Am I missing something? It seems like defense surpasses offense in the conventional sense. But if Russia and Ukraine both had nuclear weapons, no drone would be able to prevent that once launched, right? Likewise if I flew an airplane to drop a bunker-buster on a dam (e.g. F-35s are still useful in the Russia/Ukraine war).
Maybe in the limiting case of drone-warfare defense does dominate, but it seems to me that we are some time away from that, in manufacturing capacity alone, if nothing else.
It is well known that tank assaults during World War II were able to break through almost any line of defense, turning warfare from positional into highly maneuverable.
Ukraine has no nuclear weapons; it gave them up in the 1990s at the insistence of the United States (many thanks to the American presidents—they are always on our side). But what would the destruction of a dam or a nuclear bombardment of a city with a million inhabitants give you? It does not allow you to seize territory; instead, you would face international condemnation, the imposition of sanctions, and sometimes a retaliatory nuclear strike, far more powerful.
Ukraine does not even have F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, since these aircraft were not supplied to Ukraine (once again, my deep bow and respect to the American presidents).
Russia is already producing 50,000 FPV drones per month and is capable of doubling that output; this is already comparable to the number of soldiers on the battlefield. One enemy soldier — one drone plus one drone operator, but if AI takes over control on the last mile, it will reduce the burden on drone operators. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFCbNfGO4Fg
Of course, there are also other longer-range drones (copies of the Iranian Shahed, and China surely has all the blueprints), which are already being stockpiled by the thousands and can overwhelm any air defense system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XDiE9UNtiQ
I am trying to describe to you what a war between China and Taiwan would look like — it certainly will not be nuclear and civilian casualties will be minimal (compared to Dresden and Hiroshima), but even that I cannot justify.
Sure, but Ukraine wanted F-35s right, I assume because they thought they would be useful. As to the rest, it seems like you could claim that America ‘seized’ Japanese territory after a nuclear strike (rewriting the Japanese constitution, occupation, now a staunch ally, etc). Such a strike only has to break the will of the people fighting, or break the ability of command structures to function effectively, you don’t have to glass the entire country you want to invade.
Am I missing something? It seems like defense surpasses offense in the conventional sense. But if Russia and Ukraine both had nuclear weapons, no drone would be able to prevent that once launched, right? Likewise if I flew an airplane to drop a bunker-buster on a dam (e.g. F-35s are still useful in the Russia/Ukraine war).
Maybe in the limiting case of drone-warfare defense does dominate, but it seems to me that we are some time away from that, in manufacturing capacity alone, if nothing else.
It is well known that tank assaults during World War II were able to break through almost any line of defense, turning warfare from positional into highly maneuverable.
Ukraine has no nuclear weapons; it gave them up in the 1990s at the insistence of the United States (many thanks to the American presidents—they are always on our side). But what would the destruction of a dam or a nuclear bombardment of a city with a million inhabitants give you? It does not allow you to seize territory; instead, you would face international condemnation, the imposition of sanctions, and sometimes a retaliatory nuclear strike, far more powerful.
Ukraine does not even have F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, since these aircraft were not supplied to Ukraine (once again, my deep bow and respect to the American presidents).
Russia is already producing 50,000 FPV drones per month and is capable of doubling that output; this is already comparable to the number of soldiers on the battlefield. One enemy soldier — one drone plus one drone operator, but if AI takes over control on the last mile, it will reduce the burden on drone operators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFCbNfGO4Fg
Of course, there are also other longer-range drones (copies of the Iranian Shahed, and China surely has all the blueprints), which are already being stockpiled by the thousands and can overwhelm any air defense system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XDiE9UNtiQ
I am trying to describe to you what a war between China and Taiwan would look like — it certainly will not be nuclear and civilian casualties will be minimal (compared to Dresden and Hiroshima), but even that I cannot justify.
Sure, but Ukraine wanted F-35s right, I assume because they thought they would be useful. As to the rest, it seems like you could claim that America ‘seized’ Japanese territory after a nuclear strike (rewriting the Japanese constitution, occupation, now a staunch ally, etc). Such a strike only has to break the will of the people fighting, or break the ability of command structures to function effectively, you don’t have to glass the entire country you want to invade.