5 ms·
The dangerous delusion of modern warfare
- runeks 4mo agohttps://archive.ph/2026.05.29-114338/https://www.economist.com/interactive/essay/2026/05/28/the-dangerous-delusion-of-modern-warfare https://archive.ph/2026.05.29-114338/https://www.economist.c...
- spiderfarmer 4mo agoEver since I consciously read and listened to people talking on tv and radio, so somewhere in the nineties, I heard countless military strategists explain why the war mongers in the USA were stupid to even think about subduing Iran by attacking them. Geography alone makes it impossible. The current situation is not a consequence of modern warfare. It’s a consequence of the many layers of hubris, stupidity and arrogance uttered by incompetent people who put up a show for a shrinking audience. The stupidity of the leadership in the USA is perfectly broadcasted in full view, for everyone to see, during Trump cabinet meetings, where he is undeservedly praised by weaker men and women. It shows all the weaknesses of the USA in just 5 minutes of watching that cringefest. You don’t even need spies.
- pingou 4mo agoI suspect the plan was (and still is) to weaken authorities in Iran so that the people take over. Or have the Iranian government reach a deal that would be less favorable to them. A plan with quite long odds you could rightly say, but not as stupid as subduing them by invading them I suppose.
- rrr_oh_man 4mo agoWho is the people, as opposed to who is in charge now?
- jim33442 4mo agoUS govt would've been propping someone else to take over if they were serious about that plan
- fontain 4mo agoTrump explicitly stated that was his aim, for the people to rise up after Trump did a little long distance assassination. The plan is far more stupid than subduing Iran by invasion. "At 2:30 a.m. EST on 28 February, Donald Trump released an eight-minute video statement on Truth Social, saying that the purpose of the US strikes in Iran was effectively[vague] regime change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war#Hostilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war#Hostilities
- pingou 4mo agoNot saying this is a smart plan, but how is it far more stupid than invading Iran which is basically impossible unless you are ready for tens or hundred of thousands of casualties among your own citizens?
- spiderfarmer 4mo agoWhat about not ending a thoroughly negotiated JCPOA just because it was one of Obama’s achievements? Who will ever trust the US enough to negotiate in earnest?
- pingou 4mo agoFor the third time I never said it was a good plan.
- spiderfarmer 4mo agoHe also said it was about The Bomb and nothing else. And that regime change has been achieved. And that the war is already over. Why do you feel the need to defend this stupidity? There’s only one group of people dumber than US politicians and that’s the American people who support them.
- watwut 4mo agoIt still sounds like a dumb plan, especially since part of it was the plan to put a hereditary king as new ruler in place - a king that lived outside of Iran the whole time. And per analysis I heard in French media from Iranian opposition understood the war as a war of destruction, not as a war of liberation. As they continued to be executed daily by the regime. Meanwhile one of multiple explicit day 1 plans was a plan to negotiate with successor within the regime - recreate the Venezuela situation where you keep the regime, keep its tortures, but put head more willing to give up oil on its head.
- spiderfarmer 4mo agoAfter all this, you still believe there’s a plan? At what age did you give up on Santa Claus?
- notaigenerated 4mo agoIt would help if the US didn't ignore the actual protests in Iran and haven't let the Iranian regime slaughter the protesters in hundreds or even thousands.
- roryirvine 4mo agoIt was even worse than that - the US leader actively encouraged the protests, only to forget about them once the slaughter began. "Iranian Patriots, keep protesting – take over your institutions!!! ... help is on its way", said Trump. And then... nothing. They could have provided money, weapons, intelligence, support of all kinds but instead chose to let their potential allies be slaughtered. Similarly, the US facilitated the dismantling of Rojava, the Kurdish polity in North-Eastern Syria. The Kurds had been led to believe that they'd be able to retain some form of semi-autonomy, but the US pulled the rug from them at the last possible moment. And then, er, wondered why their cousins in Iran weren't willing to rise up against the government there. It's almost as if they spent the whole of January putting themselves into the worst possible position for achieving their war aims. What did they hope to achieve by sabotaging themselves in that way?
