The US Military Is Getting Smaller, Cheaper and Smarter | Hacker News Reader

The US Military Is Getting Smaller, Cheaper and Smarter

bloomberg.com

46 pointsiamben102 comments

For those reading just the headline and not the article, it's not talking about the U.S. military downsizing budget-wise, but how they're investing more in smaller-size combat drones, which per-unit might be considered cheap, cheaper than a tank or UAV at least.

There's a lot of sci-fi speculating, and in theory, swarms of thousands of small drones sounds like it has a lot of potential, but as far as I can tell, still just seems like a lot of speculation.

Larger drones have played a role in modern warfare for decades, and we've seen homespun videos of Ukrainian consumer drones dropping simple explosives on sleeping Russian soldiers, but the efficacy of tiny drones seems questionable.

I'd be interested in what someone who actually understands modern warfare thinks about these tiny drones and the role they'll fill.

>but the efficacy of tiny drones seems questionable.

Head on over to /r/RussiaUkraineWar2022 and you can see first person video of kamikaze drones being flown into hapless Russians on the regular.

These are quadcopters with a high explosive or anti-armor round zip tied to it. They get directly into the entrance of dugouts or directly into the back of a speeding truck full of troops.

It seems to me the ultimate in precision munitions. Warheads literally on foreheads.

What's more it seems very difficult to defend against. There's the "anti drone rifle" that's basically a jammer on an assault rifle chassis, but the armies of today need widespread anti-drone jamming over huge areas, not point defense.

Well, large area jamming is kind of a solved problem. But then, you'll need to protect the jammers, and that's an arms race.

If nobody is developing large area jammers and autonomous anti-jammer drones on that war, it would be from lack of perceived benefit, because neither is a ground braking engineering project.

russians have large area jammers. the problem that it jams their own stuff. they also fly drone with some jammers and sdrs in order to detect presence of other drones

also, i saw some clip, Ukrainians are working on automated "final approach/chase" mode for drones.

A competent military would not jam their own drones.

It would be possible to synchronize the required frequency hopping to allow the encrypted communication to the drone.

units that manage large jammers afraid to stay near front line. so they usually positioned somewhat behind and jam the hell out of everything, including their own radio communications and drones. "would be possible" implies that there is some kind of coordination. in reality most of russian drones on frontline are diy as well.

for Ukrainians when jamming stops it's a tale sign that russians are going to attack

I understand how it works for the Russians, but we are discussing the US military and their capabilities which is far ahead of what the Russians are capable of.

-brrt- Drone swarm, what drone swarm? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb5_F4_Eod8 And this is simply the first iteration of such systems.

Drones are slow (slower than WW2 aircraft), short ranged, and not particularly stealthy. Improving any of those aspects raises the price significantly, defeating the point of cheap drones. They are a threat but not as magical as some seem to imagine.

Commercially-available sport drones fly at over 200 MPH, which is more than fast enough to overcome any human's reaction time, are too small and fly too low to detect via radar, are more agile and maneuverable than any plane or missile ever designed. Their biggest problem is that they are trivially jammable (which will be overcome via autonomy) and operational range (which is doubled for suicide drones).

Drones are about to change operational doctrine in all areas in the same way that aircraft carriers obsoleted battleships. Any military that fails to adapt to this new reality will be absolutely destroyed in the field. Defenses against overwhelming autonomous drone swarms are possible, but not via current missile defense platforms.

I literally posted a video from Rheinmetall demonstrating their drone defense system shooting down a group of drones using a single burst from an AA gun and they are hardly the only corporation in the defense industry working on such systems. You're welcome to contact them to insist that that's not possible and that their system will never work, if you like.

The idea that 200 mph drones cannot be shot down when 300 mph WW2 aircraft can be shot down by WW2 era technology (flak does not care what size the target is) or that drones cannot be detected by radar (even flying birds can be detected by radar) merits a similar dismissal.

The friendly infantry that you're trying to protect are going to love having friendly flak shells exploding fifteen feet above their lines, to say nothing of the fact that drones are so maneuverable that swarms will attack from every reachable direction simultaneously. Flak shells will be minimally useful (and ultimately more expensive than the drones that do get shot down; you've already lost economically). And "radar can detect birds, so it can detect drones" means nothing whatsoever unless you're willing to waste all your AA ammo depopulating the pigeon population. Again, nobody is saying there's no defense, but autonomous drone swarms are going to be as important to warfare as the airplane (which, likewise, there are defenses against). The important thing is to have planners acknowledge it.

Again, you're welcome to contact Rheinmetall and other defense corporations with your extensive knowledge of air defense radar, ground to air cannon and other weaponry, and drone capabilities to explain all these things that you believe they forgot to account for. Perhaps you're right and none of them have ever considered how to reliably distinguish between a flying bird and a, to use your numbers, 200mph drone or the cost of ammunition. I'm sure they will be delighted to have a person with such broad and deep expertise advising them.

