3 ms·

> If a 50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center or expensive aircraft… I used to think like this as well, then I realized “how much do I value

> If a 50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center or expensive aircraft… I used to think like this as well, then I realized “how much do I value an apartment building full of people?” - which are often Russia’s targets.

epolanski 2mo ago
Those are more likely to be misses than deliberate attacks. There's no value in striking apartment blocks void of military equipments. You don't spend money to do so if you can hit more precious military or logistic or energy infrastructure.
- consumer451 2mo ago
  There are way too many residential buildings hit for it to be an accident, all the time. It’s a part of Moscow’s strategy to weaken civilian resolve. They did the same thing in Chechnya.
  - epolanski 2mo ago
    That's speculation. Let alone the fact that you can weaken civilian resolve better by hitting logistical hubs and energy infrastructure.
    - consumer451 2mo ago
      In any case, if you are watching the invader launch Shaheds into your country, and know that many will hit buildings full of people, that has to be factored in as well. Even if it cost $1M to take down a $25k Shahed, but it saved a life/lives, I could see a decision maker still doing that. I am certainly glad that I am not in the position to make such a decision. Of course, unless you have 40x the budget of the enemy forever, it's not sustainable. Also, how fast can you produce your $1M missile, vs. the enemy's $25k Shahed? I have been arguing that Shahed-style (cheap/easy to build/very long-range) cruise missiles completely changed the nature of warfare, for years now. A saturation attack like that is currently possible for a non-peer to pull off, and is currently not fully defendable. US and other military procurement folks have been asleep at the wheel on this for what, 4 years now? The proof is what Iran was able to do. How did not they see this coming? This should be a huge public scandal.

epolanski 2mo ago

Those are more likely to be misses than deliberate attacks. There's no value in striking apartment blocks void of military equipments. You don't spend money to do so if you can hit more precious military or logistic or energy infrastructure.

consumer451 2mo ago
There are way too many residential buildings hit for it to be an accident, all the time. It’s a part of Moscow’s strategy to weaken civilian resolve. They did the same thing in Chechnya.
- epolanski 2mo ago
  That's speculation. Let alone the fact that you can weaken civilian resolve better by hitting logistical hubs and energy infrastructure.
  - consumer451 2mo ago
    In any case, if you are watching the invader launch Shaheds into your country, and know that many will hit buildings full of people, that has to be factored in as well. Even if it cost $1M to take down a $25k Shahed, but it saved a life/lives, I could see a decision maker still doing that. I am certainly glad that I am not in the position to make such a decision. Of course, unless you have 40x the budget of the enemy forever, it's not sustainable. Also, how fast can you produce your $1M missile, vs. the enemy's $25k Shahed? I have been arguing that Shahed-style (cheap/easy to build/very long-range) cruise missiles completely changed the nature of warfare, for years now. A saturation attack like that is currently possible for a non-peer to pull off, and is currently not fully defendable. US and other military procurement folks have been asleep at the wheel on this for what, 4 years now? The proof is what Iran was able to do. How did not they see this coming? This should be a huge public scandal.