The dangerous delusion of modern warfare

(economist.com)

22 points | by runeks 1 hour ago

5 comments

  • Arodex 4 minutes 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)

    • echoangle 1 minute ago
      The loss rate is higher but the losses are lower, because Ukraine has about 1/4 of the people Russia has.
    • Forgeties79 1 minute ago
      They have ~1/5th the population of Russia. They shouldn’t use per capita in this context it’s a bit confusing. They should be using totals.
  • runeks 1 hour ago
  • rramadass 29 minutes 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
  • beloch 25 minutes 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

  • spiderfarmer 41 minutes 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.

    • accidentallfact 4 minutes 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.
    • jim33442 21 minutes ago
      I don't think they're this dumb, just bought by Israel. Same with the Iraq war that was obviously bogus.
      • _bohm 4 minutes 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.

        • warumdarum 1 minute ago
          Relentlessly attacked its better to counter attack the to play the goalkeeper to exhaustion.
      • warumdarum 2 minutes 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
    • pingou 32 minutes 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.

      • jim33442 22 minutes ago
        US govt would've been propping someone else to take over if they were serious about that plan
      • rrr_oh_man 28 minutes ago
        Who is the people, as opposed to who is in charge now?
      • watwut 13 minutes 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.

      • fontain 14 minutes 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

    • LAC-Tech 27 minutes 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).
      • jim33442 17 minutes 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.
    • warumdarum 21 minutes 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.
      • watwut 8 minutes 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.