3 ms·

I'm not arguing that. Technology can make smaller forces stronger. But it can also make larger forces stronger. Technology + people loses to the same technolog

by juve1996 4y ago

I'm not arguing that. Technology can make smaller forces stronger. But it can also make larger forces stronger. Technology + people loses to the same technology + more people. If Ukraine had more people, the war would be going much more favorably, for example.

nine_k 4y ago
Roughly, if you have much more people than guns, these people, however brave, don't have any more guns to man, and making them fight with spears is pointless. A technology makes more people stronger only if it can be scaled; Ukraine in particular is strained more by things like the number of 155 mm shells, HIMARS rockets, advanced tanks than by the number of willing infantrymen, as far as I can tell from reporting. A small group with an advanced coercion tech subduing a larger group that lack it is just a very common scenario, sadly. Modern technology though becomes more and more affordable and scalable, potentially empowering the oppressed: say, off-the-shelf "big toy" drones made some difference in the Ukraine war.
- juve1996 4y ago
  > Roughly, if you have much more people than guns, these people, however brave, don't have any more guns to man, and making them fight with spears is pointless. Russia has thrown tons of ill-equipped troops at a more technologically advanced Ukraine. Clearly, it isn't pointess. Infantrymen storm machine gun positions quite often. Technologically they're at a disadvantage. But the hill still needs taken. That isnt' "pointless." > A small group with an advanced coercion tech subduing a larger group that lack it is just a very common scenario, sadly. Modern technology though becomes more and more affordable and scalable, potentially empowering the oppressed: say, off-the-shelf "big toy" drones made some difference in the Ukraine war. As that technology becomes more scalable and affordable, large nations are able to adopt it at a larger scale. The higher your population, the more potential users of that technology. Again, the point is clear: technology + small population, in general, loses to technology + large population. The point the article made is flawed. You still need manpower. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan. Billions in tech. Failures.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > Roughly, if you have much more people than guns, these people, however brave, don't have any more guns to man, and making them fight with spears is pointless. Russia's experience in WW2 is a counter-example: have a line of 5+ guys, the first guy gets the gun, and the entire group charge forward. When the front man is inevitably shot the second guy picks up the gun and the group continues forward. Having more men allows one to wage a war of attrition. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare Works best when one doesn't care about casualty numbers.
Slava_Propanei 4y ago
[dead]
inglor_cz 4y ago
The "+" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your argument. It is not trivial to transfer technology, especially on a large scale and in warfare conditions. The Russians probably have all the necessary know-how to create something like HIMARS. But they cannot design and manufacture such a weapon quickly enough, much less deploy it. The same probably applied to the Nazis and the atomic bomb. Their physics was up to par, but their entire industrial complex wasn't.
- juve1996 4y ago
  > It is not trivial to transfer technology, especially on a large scale and in warfare conditions. Sure it is. There are countless examples of this throughout history. We're doing this transfer of technology RIGHT NOW en masse to Ukraine. > The Russians probably have all the necessary know-how to create something like HIMARS. But they cannot design and manufacture such a weapon quickly enough, much less deploy it. Not sure how this is relevant at all. Logistics is a different problem. In any case, the russians still control massive regions of Ukraine. While their overextension is a failure, the war is a long way from over, and Russia has always historically been able to grind opponents down. > The same probably applied to the Nazis and the atomic bomb. Their physics was up to par, but their entire industrial complex wasn't. Of course - late in the war their cities were being firebombed, factories under constant bombing raids. This isn't a technological problem. The US was able to build without any threat whatsoever, thus, irrelevant to our debate here.
- ianburrell 4y ago
  Russia has a lot MLRS artillery in Ukraine and are using it heavily. Ukraine has MLRS too but used most of their stocks and slowly building locally. The difference isn’t HIMARS but the guided rockets, GMLRS and GLSDB, that US has been giving Ukraine. This changes HIMARS from something that can destroy an area to something that hit small targets. It means that can use $100k rocket instead of air attack to destroy supply dumps, command posts, and bridges.

nine_k 4y ago

Roughly, if you have much more people than guns, these people, however brave, don't have any more guns to man, and making them fight with spears is pointless. A technology makes more people stronger only if it can be scaled; Ukraine in particular is strained more by things like the number of 155 mm shells, HIMARS rockets, advanced tanks than by the number of willing infantrymen, as far as I can tell from reporting. A small group with an advanced coercion tech subduing a larger group that lack it is just a very common scenario, sadly. Modern technology though becomes more and more affordable and scalable, potentially empowering the oppressed: say, off-the-shelf "big toy" drones made some difference in the Ukraine war.

juve1996 4y ago
> Roughly, if you have much more people than guns, these people, however brave, don't have any more guns to man, and making them fight with spears is pointless. Russia has thrown tons of ill-equipped troops at a more technologically advanced Ukraine. Clearly, it isn't pointess. Infantrymen storm machine gun positions quite often. Technologically they're at a disadvantage. But the hill still needs taken. That isnt' "pointless." > A small group with an advanced coercion tech subduing a larger group that lack it is just a very common scenario, sadly. Modern technology though becomes more and more affordable and scalable, potentially empowering the oppressed: say, off-the-shelf "big toy" drones made some difference in the Ukraine war. As that technology becomes more scalable and affordable, large nations are able to adopt it at a larger scale. The higher your population, the more potential users of that technology. Again, the point is clear: technology + small population, in general, loses to technology + large population. The point the article made is flawed. You still need manpower. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan. Billions in tech. Failures.
throw0101c 4y ago
> Roughly, if you have much more people than guns, these people, however brave, don't have any more guns to man, and making them fight with spears is pointless. Russia's experience in WW2 is a counter-example: have a line of 5+ guys, the first guy gets the gun, and the entire group charge forward. When the front man is inevitably shot the second guy picks up the gun and the group continues forward. Having more men allows one to wage a war of attrition. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare Works best when one doesn't care about casualty numbers.

Slava_Propanei 4y ago

[dead]

inglor_cz 4y ago

The "+" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your argument. It is not trivial to transfer technology, especially on a large scale and in warfare conditions. The Russians probably have all the necessary know-how to create something like HIMARS. But they cannot design and manufacture such a weapon quickly enough, much less deploy it. The same probably applied to the Nazis and the atomic bomb. Their physics was up to par, but their entire industrial complex wasn't.

juve1996 4y ago
> It is not trivial to transfer technology, especially on a large scale and in warfare conditions. Sure it is. There are countless examples of this throughout history. We're doing this transfer of technology RIGHT NOW en masse to Ukraine. > The Russians probably have all the necessary know-how to create something like HIMARS. But they cannot design and manufacture such a weapon quickly enough, much less deploy it. Not sure how this is relevant at all. Logistics is a different problem. In any case, the russians still control massive regions of Ukraine. While their overextension is a failure, the war is a long way from over, and Russia has always historically been able to grind opponents down. > The same probably applied to the Nazis and the atomic bomb. Their physics was up to par, but their entire industrial complex wasn't. Of course - late in the war their cities were being firebombed, factories under constant bombing raids. This isn't a technological problem. The US was able to build without any threat whatsoever, thus, irrelevant to our debate here.
ianburrell 4y ago
Russia has a lot MLRS artillery in Ukraine and are using it heavily. Ukraine has MLRS too but used most of their stocks and slowly building locally. The difference isn’t HIMARS but the guided rockets, GMLRS and GLSDB, that US has been giving Ukraine. This changes HIMARS from something that can destroy an area to something that hit small targets. It means that can use $100k rocket instead of air attack to destroy supply dumps, command posts, and bridges.