11 ms·
Dollars aren't directly convertible to warmaking power. The factories and skilled labor that make weapons are a scarce resource that don't scale with mere marke
by onthecanposting 3y ago
Dollars aren't directly convertible to warmaking power. The factories and skilled labor that make weapons are a scarce resource that don't scale with mere market capitalization.
That the Russian Federation has a small fraction of US GDP but has launched more cruise missiles in a single conflict (~7500) than the US has ever produced (4000 tomahawks) is an important example of this.
- ovi256 3y agoThe 7500 RU launched cruise missiles haven't achieved a tenth as much as the Tomahawks the US hit Iraq with. After that, Iraq didn't have a working integrated air defence any more. The RU missiles have killed plenty of civilians though.
- jopsen 3y agoTrue, but it's possibly fair to argue that its easier to scale up cheap drone production, than production of interceptors.
- ceejayoz 3y agoAt a certain point, US foreign policy tends to move from interceptors to flattening launch sites and key personnel.
- jopsen 3y agoYeah, I wouldn't be surprised.
- ethbr1 3y agoThe point is to have a deterrence gradient, so you always have (1) deescalate (lower), (2) match (proportionate), and (3) escalate (higher) responses, for any level of attack. If there's a level at which you don't have all three options, there exist political situations that can leave you vulnerable. E.g. if the US has no proportionate response to a Russian tactical nuclear strike on Ukrainian soil, it may hazard towards not escalating. Similarly, why the talking points of US response strikes for the past few decades have generally been 'this was a proportionate response.' But after the last warning to the Houthis, I expect the next ASBM or large drone that hits a civilian ship prompts a large US/UK (and maybe France and Germany) strike.
- nradov 3y agoDoes Germany actually have any significant strike capability in the region? The German military seems to have atrophied into more of a government jobs program than something which is actually combat effective. They've started rebuilding in response to Russian aggression but that process will take years.
- dragonwriter 3y agoWith actual attacks on US warships. we’re actually past the point that usually occurs.
- sudosysgen 3y agoThe point of these systems is that there's no launch site and it takes very little time to learn how to use them. The really key personnel are in Iran and very much difficult to assassinate (and easily replaced, too). The drones are relatively light, cheap, and can be launched with nothing but springs and wood. There's no value in the launch locations and in fact you can launch them from anywhere.
- cpursley 3y agoDo keep in mind that Iraq had ancient SAMs (only about 75 of them) and practically zero ISR support. US coalition forces hit them hard from the get-go. Ukraine had/has several hundred modern(ish) SAMs with the ISR support of NATO. There's a reason the Russians don't fly too far into Ukraine.
- greedo 3y agoThe Ukrainian air defense was not even close to modern. It consisted largely of older S-300s, some Tor, Buk and Tunguska systems that were leftovers from the fall of the USSR. They had some even older systems (S-75, S-125, S-200). So this is largely 30+ years old, and not very well maintained.
- cpursley 3y agoApparently the S-300s were maintained enough to spook the Russian AF. Also, there’s a variety of Western systems now.
- greedo 3y agoI wouldn't be surprised if they've completely depleted their inventory of S-300 missiles (5V55KD). The Texeira leaks seemed to indicate they would run out by Summer/Fall of 2023, though with the supply of IRIS/Patriot/NASAMs etc, they might have reserved some of them.
- sudosysgen 3y agoS-300 is not really comparable in terms of capability to S-75 and S-125. There is a quantum leap between decentralized networked mobile IADS with a combination of radar types and missile types and Iraq's S-125 systems. S-300 is still a very capable system today and 1990s' S-300 systems are only really a generation behind modern systems. They're about as recent as the systems on Ticonderogas and Arleigh Burkes that are very much still in service today.
- greedo 3y ago
- pclmulqdq 3y agoThe US conducts war with a scalpel. Russia does it with a rusty hatchet. Those cruise missiles from Russia are (relatively speaking) very cheap and inaccurate.
- guimplen 3y agoIn all recent US wars civilian casualties vastly outnumber military ones. In the Ukrainian war civilian casualties constitute less than 10% of overall casualties. Outstanding precision for a rusty hatchet.
- dragonwriter 3y agoMost recent US wars have spent most of their time in an asymmetric counterinsurgency phase, the Russo-Ukrainian war is (in style of warfare) basically a symmetric force-on-force international war. These have very different dynamics, inherently.
- gpderetta 3y agoWe also don't know the full extent of civilian casualties.
- 93po 3y agoThis reads like propaganda. The US military does a fine job of destroying entire countries
- getpokedagain 3y agoIt's actually worse. I read this as Russia accidentally hits civilians because they have no choice where as we do it with intention.
- meepmorp 3y agoRussia hitting civilians isn’t really accidental. They’re quite happy to terrorize the population, and are quite comfortable deliberately committing atrocities (see Bucha, et al). Flattening whole cities is longstanding practice of theirs, too; it’s largely how they won Chechnya 2. At best, their weapons aren’t terribly precise and they don’t particularly care about that.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> That the Russian Federation has a small fraction of US GDP but has launched more cruise missiles in a single conflict (~7500) than the US has ever produced (4000 tomahawks) is an important example of this. The US has built a lot more cruise missiles than just its Tomahawks [0], and the US has a less cruise missile dependent doctrine because it is heavily invested in acheiving air superiority and delivering smart glide bombs, and shorter-range missiles that are much cheaper. [0] ~7500 Harpoons, some large number I can't readily pin down of SLAM (AGM-84E) and SLAM-ER (AGM-84H/K) developed from the Harpoon, ~2000 AGM-86, ~1600 AGM-129, 2000+ AGM-158, plus some more developed ans retired in the first half of the Cold War
- mnbion 3y ago>Russia has launched more cruise missiles in a single conflict (~7500) What is the source for that number? The only long-range weapons Russia has launched thousands of are the Iranian-made long-range suicide drones.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> The only long-range weapons Russia has launched thousands of are the Iranian-made long-range suicide drones. They've also used lots of (mostly, IIRC, air launched) ballistic missiles and (conventional) cruise missiles. The reason there have been deep strikes by Ukraine on Russian bomber bases are because those bombers were used to fire long range missiles into Ukraine. Though the “suicide drones”, while designed as loitering munitions, are basically used as propeller driven cruise missiles rather than in a loitering role.
- ajuc 3y ago> That the Russian Federation has a small fraction of US GDP but has launched more cruise missiles in a single conflict (~7500) than the US has ever produced (4000 tomahawks) is an important example of this. By their fruits you'll know them. If Russia was able to destroy the enemy like USA did with half the number of missiles - they absolutely would. But they can't (mostly because USA has system where it takes minutes from recognizing targets to destroying them, and in Russia it takes hours - so they can only hit stationary targets reliably), so they have to go into quantity instead. Also USA use bombs much more often (because they could - because they obliterated the air defence in the first hours which Russia still can't do).
- mlyle 3y agoI feel like your argument shows the opposite: there are significant economies of scale to making munitions. If we have to make a lot of interceptors, in the long run-- it's going to be much cheaper than it is currently.