5 ms·

Drones are the number one killer between all weapons deployed in Ukraine. More than artillery or airstrikes.

by esseph 1mo ago

jijijijij 1mo ago
I think they meant the kind of warfare cheap drones encourage. I believe they implied other means may result in quicker conflict resolution. I think the problem is, apart from deploying nuclear weapons, air-based warfare campaigns have never really been all that effective at achieving strategic goals. Bombing stuff always seems promising, but in reality consequences are hard to predict due to complexity and results tend to be underwhelming. For the same reason, cheap drones favor the defender IMO. A typical country can sustain quite a bit of damage on home soil, without losing will to fight and popular support. On the other hand, the attacking carrier on their coast line, becomes a singular target instrumental to the aggressor's war efforts. On the front, cheap drones freeze the contact line, which of course also benefits the defender. Ukraine is very successful at keeping front lines relatively stable, despite man power shortages, due to drones, but neither Ukraine, nor Russia are very successful with their deep strike drone campaigns. I mean stuff is burning all over, but it changes little for ending the war so far. Train tracks are quickly back in operation, refineries repaired, stocks replenished, behavior patterns changed. Population experiencing reverse hedonistic adaptation to the new shitty normal. No models to predict resilience. Collapse may happen instantly or not at all. Also pretty evident with the US/Israel aggression against Iran right now. It somehow always takes a lot more than expected to break your enemy in the deep.
- esseph 1mo ago
  > For the same reason, cheap drones favor the defender IMO. Disagree completely 1,000,000% For a few thousand dollars, you could attack a major highway or rail network or port a few times. The cost to defend would be astronomical compared to the cost of the attack. Defense against cheap drones is the real drone cost, not the drone itself.
  - jijijijij 1mo ago
    I meant defender, as in country being attacked. As in not the the aggressor. In the concrete instance of AA defense you are correct. You basically can't prevent drone damage actively, since every AA system can be easily overwhelmed and costs are very asymmetrical. However, the damage taken does not change much, strategically. Highways, rail tracks and the ports are quickly operational again. That's my point. See war in Ukraine. Nearly every refinery in Russia has been hit by drones. Complex structures, yet most of them are operational and sustained income damage is comparatively low. Of course that's expensive for Russia, but most of that economic damage is offloaded to the future. Same the other way around. Russia is successfully bombing Ukraine every day, yet the front line has hardly changed in years. Also, the immediate AA defense perspective is a momentary picture. In the future we will see more underground/protected infrastructure immune to drones, as well as more symmetrical defense options (cheap drone on drone systems, lasers, ...). Cheap drones will not become bunker busters any time soon. Doctrines will also likely adapt more rapid initial escalation since nobody wants the prolonged attritional warfare expected with cheap drones.
    - esseph 1mo ago
      > Highways, rail tracks and the ports are quickly operational again. That's my point. Have drones drop explosives on the LA freeways for a week and see what happens. It does a tiny amount of direct damage. But the fallout, politically, economically, etc would be immense. We're talking about billions spent across the country to try and harden critical industries and transportation, harden buildings, set up various types of drone point defense, funneled in as fast as it can be done least a politician not be reelected. I'm sure somebody evil enough and creative enough could find a way to get the president to deploy the national guard across the country for an extended period. That's not at all cheap. Just think about 9/11 for a sec. That could still happen today with a handful of drones.
    - psd1 1mo ago
      > In the future we will see more underground/protected infrastructure immune to drones Perhaps. But people forget the strategic reason, and ask why the quote is so high.
- rbanffy 1mo ago
  > I believe they implied other means may result in quicker conflict resolution. Making wars unending quagmires is an excellent form of preventing them. Had Putin known how bad it would turn out, I doubt an invasion would be his option of ensuring long term access to Sevastopol.
  - jijijijij 1mo ago
    Yes, I also think cheap drones are somewhat of a pacifying development, similar to nuclear bombs, but available to pretty much any nation. (Although, I think ironically nuclear strikes become more likely now, because of drone asymmetry...) Then again, the US learned nothing from Ukraine and still attacked Iran - the Shahed country. Hopefully, China is a bit more considerate about Taiwan.
    - rbanffy 1mo ago
      China plays the long game. They don’t worry about midterms.

