3 ms·
That argument does not hold. See the famous plane diagram - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald - you're talki
by roenxi 2y ago
That argument does not hold. See the famous plane diagram - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald - you're talking about a highly biased sample, it isn't safe to draw that sort of conclusion.
And that is even before the observation that killing people isn't necessarily (or even usually) the goal of war.
- looofooo0 2y agoYou mean people who make it back to doctors is biased? Maybe against guns or mortars, but not so much against artillery. But this bias is also a secondary effect stemming from drones, as it increases time to evacuate or denies it totally. Which means that guns and mortars became more deadly because of drones. You can also look at the statistics of number of bullets to kill someone in major wars. Which is shockingly high. So with single digit hit percentage of drones and the numbers of drones deployed...