3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoYes, 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.