26 pointsby runeks3 hours ago6 comments
  • Arodexan hour 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.

    • iammjm44 minutes ago
      What "kit and training" is he even referring to? What let's you detect and destroy multiple small moving targets coming at you at various and unpredictable angles and speeds?? Oh and it also needs to be cheap and light-weight enough so you can equip infantry with it. AFAIK, currently there are no such systems. Unless he means shotguns and single-use net launchers, which are a last-resort thing you don't really want to rely on. And it's not for the lack of trying; it's just a very difficult problem to solve. And the problem will only get worse as drones are becoming quicker and gain more range. Already there are quadcopter drones reaching speeds of 500km/h; quadcopters with ranges of 50km+; quadcopters deployed from balloons at heights of 5km; remotely-deployed quadcopters from naval and ground drones ... and that's just one category of drones, not to mention wing-type mid-range drones now wrecking havoc at russian rear logistics at 100km+ ranges and long-range drone destroying infrastructure at 500km+ ranges. That's why the only ways of survival are concealment, digging deep underground, and turning anything that moves above ground into mad-max type porcupine monstrosities meant to absorb those fpv-drones, with varying success.
    • KaiserProan hour ago
      So 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.

  • Arodexan hour 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)

    • echoanglean hour ago
      The loss rate is higher but the losses are lower, because Ukraine has about 1/4 of the people Russia has.
    • Forgeties79an hour ago
      They have ~1/5th the population of Russia. They shouldn’t use per capita in this context it’s a bit confusing.
  • beloch2 hours 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

    • nkrisc2 hours ago
      It 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.
      • nfkhd677 minutes ago
        The 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.

    • lukanan hour ago
      "Putin was advised that Russian disinfo had worked and Ukrainians would welcome Russian troops as liberators"

      And where does your inside info from the Kremlin and Putin's head is coming from?

      Putin was raised in the KGB, I think he knows a bit how to get intel. And with secret war style he was very successful in 2014 seizing the Krim and some areas.

      It was likely just overconfidence in the ability of the russian army in a conventional war and underestimating the will of the ukrainians to hold their ground in the beginning of the war.

      If that battle in the beginning would have turned out different, Kiew would likely have fallen and then the war would have been largely over in a few days

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport

      Not many believed, myself included, that Ukraine was strong enough to hold of the russian army - but they did. And now both sides use Drones heavily.

    • risyachkaan hour ago
      > Both are wars instigated by the leaders of great powers

      having nukes and a lot of empty land does not make russia "great power", and their war results match this.

    • like_any_other2 hours ago
      Trump attacked Iran because Israel was going to attack Iran: Rubio says US struck Iran fearing it would retaliate for Israeli attack - https://abcnews.com/Politics/rubio-us-struck-iran-fearing-re...

      Part of a long trend: Israeli Operatives Who Aided Harvey Weinstein Collected Information on Former Obama Administration Officials to undermine the Iran Nuclear Deal - https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/israeli-operatives-...

      To help make the case on Iran, Graham traveled several times to Israel in recent weeks, meeting with members of the country’s intelligence agency. “They’ll tell me things our own government won’t tell me,” he said. He spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, coaching him on how to lobby the president for action. - https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/lindsey-graham-trump-ira... (https://archive.is/G1Dt0)

      Netanyahu started this war by attacking Iran. He assassinated Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, deliberately sabotaging US-Iran nuclear negotiations. - https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1934659864610918435 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Shamkhani#Assassination_at...)

      • orwin33 minutes ago
        > Trump attacked Iran because Israel was going to attack Iran

        When Israel attacked Iran in 2025, Iran was very, very clear that they did not consider it an attack from the US and did not retaliate against US assets. The US choose to support israel with intel and weapons, and Iran still didn't strike at US interests. Then the US joined forces with israel to push for bigger concessions from Iran just before the ceasefire (that the US broke 8 month later, once again during peace talks).