- LAC-Tech 4mo agoI put this down to incompetence too. I know this is HN which mostly stakes it's claim on one side of the "culture war", but that is not where I am coming from - incompetence is incompetence, and we see that through the 2024 administration. (And I would argue - probably without much support here - a lot more incompetent than the 2016 administration which was unique in not actually starting new wars).
- jim33442 4mo agoIt's not even a partisan issue because mainstream Democrats support the war too, even though some of them are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They approved the emergency military aid to Israel right before.
- LAC-Tech 4mo agoThey are compromised by Israel enough to not come out strongly against it, but not enough that I think they would have gone ahead with it - you need Epstein level blackmail for that.
- jim33442 4mo agoI don't think they're this dumb, just bought by Israel. Same with the Iraq war that was obviously bogus.
- _bohm 4mo agoSure, Israel played a hand here, but it’s hard to believe they’re getting exactly what they wanted out of all of this either. Regime change does not seem like it’s coming any time soon. Unless that happens, any reductions in Iran’s capacity will be temporary. As for the Iraq war, Israel was supportive, but it would be incorrect to say the war was at their behest.
- warumdarum 4mo agoRelentlessly attacked its better to counter attack the to play the goalkeeper to exhaustion.
- jim33442 4mo agoI don't see why Israel would want regime change in Iran. The current one may hate them, but it's keeping the country poor and weak. Previous regime was starting to be a threat.
- _bohm 4mo agoWho do you think the previous regime was? The Shah was installed by the US and was friendly to Israel. Under the Islamic Republic, Iran has been hostile to Israel and funded proxy organizations that have been in conflict with it.
- jim33442 4mo agoShah Pahlavi was installed by the US but soured with us later on. OPEC involvement was a big part of that. By the end of his reign, he was openly calling the US a puppet of Israel and criticizing both countries' actions there, and the US considered Iran a free agent.
- warumdarum 4mo ago[flagged]
- watwut 4mo agoIf you mean Iran, they were actually following agreement in JCPOA and not building nukes, until Trump broke it. And they begotiated while USA bombed them twice during negotiations. This situation was created by USA and comment rightfully focuses on people who created it. > brown people cant be actors only acted upon Did you read some different comment? Cause nothing in that comment implies this. But in fact, this chaim of events was initiated and orchestrated entirely by American leadership.
- warumdarum 4mo agoAre you at all aware of the reguons history and the endless proxxy war between suni and shia?
- watwut 4mo agoYes I am aware of regions history. Nothing in that goes against what I wrote. I am also aware of UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel's history or recent actions. And of American involvement in region. Are you aware of ongoing proxy war between UAE and Saudi? You dont get to tear down nuclear agreement that was followed, then bomb twice during negotiations and then pretend the whole thing is about nuclear concern other side caused. And you dont get then try to shift the topic from nuclear to proxy war between everyone and everyone in that region. And if you are looking for the "good vs bad" division in this war, all I see is bunch of dictatorships, countries directly or indirectly engaged in current genocides and invasions. And country that caused this particular war and is in the process to become like that too. I am also aware and American actions in Greenland, murders in pacific and Venezuela. I am also aware of masculine insecurity and its relation to "starting wars to make us feel cool and powerful" factor of the situation.
- lelanthran 4mo agoI'm not sure what point you are replying to; my reading of GP's (somewhat incoherent) post is that Iran has more in common with Nazi Germany than it does with (most) of western civilisation. If we're working on a scale of 1-10 for "how close is a ruling government to Nazi Germany", Iran is maybe a 7 or 8. The US, despite Trump's best efforts, is still only at a relatively benign 3 or 4.
- accidentallfact 4mo agoFrom what I've read, Franz Ferdinand was the only one with any say in the matter, who could foresee the result of the war. So there is really nothing new about this.
- decimalenough 4mo agoThe archduke, the band, or some other soothsayer who shares the name?
- accidentallfact 4mo agoYes, the archduke who got assassinated just before the war started.
- decimalenough 4mo agoAnd what did he have to say about Trump's Iran war back in 1914?
