Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

100% Positive

Analyzed from 328 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#intercept#russia#nato#weapon#command#expensive#war#both#stock#countries

Discussion (7 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

epolanskiabout 1 hour ago
Both this event as well as the Iranian campaign expose the low stock piles that most NATO countries are facing.

But it's also exposing the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare. A single patriot missile, a single one, costs around $ 4 million, and its the only weapon that may intercept missiles that cost 1.5 up to 40 times less.

Even when taking the major Russian ballistic missiles like the Kh101, the Iskander and Kalibr the economics are better for the Russians between 4 and 1.5 ratio.

Moreover NATO has no weapon that can intercept the Iskanders which have had so far a 90% effectiveness. Good thing that Russia cannot mass produce them.

But here's the most interesting part: what you launch to intercept is not based on the cost of what's attacking you, but on the potential damage of not intercepting it.

If a 50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center or expensive aircraft you may still have to launch a Patriot to intercept it, you can't risk your high command being eliminated because the attacking weapon was cheap.

consumer45135 minutes ago
> If a 50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center or expensive aircraft…

I used to think like this as well, then I realized “how much do I value an apartment building full of people?” - which are often Russia’s targets.

amelius41 minutes ago
If defensive weapons don't work because too expensive, then the only way out seems to be M.A.D. which Ukraine can only attain if they join NATO.
mrec27 minutes ago
Not the only way. Sending drones against Russia's oil industry and logistics centres is having a pretty spectacular effect too, and Russia's having no luck defending against those either.
EA-316736 minutes ago
All of this is predicated on the reality that 70%+ of Americans don't want to be in this war, none of our allies want any part of it either, and the person who started it is a coward who expected to get an easy win. Now we're stuck with said coward unwilling to take the loss and make a deal, but also unwilling to escalate and takes greater risks to use weapons like JDAM's that are in sufficient stock to level whole countries from the air.

What we're seeing here isn't some great asymmetry, it's disgusting failures of leadership both when starting a war nobody wanted, and failing to end it before wasting billions in exquisite kit that was designed to open up near-peers to SEAD/DEAD.

mathfailureabout 1 hour ago
That's good. Time to stop this war.
nubg32 minutes ago
yeah, just pull the troops out of ukraine!