        So do not act as if Israel pushed the US into this war. This was a political and strategical choice the US made, and you should own it. People who were silent on the 2025 bombardment and are now saying "we shouldn't fight Israel war" are to me hypocrites.

    • Forgeties79an hour ago
      > and Ukrainians would welcome Russian troops as liberators while Zelensky's government would fold immediately.

      It is wild how many conflicts involve this blunder. I can’t think of a single major example where the advisors were right. It’s such a great example of believing your own propaganda and/or being too afraid to actually look under the hood of your claims to your leader.

      Autocracy tends to breed lying yes men near the top I suppose.

    • emerongian hour ago
      I have it on good authority that Putin woke up, took a big fart (the housemaid was surprised), thought the smell was an Ukrainian attack and decided to retaliate. That's how the war started.

      Your claims about Putin are just as good as mine.

  • rramadass2 hours ago
    If 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
  • spiderfarmer2 hours ago
    Ever 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.

    • pingou2 hours ago
      I 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_man2 hours ago
        Who is the people, as opposed to who is in charge now?
      • jim334422 hours ago
        US govt would've been propping someone else to take over if they were serious about that plan
      • spiderfarmeran hour ago
        After all this, you still believe there’s a plan? At what age did you give up on Santa Claus?
      • watwut2 hours ago
        It 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.

      • fontain2 hours ago
        Trump 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

        • pingouan hour ago
          Not 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?
    • jim334422 hours ago
      I don't think they're this dumb, just bought by Israel. Same with the Iraq war that was obviously bogus.
      • _bohman hour ago
        Sure, 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.

        • warumdaruman hour ago
          Relentlessly attacked its better to counter attack the to play the goalkeeper to exhaustion.
        • jim33442an hour ago
          I 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.
          • _bohman hour ago
            Who 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.
            • jim33442an hour ago
              Shah 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.
              • _bohman hour ago
                I think an honest assessment of the history reveals that the Islamic Republic has been far more hostile to Israel and far stabler than the Shah, who oversaw a deeply unpopular monarchy and was deposed by his own people
                • jim3344234 minutes ago
                  I don't disagree with this, it's just that there's no reason to assume Israel simply wants the least hostile Iranian government. We never saw a real effort to replace the Islamic Republic, not even now. Likewise there was never an attempt to replace Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

                  Well also, about Pahlavi being deposed by his own people, who really knows.

      • warumdaruman hour ago
        Iraq was an attempt to create a democracy on the middle east and it disproved the whole leftist worldview. Not all cultures are compatibel and capable of democracy
        • jim33442an hour ago
          Iraq war had bipartisan support, or more right-wing if anything. Any high-level politician saying we can install a democracy there was probably not serious about it.
        • an hour ago
          undefined
    • accidentallfactan hour ago
      From 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.
      • decimalenoughan hour ago
        The archduke, the band, or some other soothsayer who shares the name?
        • accidentallfactan hour ago
          Yes, the archduke who got assassinated just before the war started.
          • decimalenough11 minutes ago
            And what did he have to say about Trump's Iran war back in 1914?
    • warumdarum2 hours ago
      Who cares about the us in this? This is not about the us at all? Its about a regional ex hegemon, a landempire, which due to ressource scarcity has burned down culturally into a death cult that relentlessly though ineffective attacks its surroundings similar to nazi germany. They want nukes to glas the middle east. If the us was gone full blown war would be on tomorrow. I wish people would stop polluting the discussionspace with these racist, "brown people cant be actors only acted upon" ahistoric aintit-imperialist cofabulations.
      • watwutan hour ago
        If 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.

        • warumdaruman hour ago
          Are you at all aware of the reguons history and the endless proxxy war between suni and shia?
          • watwut39 minutes ago
            Yes 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.

        • lelanthranan hour ago
          I'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.

      • 3683826312819an hour ago
        [dead]
    • LAC-Tech2 hours ago
      I 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).
      • jim334422 hours ago
        It'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-Techan hour ago
          They 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.