30 ms·
> Countermeasures can take out some attacking missiles, but not all of them. Exactly. On asymmetrical warfare, one side needs to get lucky all the time while t
by rbanffy 7mo ago
> Countermeasures can take out some attacking missiles, but not all of them.
Exactly. On asymmetrical warfare, one side needs to get lucky all the time while the other only needs to get lucky once.
> Mass-produced drones today are a simple airframe, a lawnmower engine, and the smarts of a cell phone. Ukraine has people making them in basements. Presumably, so does Iran.
Their cheap and simple nature allows them to easily swarm targets and saturate their defenses. You can defend from a dozen incoming drones, but a hundred is significantly more difficult.
Also, consider the massive quadcopter shows in China as an example of how a well placed shipping container can swarm a target and make a devastating attack. Ukraine demonstrated one and disabled a significant part of the Russian bomber fleet.
> Worst outcome is the US attacks Cuba, Cuba allies with Iran, it turns out that Cuba has been stocking up on Iranian drones, and Cuba becomes a forward base for drone and missile attacks on the southern US.
Cuba would be foolish not to do that at the first opportunity, not to attack the US, but to neutralize any offensive from the US. Without a navy, a land invasion, or an effective blockade, is impossible.
- dinkumthinkum 7mo agoCuba would be foolish not to “neutralize” the US? You think Cuba has the capability to destroy the US Navy? Where did you learn all this?
- rbanffy 7mo agoAttacking a navy has proven easy and cheap. Right now they lack any significant military capability but that will not last forever.
- dinkumthinkum 7mo agoAgain, based on what? What reality are you living in because it is not the consensus one. You're just saying that. Also, you went from "neutralizing" to "attacking." Attacking anything is pretty easy. I really need a better form anti-Americanism, the one I keep seeing on HN is so weak and boring.