3 ms·

While I personally detest wars, the reality of them is it’s not about being cost effective. It’s about winning. If it’s within an organization’s means to spend

While I personally detest wars, the reality of them is it’s not about being cost effective. It’s about winning. If it’s within an organization’s means to spend $100k (within means being the key part) to be able to destroy 500 dollar drones in a way that increases the ability to win compared to not having it, then purely from the war perspective, it makes sense. Of course, the entire concept of war is laden with waste and destruction, so it’s almost never in alignment with the economically and environmentally optimized choice. The largest militaries have access to such an insane amount of money that almost anything that wins better will be purchased, despite the monetary return not justifying the monetary cost. In life and death situations, a soldier backed by that money isn’t going to care how much money they wasted. Just that they remain alive and the enemy loses.

Barrin92 3y ago
> it’s not about being cost effective. It’s about winning. well, you win by being cost effective. Most modern wars are contests of attrition and logistics and bringing down political will to continue to fight, Ukraine being a good example now, but Afghanistan too of course. Tactically costs don't always matter, but the overall strategic goal has to be to trade favorably.
- eindiran 3y ago
  Yes, but "cost effectiveness" means very different things sometimes. If, for example a hypothetical country were to have huge stores of old equipment to throw at a problem, losing material from the stockpile doesn't actually "cost" the value of producing the stuff new would. Or a hypothetical country with a massive industrial base, fighting a minor proxy war that is politically unpopular at home. Or a hypothetical country, with a tiny population and no native industry, fighting a massive power in a long-lasting guerrilla campaign using material donated from regional powers. Etc, etc. > Most modern wars are contests of attrition and logistics and bringing down political will to continue to fight This second point is very well taken; I would extend it even further -- wars have always been contests of attrition, logistics, and political will, but this has been sharply highlighted in all the major conflicts since the turn of the 20th century.

Barrin92 3y ago

> it’s not about being cost effective. It’s about winning. well, you win by being cost effective. Most modern wars are contests of attrition and logistics and bringing down political will to continue to fight, Ukraine being a good example now, but Afghanistan too of course. Tactically costs don't always matter, but the overall strategic goal has to be to trade favorably.

eindiran 3y ago
Yes, but "cost effectiveness" means very different things sometimes. If, for example a hypothetical country were to have huge stores of old equipment to throw at a problem, losing material from the stockpile doesn't actually "cost" the value of producing the stuff new would. Or a hypothetical country with a massive industrial base, fighting a minor proxy war that is politically unpopular at home. Or a hypothetical country, with a tiny population and no native industry, fighting a massive power in a long-lasting guerrilla campaign using material donated from regional powers. Etc, etc. > Most modern wars are contests of attrition and logistics and bringing down political will to continue to fight This second point is very well taken; I would extend it even further -- wars have always been contests of attrition, logistics, and political will, but this has been sharply highlighted in all the major conflicts since the turn of the 20th century.