3 ms·

Let's imagine a hypothetical symmetrical war between two modern countries. One can disable the other's satellites and maintain their own fleet. The other can'

Let's imagine a hypothetical symmetrical war between two modern countries. One can disable the other's satellites and maintain their own fleet. The other can't get access to any third parties' satellites. You aren't going to send your steel navy out when one side can see you from space and you can't, almost regardless of the numbers. Your big army of steel tanks is useless against a bunch of drones directed by distribute satellites.

wongarsu 3mo ago
In a defensive war, a steel navy sitting in spitting distance of your shores and an army of steel tanks will still do a lot to keep the enemy at bay. And you can swap the tank turrets for Gatling guns on some of your newly produced tanks to help against drones You wouldn't be able to win the war in your scenario, but you could still do a lot to make sure the other side isn't winning either.
- georgeecollins 3mo ago
  If machine guns were useful against drones Russia would be winning in Ukraine. Check out Russia's Black Sea fleet to learn the fate of your navy sitting by your shores.
  - echelon_musk 3mo ago
    The PM M1910 is used by Ukraine to shoot down drones.
  - 8note 3mo ago
    russia is currently holding just about all the land it wants in Ukraine They might not be taking Kiev for a hundred years, but the fortress belt is well within reach in the next couple of years If they were to negotiate an end tomorrow, Russia certainly wouldnt be giving up territory in ukraine. i dont see how thats not winning
    - afavour 3mo ago
      If you’re looking at win vs loss you also need to look at what you got in return for what you gave. A ton of casualties and further international isolation aren’t really worth the middling gains Russia could negotiate for peace today. Which is probably one of the reasons they still haven’t, sunk cost fallacy and all that.
      - GJim 3mo ago
        > If you’re looking at win vs loss you also need to look at what you got in return for what you gave. This. Russia is suffering over 400 casualties for every square km (1036 per square mile!) of territory captured in Donetsk, screwing their own economy and turning themselves into a pariah. Russia certainly isn't winning. https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-14-2026/ https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian...
        fsuts 3mo ago
        Ukraine taking on rounds after rounds of multi billion euro loans also isn’t winning… They need a peace deal but external parties don’t want Ukraine to do this. The same ones lending the money
        illliillll 3mo ago
        Neither side needs a peace deal as of right now, that’s completely ridiculous.
    - onlypassingthru 3mo ago
      Russia is not only on the precipice of giving up territory in Ukraine, it's likely to give up so much more because its ability to function as a country is being systematically destroyed. The only barrier between Russians and anarchy is the last nine meals they’ve had. How's the summer harvest coming along?
      - 3mo ago
  - AngryData 3mo ago
    Is it that they can't work, or that they are too expensive for Russia to field any appreciable amount that won't just make them valuable targets? Its not trivial to produce the hundreds of thousands of rounds you need for each one to be ready.
    - Sabinus 3mo ago
      If there is any nation on earth that is capable of cheaply producing large quantities of simple weapons of war it is the Russians. The issue is not a lack of cheap bullets.
pjc50 3mo ago
Everyone in this discussion seems to be forgetting Trident as well. There's a lot of assumption the next war will be helpfully similar to WW2, and some sort of reverse sweet spot where we are subject to naval interdiction but will not deploy the strategic nuclear deterrent, and at the same time have enough time to build things, but not things that require any of the rest of the supply chain than steel (I have bad news about the number of ASIC fabs in the UK). Back to "dead men dominate UK politics". In this case, we're trying to refight a war from 70 years ago.
- franktankbank 3mo ago
  We follow a path governed only by the logic chain of previous mistakes. Our next recognition of one could be pretty brutal.
- thegrim33 3mo ago
  The absolute worst case is that it's not advantageous/useful at all in the next war to have the capability, but it wouldn't harm you at all if you do have it, it just wouldn't be useful. In every other case, from the worst case all the way up the continuum to the best case, having the capability is beneficial to varying levels of degree.
  - Sabinus 3mo ago
    How many billions have you spent propping up useless industries in the years before the war though? What capacities could have been built with those billions otherwise?
- benj111 3mo ago
  Well if trident gets used then what comes next is irrelevant. It's like planning for your house burning down V dying. If you're dead you don't really need to worry about the after. So yes the military plans for everyone but global thermo nuclear war, because there's no point planning for that anyway. I wouldn't say were planning for the next ww2. Look at the number of tanks we have. If anything were over optimised for helping the US fight insurgencies in the middle east at the expense of being able to fight a high intensity war.
pseudohadamard 3mo ago
For Americans wondering why they were making a Judas Priest album public property, it's actually a company based in S****horpe.
- t0mpr1c3 3mo ago
  S tier post

wongarsu 3mo ago

In a defensive war, a steel navy sitting in spitting distance of your shores and an army of steel tanks will still do a lot to keep the enemy at bay. And you can swap the tank turrets for Gatling guns on some of your newly produced tanks to help against drones You wouldn't be able to win the war in your scenario, but you could still do a lot to make sure the other side isn't winning either.

