Comment by maxxxxx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxxxxx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I wonder how all these super expensive and complex weapons systems will do if there ever is an all-out war against an enemy who has access to advanced technology. It seems you should be able to bring down a 4 billion ship with a swarm of thousand drones for maybe 1 million each for the total cost of 1 billion. Same for aircraft carriers.

From what I have read about the maintenance needs of systems like the F-22 and B-2 someone who has simpler, easier to maintain airplanes should also have an advantage once things get busy.

This is what’s disturbing about the way we contract these projects: we’re weaker because of cost-plus and an emphasis on expense over efficacy.

Compare the tanks of WWII. American Shermans (at first) were something of a death-trap in terms of armor and carried weaker armaments. But you could churn them out quickly and teach someone with a high school degree how to do maintenance. Germans went the opposite: high-tech behemoths that were fast, heavily armored, and big-gunned. They were hell to fight, but they also couldn’t be produced or maintained at anything close to the speed of a Sherman. And as it turns out, modern war is not just about having the best toy but the one the market can produce and replace reliably.

It seems to me that our extreme willingness for expense and new tech fetishism is putting us in the position of the Germans of last century—we’ll win all our short engagements but once we have to start replacing parts and vehicles, we’ll be hamstrung.

EDIT: and so as not to seem like I’m repeating the myth, I’ll link here to a little debunking—the Sherman wasn’t a bad tank, just not a particularly cutting-edge one:

http://knowledgeglue.com/dispelling-myths-surrounding-m4-she...

There is a lot of vested interests in the Sherman Debate Should the USA have fitted the Hot 76.2 and more of the expensive ammo for D day

Or should have they have gone for the Brit conversion using the 17pounder - towards the end Brit doctrine was 50/50 firefly / stock Sherman.

Ok the 76.2 with the right ammo was good but they only had 2/3 rounds per tank of those as opposed to a British troop with 50% 17 pounders

There are rumours of Infantry generals delaying the introduction of the 76.2 as allegedly one had an interest in the factory that made 75's - There is also the NIH aspect in refusing the funnies in American Beaches.

And as it turns out, modern war is not just about having the best toy but the one the market can produce and replace reliably.

We knew this once - hence the F16. But it has been forgotten, while there are F16s still flying!

> From what I have read about the maintenance needs of systems like the F-22 and B-2 someone who has simpler, easier to maintain airplanes should also have an advantage once things get busy.

Also from a numbers standpoint. They keep buying fewer and fewer airframes as costs rise, which I'd assume means they'd be very vulnerable to attrition against a peer adversary. High-tech planes aren't very helpful if you have none left or too few to risk.

You should read about the millenium wargames challenge. The US fleet was destroyed within the first 24 hours by a former vietnam era general using asymetric warfare and launched his planes via hand signals instead of radio etc.

Was curious and Googled. Some perspective here: https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-r...

That was interesting reading. Also a damming account on how the leadership of the U.S forces are not prepared to face the fact that they may be wrong about their capabilities.

Common misconception. The wargames effectively suffered a bug that caused the US fleet ships to be easily destroyed.

A bug? I'm not sure the analogy holds. Why would the techniques used by the bad guy general not be available to a real adversary? Did he win by finding an exploit in the meta war-game (i.e. a cheat), or did he win fairly, entirely in the context of the game? I thought the latter.

The simulator teleported the "Blue Team" fleet right into harbor. They were not ordered to go there and were in fact ordered to stay away, precisely because that would lead to the possibility of boat attacks. I think that counts as a bug. The simulator also didn't account for the capacity of small boats, so allowed the boats to move much faster that reasonable for the amount of explosives they were supposedly carrying. That is probably not a cheat, just an exploitation of bad simulation rules, but also makes the results less demonstrative of the actual results of an engagement with Iran.

We'll never fight an all out war like that ever again. Future wars will be cold and take place in cyber space and the media. These systems are meant to be deterrents and symbols of financial might.

A war with China over Taiwan, for example, wouldn't be a total war (at first, god willing). But it would be one that would have the US pitted against a foe with better technology than we've ever faced, even if they can't easily project much non-nuclear force into our territory.

People in the 20th century didn't think WWI would happen, because it would be incredibly stupid to blow up yourself and your trading partners. We did it anyway, and underestimating our capacity for self-destruction invites it.

A war with China would be even more destructive for China than for the US.

The entire Chinese economy is oriented around global trade in the neoliberal system built post-WW2. In the scenario you're outlining, the entire country would face massive food shortages and the resulting riots would quickly force the elite from power.

The big difference between now and pre-WW1 is that back then most countries were still able to be self sufficient at their then-current living standards. Trade was more for domination and luxuries, not basic necessities. It's impossible to maintain current living standards without extensive trade.

Edit: Re capacity for self destruction, we have a far higher (IMO 1,000x) risk of permanently dooming our planet via climate change or chemical pollution than armed warfare. The solution is unprecedented global cooperation, which also lowers the risk of a WW type scenario. So I think we're on the same page wrt that.

"We'll never fight an all out war like that ever again."

I am not so sure about that. People said the same after WW1. Looking back at history we'll probably smash the planet again sometime in the future.

They were saying that even more strongly before WW1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

Operative words being "like that" :) I absolutely believe war is possible, maybe inevitable. My point is it'll be of a veery different kind, so precedent examples may not apply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com