5 ms·

> So far nobody has built a tank, plane, or ship that can run on batteries and while drone technology has continued to advance in many critical ways they don't

> So far nobody has built a tank, plane, or ship that can run on batteries and while drone technology has continued to advance in many critical ways they don't bring the big bombs quite yet. Ukraine is proving that the "big bombs" are useless - fpv drones can and do take out tanks, planes and ships. They don't survive long enough to deliver the "big bombs". Russia is currently reduced to sending in unmechanised light infantry to try and take ground because everything larger doesn't survive (and the light infantry apparently survive for only 20 minutes on average). Russia's Black Sea fleet cowers in port under its anti-air defences and even then takes losses. Their long-range bombers are not being used in the long-range bombing of Ukraine's civilians, that's all down to cruise missiles, because they're too valuable to lose (and a lot of them have been destroyed on the runway by drones). The age of WW2-era mechanised warfare is gone. It's as obsolete as the cavalry that came before it.

ericmay 3mo ago
> Ukraine is proving that the "big bombs" are useless Depends on the application. The drones have to be manufactured somewhere. You need electricity. Running water. Industrial facilities. The big bomb still matters there. > The age of WW2-era mechanised warfare is gone. It's as obsolete as the cavalry that came before it. Well the primary issue is that drones can’t hold or take land, only deny. I think mechanized infantry will continue to have a place, they’ll just be augmented by drones. But who knows you could be right depending on how things develop.
- marcus_holmes 3mo ago
  > Well the primary issue is that drones can’t hold or take land, only deny. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-russia-position-taken-without-using-troops-just-robots-drones-2026-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-russia-position-take... That's changing
  - ericmay 3mo ago
    I agree and upvoted you for a good comment with a good source. In my mind I was thinking about how humans have to actually go back to the land. In Ukraine we’ve seen what amount to drone enforced no-man’s lands where no human can really seize or make use of the land. There of course can be the case where the drones clear the land of enemy troops and drones and then your own people or soldiers move and then occupy the land.
wildzzz 3mo ago
Sure but neither side has a B-2 or F-35. Drones are great for blowing up a few conscripts or a parked plane but a stealth bomber carrying 80 JDAMs can level 5km^2.
- marcus_holmes 3mo ago
  Which is working so well against Iran, right? Oh wait, no, the other thing.
  - budsniffer952 3mo ago
    Hilarious. You realize the US could nuke and flatten Iran tomorrow, right? Do you imagine that Trump was trying to conquer Iran and just couldn't do it with all the American military power? There is no scenario that Iran wins a war with the USA. They were trying to overthrow the regime, for the second time in a year, and failed.
    - ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
      > There is no scenario that Iran wins a war with the USA. It actually depends on what the you the outcome of the war to be: total conquest or regime change. The US can probably achieve total conquest, but not regime change. They spent 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan and left there without winning anything, especially in Afghanistan. If they wanted to erase Iraq and Afghanistan, that would have a been a totally different thing.
      - n4r9 3mo ago
        As with many modern wars, it's hard to say whether the Iraq war was won or lost, because the goals are difficult to discern.
        ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
        The internet never forgets: you go and find the first speech about why the war was started and look at the outcome. You can then judge for yourself if the war was won or lost. Obviously with all its nuances.
budsniffer952 3mo ago
You realize Russia has drones too, right? And also artillery shell manufacturing capacity 2x the west? And they continue to bombard Ukraine?
- marcus_holmes 3mo ago
  Russia is not using their drones in the same way that Ukraine is. Russia cannot get conventional artillery close enough to use it properly, and Ukraine is keeping personnel away from the front line so they're hard to spot and harder to hit. Russia is bombarding Ukraine's population centres with long-range cruise missiles. This is the failed Blitz strategy that Britain goaded Germany into during WW2 - get the enemy mad enough to bomb population centres, and not military or economic assets (Germany had almost achieved air superiority by bombing British airfields). Ukraine is leaving the population centres alone and focusing on economic and military production facilities. Russia is losing this war. And has been for over a year.
ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
Russia could end the war instantly with a few nukes if it wanted to. I don't get it why it hasn't done that yet. Pride?
- troupo 3mo ago
  Yup. As soon as Russia nukes someone, the war instantly ends. Because no one will ever think to retaliate.
  - ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
    I get the sarcasm, but besides the US that for whatever reason might retaliate with nukes, who else? And would they risk it just because?
    - n4r9 3mo ago
      UK and France are possibly more likely to retaliate, given the proximity.
      - ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
        Retaliate for what? They wouldn't be attacked. That's the thing I don't understand: why would they try to nuke Moscow if they weren't the ones attacked? And would they risk their own demise (considering the imbalance in warheads between them and Russia)?
        troupo 3mo ago
        Yup. Because a country attacking another with nuclear weapons in its mad genocidal occupational war it started under false pretenses will definitely sit back and do nothing once it showed it can and will use nuclear weapons for any cause.
    - __turbobrew__ 3mo ago
      I think if there is no retaliation to a nuclear strike on Ukraine, every nuclear capable country will rush towards nuclear weapons as fast as possible. The reason being, Europe has a long term understanding they are under the nuclear umbrella of the USA which means that Europe does not need to maintain their own atomic weapons. If that long term agreement does not hold, the only way to deter Russia is to have nuclear weapons of your own since you cannot rely on deterrence from other countries. Once everyone has nukes, Russia can no longer bully countries around because they will glass Moscow. This is a worse state than today where Russia can invade countries using conventional weapons without much consequence.
Epa095 3mo ago
There is a very very large ocean between China and the USA, you cant just assume the lessons from the Ukraine-Russian war will transfer. It would be a completely different beast, and as OP said, missiles might play an important role for both sides. In such a scenario we might see both powers having most of their industrial base destroyed before any of their soldiers (or drones) come into reach of each other.

