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War > Civilians: 562,000–2,000,000 killed Most civilian deaths during the US war in Afghanistan appear to be from the Taliban themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban > According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 76% of Afghan civilian casualties in 2010, and 80% in 2011 and 2012.
- sofixa 5y ago
  That's naive. Strategic and tactical bombing did jack shit besides kill or at least make life miserable for lots of civilians, and destroy lots of land for the foreseeable future in Vietnam. Afghanistan is highly mountainous. Carpet bombing doesn't work very well for caves.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    We pulled our punches in Afghanistan. Commanders on the ground were asking for air-dropped landmines to cover the areas that Bin Laden could have been using as an escape in Tora Bora in December 2001. Air-dropped land-mines would have made navigating those mountains much more difficult for Bin Laden, and may have killed him on his escape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR_mine_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR_mine_system --------- They may use IADs, but we have far better equipment for that strategy. We can deploy our mines from airplanes and just blanket an area if we so choose. But of course: this strategy means killing innocent civilians who accidentally walk on the mines. -------- Difficult Terrain works for both sides. Sure, its difficult for us to move in, but that also makes it difficult for the enemy to move around. Doubly so if landmines are secretly littering areas.

Someone1234 5y ago

The military is bored and loves to spend money on shinies. Everyone works hard to un-learn the most important lesson of war: In war, more of something beats less of something. And it isn't simply a "morer is betterer" argument, even strategically if you can place assets in multiple concurrent locations even if those assets are "dumber" then you're forcing the enemy to split their force into multiple beachheads. Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano ($18M~) Vs. F-35A ($79M~). One F-35A obviously beats one Super Tucano but does it even have enough weapons onboard to beat 4.3? What if you split your Super Tucanos between two locations, which one is the F-35A going to defend? And the Super Tucano is even the endgame here, the endgame is drone swarms. $1M~/ea and you have a 79-1 ratio, and it is indefensible and laughably so.

KennyBlanken 5y ago
The F-35 is useless for long engagements, dead if it gets into a dogfight, and can't fly near thunderstorms or it might explode. This is assuming it doesn't suffocate its pilot to death, because Lockheed still can't get the oxygen system to work properly. The finest plane $350M (and climbing) can buy (for the F35-B variant. The A variant is down to "just" $100M or so.)
nradov 5y ago
The primary threat is surface-to-air missiles, not other aircraft. A Super Tucano is simply not survivable against modern SAMs, nor does it have the sensors necessary to attack hardened ground targets. The F-35 at least has a chance.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  The F-35 isn't completely stealth, it only offers a reduced sized signature for an aircraft of its size (no aircraft is completely, but the F-35 isn't even the best the US has in terms of stealth it isn't even in the top three). Before stealth small nimble aircraft avoided anti-aircraft fire by flying low where the horizon and or terrain would keep them shielded or provide physical barriers against missile intercept. That of course requires good low altitude, long duration flying which is also something the Super Tucano happens to excel at. I'd argue that the SAMs is an argument for "morer is betterer" since you're essentially pretending that the F-35 has perfect stealth instead of limited stealth, and relying on it being never shot down as your win condition (as opposed to building in losses and utilizing strategies not dependent on a technological advantage).