- accidentallfact 4mo agoNothing of course. But he reportedly insisted that war with russia would lead to the rise of communism.
- rramadass 4mo agoIf you want to understand this, start with the classic Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47346164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47346164
- beloch 4mo ago"There are other similarities between Ukraine and Iran. Both are wars instigated by the leaders of great powers in the apparent belief of easy victory. Both have developed in ways those leaders did not anticipate into something like a stalemate—stalemates in which, for Russia and America alike, a lack of victory looks increasingly like defeat. Are technological changes making the role of the defender easier? Or systematically encouraging big powers to start wars they cannot win? Or is this merely a case of business as usual—great powers blundering into ill-advised wars that reflect the prevailing technologies of the day?" ------------------ Putin was advised that Russian disinfo had worked and Ukrainians would welcome Russian troops as liberators while Zelensky's government would fold immediately. His generals feared to offer a less rosy assessment because doing so would have been immediately fatal. Trump was advised that invading Iran was a very bad idea[1]. Putin's brutality led to him being misinformed, but Trump ignored good information and made a bad decision. New technology didn't cause either of these bad decisions. It was old-fashioned arrogance, thuggishness, and stupidity. As for drone warfare... A real X factor is going to be production capacity. Ukraine has managed to capture manned Russian positions with only drones. Drone tech evolves so quickly that one side's technological edge can be blunted or even reversed in just a few weeks or months. Stockpiles are not to be relied upon. Being able to out-evolve the enemy is critical, but being able to turn lessons learned into new hardware immediately will likely be a deciding factor in future conflicts. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0zrwzr519o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0zrwzr519o
- nkrisc 4mo agoIt will be interesting (and scary) to see weapons technology developed in near real time for the conflict that is actually happening, as opposed to the one you thought would happen 15 years ago.
- nfkhd67 4mo agoThe universe already created microbes. Check out how fast they can evolve. The chimp troupe is full of itself. Its intelligence and "innovations" are highly overated. Covid brought the whole world to its knees. No intelligence or drones required. As Lynn Margulis famously said - we are not the main show.
- Arodex 4mo ago>Their use accounts for a significant fraction of the 1.1m-1.4m Russian soldiers whom The Economist estimates to have been killed or wounded in the war: one in 25 of the country’s men under 50. Ukraine’s losses are lower, in part because it is costlier to attack than to defend, in part because Ukraine has gone further in substituting robots for humans. Ukraine’s losses equate to one in 16 of its pre-war 18- to 49-year-olds. ... Isn't 1 out of 16 higher than 1 out of 25? (May be still lower in absolute numbers due to the population size difference, but the original text is unclear)
- Forgeties79 4mo agoThey have ~1/5th the population of Russia. They shouldn’t use per capita in this context it’s a bit confusing.
- echoangle 4mo agoThe loss rate is higher but the losses are lower, because Ukraine has about 1/4 of the people Russia has.
- Arodex 4mo ago>William Owen, the editor of Military Strategy Magazine and an adviser to the British army, says that better trained and equipped armies would not be tied down in the first place. If first-rate Israeli kit and training were used against an opponent of the standard of Russia or Ukraine, he argues, $3,000 FPVs would be “mostly, if not completely, irrelevant”. Oh how much I wish Mr Owen would be sent to the front lines to see for himself how irrelevant he can make 3000$ drones.
- KaiserPro 4mo agoSo hes partly right. The reason why drones are _so_ devastating in ukraine is that there is no air superiority. that standard "modern" way is bomb the living shit out of anything armoured, and then push forward with your own armour. Hence why ukraine needed so many javelins to stop armour and helicopters. Its also why despite the sheer amount of stuff that Iran et al threw at Isreal, it hardly got through. unlike Oman or UAE. (However thats not actually apples to apples.) What isn't said is guerilla warefare with drones is devastating.
- notaigenerated 4mo ago"Air superiority" wouldn't do anything in 2026 unless you're fighting an African tribe with ak47s in a fullscale war and even then your enemies would probably supply the tribe with some air defense systems that would cause trouble for the pilots.