ericmay 3mo ago

> Ukraine is proving that the "big bombs" are useless Depends on the application. The drones have to be manufactured somewhere. You need electricity. Running water. Industrial facilities. The big bomb still matters there. > The age of WW2-era mechanised warfare is gone. It's as obsolete as the cavalry that came before it. Well the primary issue is that drones can’t hold or take land, only deny. I think mechanized infantry will continue to have a place, they’ll just be augmented by drones. But who knows you could be right depending on how things develop.

marcus_holmes 3mo ago
> Well the primary issue is that drones can’t hold or take land, only deny. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-russia-position-taken-without-using-troops-just-robots-drones-2026-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-russia-position-take... That's changing
- ericmay 3mo ago
  I agree and upvoted you for a good comment with a good source. In my mind I was thinking about how humans have to actually go back to the land. In Ukraine we’ve seen what amount to drone enforced no-man’s lands where no human can really seize or make use of the land. There of course can be the case where the drones clear the land of enemy troops and drones and then your own people or soldiers move and then occupy the land.

wildzzz 3mo ago

Sure but neither side has a B-2 or F-35. Drones are great for blowing up a few conscripts or a parked plane but a stealth bomber carrying 80 JDAMs can level 5km^2.

marcus_holmes 3mo ago
Which is working so well against Iran, right? Oh wait, no, the other thing.
- budsniffer952 3mo ago
  Hilarious. You realize the US could nuke and flatten Iran tomorrow, right? Do you imagine that Trump was trying to conquer Iran and just couldn't do it with all the American military power? There is no scenario that Iran wins a war with the USA. They were trying to overthrow the regime, for the second time in a year, and failed.
  - ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
    > There is no scenario that Iran wins a war with the USA. It actually depends on what the you the outcome of the war to be: total conquest or regime change. The US can probably achieve total conquest, but not regime change. They spent 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan and left there without winning anything, especially in Afghanistan. If they wanted to erase Iraq and Afghanistan, that would have a been a totally different thing.
    - n4r9 3mo ago
      As with many modern wars, it's hard to say whether the Iraq war was won or lost, because the goals are difficult to discern.
      - ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
        The internet never forgets: you go and find the first speech about why the war was started and look at the outcome. You can then judge for yourself if the war was won or lost. Obviously with all its nuances.

budsniffer952 3mo ago

You realize Russia has drones too, right? And also artillery shell manufacturing capacity 2x the west? And they continue to bombard Ukraine?

marcus_holmes 3mo ago
Russia is not using their drones in the same way that Ukraine is. Russia cannot get conventional artillery close enough to use it properly, and Ukraine is keeping personnel away from the front line so they're hard to spot and harder to hit. Russia is bombarding Ukraine's population centres with long-range cruise missiles. This is the failed Blitz strategy that Britain goaded Germany into during WW2 - get the enemy mad enough to bomb population centres, and not military or economic assets (Germany had almost achieved air superiority by bombing British airfields). Ukraine is leaving the population centres alone and focusing on economic and military production facilities. Russia is losing this war. And has been for over a year.

ExoticPearTree 3mo ago

Russia could end the war instantly with a few nukes if it wanted to. I don't get it why it hasn't done that yet. Pride?

troupo 3mo ago
Yup. As soon as Russia nukes someone, the war instantly ends. Because no one will ever think to retaliate.
- ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
  I get the sarcasm, but besides the US that for whatever reason might retaliate with nukes, who else? And would they risk it just because?
  - n4r9 3mo ago
    UK and France are possibly more likely to retaliate, given the proximity.
    - ExoticPearTree 3mo ago
      Retaliate for what? They wouldn't be attacked. That's the thing I don't understand: why would they try to nuke Moscow if they weren't the ones attacked? And would they risk their own demise (considering the imbalance in warheads between them and Russia)?
      - troupo 3mo ago
        Yup. Because a country attacking another with nuclear weapons in its mad genocidal occupational war it started under false pretenses will definitely sit back and do nothing once it showed it can and will use nuclear weapons for any cause.
  - __turbobrew__ 3mo ago
    I think if there is no retaliation to a nuclear strike on Ukraine, every nuclear capable country will rush towards nuclear weapons as fast as possible. The reason being, Europe has a long term understanding they are under the nuclear umbrella of the USA which means that Europe does not need to maintain their own atomic weapons. If that long term agreement does not hold, the only way to deter Russia is to have nuclear weapons of your own since you cannot rely on deterrence from other countries. Once everyone has nukes, Russia can no longer bully countries around because they will glass Moscow. This is a worse state than today where Russia can invade countries using conventional weapons without much consequence.

Epa095 3mo ago

There is a very very large ocean between China and the USA, you cant just assume the lessons from the Ukraine-Russian war will transfer. It would be a completely different beast, and as OP said, missiles might play an important role for both sides. In such a scenario we might see both powers having most of their industrial base destroyed before any of their soldiers (or drones) come into reach of each other.