Drones are the number one killer between all weapons deployed in Ukraine. More than artillery or airstrikes.

by esseph 1mo ago

Drones are the number one killer between all weapons deployed in Ukraine. More than artillery or airstrikes.

I think they meant the kind of warfare cheap drones encourage. I believe they implied other means may result in quicker conflict resolution. I think the problem is, apart from deploying nuclear weapons, air-based warfare campaigns have never really been all that effective at achieving strategic goals. Bombing stuff always seems promising, but in reality consequences are hard to predict due to complexity and results tend to be underwhelming. For the same reason, cheap drones favor the defender IMO. A typical country can sustain quite a bit of damage on home soil, without losing will to fight and popular support. On the other hand, the attacking carrier on their coast line, becomes a singular target instrumental to the aggressor's war efforts. On the front, cheap drones freeze the contact line, which of course also benefits the defender. Ukraine is very successful at keeping front lines relatively stable, despite man power shortages, due to drones, but neither Ukraine, nor Russia are very successful with their deep strike drone campaigns. I mean stuff is burning all over, but it changes little for ending the war so far. Train tracks are quickly back in operation, refineries repaired, stocks replenished, behavior patterns changed. Population experiencing reverse hedonistic adaptation to the new shitty normal. No models to predict resilience. Collapse may happen instantly or not at all. Also pretty evident with the US/Israel aggression against Iran right now. It somehow always takes a lot more than expected to break your enemy in the deep.

esseph 1mo ago
> For the same reason, cheap drones favor the defender IMO. Disagree completely 1,000,000% For a few thousand dollars, you could attack a major highway or rail network or port a few times. The cost to defend would be astronomical compared to the cost of the attack. Defense against cheap drones is the real drone cost, not the drone itself.
- jijijijij 1mo ago
  I meant defender, as in country being attacked. As in not the the aggressor. In the concrete instance of AA defense you are correct. You basically can't prevent drone damage actively, since every AA system can be easily overwhelmed and costs are very asymmetrical. However, the damage taken does not change much, strategically. Highways, rail tracks and the ports are quickly operational again. That's my point. See war in Ukraine. Nearly every refinery in Russia has been hit by drones. Complex structures, yet most of them are operational and sustained income damage is comparatively low. Of course that's expensive for Russia, but most of that economic damage is offloaded to the future. Same the other way around. Russia is successfully bombing Ukraine every day, yet the front line has hardly changed in years. Also, the immediate AA defense perspective is a momentary picture. In the future we will see more underground/protected infrastructure immune to drones, as well as more symmetrical defense options (cheap drone on drone systems, lasers, ...). Cheap drones will not become bunker busters any time soon. Doctrines will also likely adapt more rapid initial escalation since nobody wants the prolonged attritional warfare expected with cheap drones.
  - esseph 1mo ago
    > Highways, rail tracks and the ports are quickly operational again. That's my point. Have drones drop explosives on the LA freeways for a week and see what happens. It does a tiny amount of direct damage. But the fallout, politically, economically, etc would be immense. We're talking about billions spent across the country to try and harden critical industries and transportation, harden buildings, set up various types of drone point defense, funneled in as fast as it can be done least a politician not be reelected. I'm sure somebody evil enough and creative enough could find a way to get the president to deploy the national guard across the country for an extended period. That's not at all cheap. Just think about 9/11 for a sec. That could still happen today with a handful of drones.
  - psd1 1mo ago
    > In the future we will see more underground/protected infrastructure immune to drones Perhaps. But people forget the strategic reason, and ask why the quote is so high.
rbanffy 1mo ago
> I believe they implied other means may result in quicker conflict resolution. Making wars unending quagmires is an excellent form of preventing them. Had Putin known how bad it would turn out, I doubt an invasion would be his option of ensuring long term access to Sevastopol.
- jijijijij 1mo ago
  Yes, I also think cheap drones are somewhat of a pacifying development, similar to nuclear bombs, but available to pretty much any nation. (Although, I think ironically nuclear strikes become more likely now, because of drone asymmetry...) Then again, the US learned nothing from Ukraine and still attacked Iran - the Shahed country. Hopefully, China is a bit more considerate about Taiwan.
  - rbanffy 1mo ago
    China plays the long game. They don’t worry about midterms.