11 ms·

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 preven

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.

psd1 14d 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.
- jijijijij 13d ago
  This depends on the threat scenario. Sure, in Belgium or the US you won't see defense factories going underground any time soon. But Poland? Doing so already proved a valuable investment for Iran - even facing an enemy with an abundance of fancy bunker busters. Ukraine also started to build energy infrastructure and weapon production sites underground, and even Russia finally started building protected shelters for their military aircraft. I am pretty sure the US will also reconsider their arrogant assumptions of high tech superiority going forward, when it comes to their bases in the middle east, where they got very, very expensive stuff destroyed by Shaheds oversaturating Patriot systems. You see, deep underground cities and bunkers withstanding nuclear strikes are not required. You only need a bit of concrete and dirt to withstand medium yield flying bombs arriving with low kinetic energy (unlike ballistic missiles). Hobbit style housing. A cheap drone will never be able to dig itself into its target, since cheap and fast are incompatible. That said, of course some important components can't really be protected passively. E.g. comms and sigint will always have expensive, hard to replace antenna arrays exposed. But narrowing vulnerability down to those assets means you can focus scalable air defense and EW measures there. Again, this benefits the country on the defense, especially against distant enemies, since you can build bunkers etc. at home, but can't really bring them along. And bunkers are one time investments, theoretically good for centuries (WWII/Soviet bunkers are still all over the place in Europe). I think, it would be viable for a peaceful country to almost entirely invest military funds in bunkers, drones, drone comms and crews/AI, and possibly nukes, to discourage any aggressor, while minimizing peacetime running costs . Additionally, highly decentralized renewable energy like solar and wind makes that sectors really hard to disrupt. Especially individual solar installations, battery storage and electric cars potentially enables quasi autarky for large portions of the population. Mighty "petrol station" Russia, got fucked by their reliance on ICE. Solar and wind will work even in nuclear wastelands, and replacing that solar panel is still cheaper than the cheap drone, which damaged it. Tl;dr: You can restructure military doctrine and defense focus to make bunkers an easy sell to your citizens. In fact, going any other way should raise questions about aggressive ambitions.
  - psd1 13d ago
    Ty for the insight - indeed, i had been thinking about full nuclear bunker, which you point out is overblown. That said, complacency (~entropy) tends to win over time. Ukrainian yong adult in 2051: ouch! Old Ukrainian: first time in a bunker? mind your head.
esseph 15d 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 14d 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.

jijijijij 13d ago
This depends on the threat scenario. Sure, in Belgium or the US you won't see defense factories going underground any time soon. But Poland? Doing so already proved a valuable investment for Iran - even facing an enemy with an abundance of fancy bunker busters. Ukraine also started to build energy infrastructure and weapon production sites underground, and even Russia finally started building protected shelters for their military aircraft. I am pretty sure the US will also reconsider their arrogant assumptions of high tech superiority going forward, when it comes to their bases in the middle east, where they got very, very expensive stuff destroyed by Shaheds oversaturating Patriot systems. You see, deep underground cities and bunkers withstanding nuclear strikes are not required. You only need a bit of concrete and dirt to withstand medium yield flying bombs arriving with low kinetic energy (unlike ballistic missiles). Hobbit style housing. A cheap drone will never be able to dig itself into its target, since cheap and fast are incompatible. That said, of course some important components can't really be protected passively. E.g. comms and sigint will always have expensive, hard to replace antenna arrays exposed. But narrowing vulnerability down to those assets means you can focus scalable air defense and EW measures there. Again, this benefits the country on the defense, especially against distant enemies, since you can build bunkers etc. at home, but can't really bring them along. And bunkers are one time investments, theoretically good for centuries (WWII/Soviet bunkers are still all over the place in Europe). I think, it would be viable for a peaceful country to almost entirely invest military funds in bunkers, drones, drone comms and crews/AI, and possibly nukes, to discourage any aggressor, while minimizing peacetime running costs . Additionally, highly decentralized renewable energy like solar and wind makes that sectors really hard to disrupt. Especially individual solar installations, battery storage and electric cars potentially enables quasi autarky for large portions of the population. Mighty "petrol station" Russia, got fucked by their reliance on ICE. Solar and wind will work even in nuclear wastelands, and replacing that solar panel is still cheaper than the cheap drone, which damaged it. Tl;dr: You can restructure military doctrine and defense focus to make bunkers an easy sell to your citizens. In fact, going any other way should raise questions about aggressive ambitions.
- psd1 13d ago
  Ty for the insight - indeed, i had been thinking about full nuclear bunker, which you point out is overblown. That said, complacency (~entropy) tends to win over time. Ukrainian yong adult in 2051: ouch! Old Ukrainian: first time in a bunker? mind your head.

esseph 15d 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.