3 ms·

The more interesting question isn't "how many Abrams?" these days, but rather "how many drones?" For example, Ukraine was planning to produce 1 million drones

The more interesting question isn't "how many Abrams?" these days, but rather "how many drones?" For example, Ukraine was planning to produce 1 million drones in 2024. They actually produced >2 million. For this year, they intend to produce 4.5 million (and appear to be on track for that). What makes this especially interesting is that a single drone is cheap enough that it's possible even for individuals to own small swarms or to crowdfund larger ones. So there's no well-defined cliff of power here as there was with high-tech weaponry like tanks - you can gradually scale up to whatever resources allow. Meaning that it's much easier to be a "small feudal" type of an autocrat, for example.

throwanem 1y ago
You can gradually scale to what resources allow. Governments can do so far faster and further, and often already own ordnance in a range of readily deliverable sizes, from two-thousand-pound demolition bombs to missiles suitable for use against even small general-aviation aircraft.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  What's the difference between a feudal lord and a government again? The point here is that previously there was a stark cliff related to things like budget (more accurately several cliffs at different locations). Moving to a smooth(er) function levels the playing field to a large degree. It's also notable that semi-autonomous UAVs are extremely well suited to asymmetric warfare tactics.
  - throwanem 1y ago
    > What's the difference between a feudal lord and a government again? I don't know. Do you? My prior interlocutor cited a state in example of this putative lordlet's theoretically plausible capabilities. I see you claim there is no difference in kind and none significant in degree. But you do actually need to make an argument about that. Just saying it won't do. It's interesting you mention asymmetrical warfare, the fundamental axiom of which as a concept is that the nonstate or nonpeer force has no chance whatsoever through conventional tactics, which are far more reliable and thus invariably used for practical reasons when practicable. (Americans always get this wrong because of Vietnam. The NVA and the VC were not the same force, dammit!) To cast the conflict in such terms, with the billionaire in place of the "asymmetrical" belligerent, thus makes my point for me in neater, more concise, and no less accurate terms than I myself expected to ever get away with on this website. You have my genuine thanks for that valuable assistance in clarifying my thinking.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      I'm suggesting that there is no difference in the dictionary sense. I believe the burden is on you to clearly articulate the distinction that you are attempting to draw between the two. To put it differently, I suspect that when you say "government" your intent is to refer to something else. Hence my question. > the nonstate or nonpeer force has no chance whatsoever through conventional tactics, which are far more reliable and thus invariably used for practical reasons when practicable. I'd have to disagree. It refers broadly to tactics that don't favor size (ie expendable manpower, cash, physical resources, etc) to the same degree as conventional ones. Questions of reliability, cost, speed, user safety, and all sorts of other considerations apply in equal measure to any tactic that any party of any size might consider employing and tend to vary wildly depending on the context. > Americans always get this wrong because of Vietnam. The NVA and the VC were not the same force, dammit! ... NVA? Was the US pushed out by a non-peer adversary or not? Were any favorable alternatives available? Isn't that all that matters at the end of the day? > thus makes my point for me Unfortunately I remain in the dark.
      - throwanem 1y ago
        I meant "state," and was sloppy in my terms ironically in hope of aiding understanding since no one here even seems to know what distinguishes a state from a nation. The distinction here between state and feudal (ie vassal) lord is in sovereignty and should be trivial to all but a Randite, which is what you argue like whether you claim the allegiance or not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44231857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44231857 I've always found it a bewildering irony that soi-disant "objectivists" should so constantly display such pervasive inclarity of thought, and the "rationalists" lately likewise. What you really want to talk about and don't know it is a warlord. But we do at least agree that Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or any of that ilk, and any given Somali "general," deserve to be taken about as seriously as one another.
    - int_19h 1y ago
      I cited a state as an example of the kind of scale that even a relatively poor state can pull off. But the point is that you don't need a million drones to have sufficient capacity for organized violence to be a state. FWIW I don't think drones count as "asymmetrical warfare". They might have been that ten years ago, but a lot has changed since then. Today, they are very much part of conventional warfare, and the state with more drones still wins, all else being equal.

throwanem 1y ago

You can gradually scale to what resources allow. Governments can do so far faster and further, and often already own ordnance in a range of readily deliverable sizes, from two-thousand-pound demolition bombs to missiles suitable for use against even small general-aviation aircraft.

fc417fc802 1y ago
What's the difference between a feudal lord and a government again? The point here is that previously there was a stark cliff related to things like budget (more accurately several cliffs at different locations). Moving to a smooth(er) function levels the playing field to a large degree. It's also notable that semi-autonomous UAVs are extremely well suited to asymmetric warfare tactics.
- throwanem 1y ago
  > What's the difference between a feudal lord and a government again? I don't know. Do you? My prior interlocutor cited a state in example of this putative lordlet's theoretically plausible capabilities. I see you claim there is no difference in kind and none significant in degree. But you do actually need to make an argument about that. Just saying it won't do. It's interesting you mention asymmetrical warfare, the fundamental axiom of which as a concept is that the nonstate or nonpeer force has no chance whatsoever through conventional tactics, which are far more reliable and thus invariably used for practical reasons when practicable. (Americans always get this wrong because of Vietnam. The NVA and the VC were not the same force, dammit!) To cast the conflict in such terms, with the billionaire in place of the "asymmetrical" belligerent, thus makes my point for me in neater, more concise, and no less accurate terms than I myself expected to ever get away with on this website. You have my genuine thanks for that valuable assistance in clarifying my thinking.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    I'm suggesting that there is no difference in the dictionary sense. I believe the burden is on you to clearly articulate the distinction that you are attempting to draw between the two. To put it differently, I suspect that when you say "government" your intent is to refer to something else. Hence my question. > the nonstate or nonpeer force has no chance whatsoever through conventional tactics, which are far more reliable and thus invariably used for practical reasons when practicable. I'd have to disagree. It refers broadly to tactics that don't favor size (ie expendable manpower, cash, physical resources, etc) to the same degree as conventional ones. Questions of reliability, cost, speed, user safety, and all sorts of other considerations apply in equal measure to any tactic that any party of any size might consider employing and tend to vary wildly depending on the context. > Americans always get this wrong because of Vietnam. The NVA and the VC were not the same force, dammit! ... NVA? Was the US pushed out by a non-peer adversary or not? Were any favorable alternatives available? Isn't that all that matters at the end of the day? > thus makes my point for me Unfortunately I remain in the dark.
    - throwanem 1y ago
      I meant "state," and was sloppy in my terms ironically in hope of aiding understanding since no one here even seems to know what distinguishes a state from a nation. The distinction here between state and feudal (ie vassal) lord is in sovereignty and should be trivial to all but a Randite, which is what you argue like whether you claim the allegiance or not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44231857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44231857 I've always found it a bewildering irony that soi-disant "objectivists" should so constantly display such pervasive inclarity of thought, and the "rationalists" lately likewise. What you really want to talk about and don't know it is a warlord. But we do at least agree that Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or any of that ilk, and any given Somali "general," deserve to be taken about as seriously as one another.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    I cited a state as an example of the kind of scale that even a relatively poor state can pull off. But the point is that you don't need a million drones to have sufficient capacity for organized violence to be a state. FWIW I don't think drones count as "asymmetrical warfare". They might have been that ten years ago, but a lot has changed since then. Today, they are very much part of conventional warfare, and the state with more drones still wins, all else being equal.