georgeecollins 3mo ago
If machine guns were useful against drones Russia would be winning in Ukraine. Check out Russia's Black Sea fleet to learn the fate of your navy sitting by your shores.
- echelon_musk 3mo ago
  The PM M1910 is used by Ukraine to shoot down drones.
- 8note 3mo ago
  russia is currently holding just about all the land it wants in Ukraine They might not be taking Kiev for a hundred years, but the fortress belt is well within reach in the next couple of years If they were to negotiate an end tomorrow, Russia certainly wouldnt be giving up territory in ukraine. i dont see how thats not winning
  - afavour 3mo ago
    If you’re looking at win vs loss you also need to look at what you got in return for what you gave. A ton of casualties and further international isolation aren’t really worth the middling gains Russia could negotiate for peace today. Which is probably one of the reasons they still haven’t, sunk cost fallacy and all that.
    - GJim 3mo ago
      > If you’re looking at win vs loss you also need to look at what you got in return for what you gave. This. Russia is suffering over 400 casualties for every square km (1036 per square mile!) of territory captured in Donetsk, screwing their own economy and turning themselves into a pariah. Russia certainly isn't winning. https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-14-2026/ https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian...
      - fsuts 3mo ago
        Ukraine taking on rounds after rounds of multi billion euro loans also isn’t winning… They need a peace deal but external parties don’t want Ukraine to do this. The same ones lending the money
        illliillll 3mo ago
        Neither side needs a peace deal as of right now, that’s completely ridiculous.
  - onlypassingthru 3mo ago
    Russia is not only on the precipice of giving up territory in Ukraine, it's likely to give up so much more because its ability to function as a country is being systematically destroyed. The only barrier between Russians and anarchy is the last nine meals they’ve had. How's the summer harvest coming along?
    - 3mo ago
- AngryData 3mo ago
  Is it that they can't work, or that they are too expensive for Russia to field any appreciable amount that won't just make them valuable targets? Its not trivial to produce the hundreds of thousands of rounds you need for each one to be ready.
  - Sabinus 3mo ago
    If there is any nation on earth that is capable of cheaply producing large quantities of simple weapons of war it is the Russians. The issue is not a lack of cheap bullets.

pjc50 3mo ago

Everyone in this discussion seems to be forgetting Trident as well. There's a lot of assumption the next war will be helpfully similar to WW2, and some sort of reverse sweet spot where we are subject to naval interdiction but will not deploy the strategic nuclear deterrent, and at the same time have enough time to build things, but not things that require any of the rest of the supply chain than steel (I have bad news about the number of ASIC fabs in the UK). Back to "dead men dominate UK politics". In this case, we're trying to refight a war from 70 years ago.

franktankbank 3mo ago
We follow a path governed only by the logic chain of previous mistakes. Our next recognition of one could be pretty brutal.
thegrim33 3mo ago
The absolute worst case is that it's not advantageous/useful at all in the next war to have the capability, but it wouldn't harm you at all if you do have it, it just wouldn't be useful. In every other case, from the worst case all the way up the continuum to the best case, having the capability is beneficial to varying levels of degree.
- Sabinus 3mo ago
  How many billions have you spent propping up useless industries in the years before the war though? What capacities could have been built with those billions otherwise?
benj111 3mo ago
Well if trident gets used then what comes next is irrelevant. It's like planning for your house burning down V dying. If you're dead you don't really need to worry about the after. So yes the military plans for everyone but global thermo nuclear war, because there's no point planning for that anyway. I wouldn't say were planning for the next ww2. Look at the number of tanks we have. If anything were over optimised for helping the US fight insurgencies in the middle east at the expense of being able to fight a high intensity war.

pseudohadamard 3mo ago

For Americans wondering why they were making a Judas Priest album public property, it's actually a company based in S****horpe.

t0mpr1c3 3mo ago
S tier post