But they’re so cheap that you can overrun your opponents defense. Who cares if they’re slow? You can shoot down any individual drone, but you can’t shoot them all down.

Cheaper than a bullet? Seems unlikely.

And if the attacker's drone swarm is that implausibly cheap, then the defender just puts up their own implausibly cheap defensive drone swarm to counter them. Checkmate.

How can you take down a drone with a single bullet? It’s not trivially easy to shoot them down. Also, a “defensive” drone swarm would need more advanced tracking and targeting capabilities, so it would be more expensive. Look at Israel’s Iron Dome. A single interception costs $100,000-$150,000. The rockets being intercepted cost less than $1,000. If Israel was more evenly matched, it would be cost prohibitive to intercept all of the rockets.

The US just announced that it is buying off-the-shelf anti-drone systems for Ukraine that operate chain guns in single-shot mode. Drones are slow so they can use VT rounds instead of the CIWS spray-and-track method.

https://eos-aus.com/defence/counter-drone-systems/slinger/

It's interesting to dig deeper into the vague mention of "special ammunition". According to [1], the Slinger uses Northup Grumman's M230LF Bushmaster 30mm cannon and [2] suggests that the anti-drone ammunition is the recently developed XM1211 HEP (High Explosive Proximity) round which was designed for the M230LF. Finding about the creation of XM1211 rounds is stunning because it means that an effective radar proximity fuse is being stuffed into a tiny 30 mm diameter projectile with enough room left over for adequate explosive to generate a cloud of shrapnel. That's stuff that would have been considered sci-fi a few decades ago.

[1] https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/land/more-on-eo...

[2] https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/army-xm1211-high-exp...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam $100 per shot. Israel starts to deploy it this year

> What's more it seems very difficult to defend against.

Perhaps a better word than "difficult" is "expensive." If drones are effective modern armies have no choice about defending against them. (Unless they want to lose.)

hapless Russians

Or, you know, hapless Ukrainians. Ukrainians may have been quicker to innovate in this area but that was a long time ago.

What exact point are you trying to make? Why do you say the innovation was a long time ago?

Drone warfare, on both sides, is literally evolving before our very eyes on daily basis. All the words militaries are taking extensive notes and it's pretty obvious the small scale drones are the future of warfare, or at least the ability to deal with them.

>Or, you know, hapless Ukrainians. Ukrainians may have been quicker to innovate in this area but that was a long time ago.

What's your point?

Both sides use the drones. It's not a strategic advantage.

> Both sides use the drones. It's not a strategic advantage.

It may not be, but only one side is using them to inflict damage that is upwards of 100M+ USD at a time (on occasion).

The Russian use of drones appears to be less effective then the Ukrainian use for whatever reason.

Its crazy that a 100k drone can destroy planes that are worth tens of millions of dollars that kind of price difference will surely change some ways that wars are fought.

on occasion

Exactly. These are stunts designed to keep morale high, in Ukraine and the West. Their impact on the outcome of the war is negligible. These are Ukraine + NATO dealing as much damage as they think they can get away with. And Russia absorbing the blows because the alternative—open conflict with NATO and curtailing the freedoms of millions of Ukrainians in Russia[0]—is considered a worse option. For now at least.

The Russian use of drones appears to be less effective then the Ukrainian use for whatever reason.

But thanks to the censorship in place we wouldn’t know, would we? In fact, Ukrainian officials have admitted more than once that the Russians know exactly what they are hitting. And the effectiveness of Ukrainian air defense is obviously way exaggerated.[1] The fact that Ukrainians have admittedly lost more than one fighter jet trying to shoot down drones and cruise missiles is telling.

will surely change some ways that wars are fought

Yes. No one is safe from this, every defense can be (fairly cheaply) overwhelmed.

But the situation here is unique in that Ukrainians can pretend they are not paying the price, and Russia does not respond with significant escalation. For now at least. As for NATO, well, they are paying a price. Bunkers containing NATO officers have been busted. Flimsy cover stories of freak accidents. Remember that B-2 going up in flames? Happened shortly after the attacks on Russian nuclear bases. Predictable, professional, restrained. All in all it’s something, but not enough to deter NATO, or even stop them from escalating slowly.

But then "Putin is someone who generally thinks that revenge is a dish best served cold," [CIA director] Burns said at an annual security forum in Aspen.

[0]: For these attacks usually have a local component. And from the flight patterns of NATO planes we can tell that Western ISR is essential to attacks on Crimea, for example.

[1]: A thing never talked about is the price paid by civilians. For there is a cost if you do AD over populated areas, you are trading civilians for military targets. Which, 18 months in, shouldn’t be located in cities in the first place. Random impacts of AD missiles, both Soviet and Western, are well documented. As are impacts of debris and downed missiles/drones, of course.

> Exactly. These are stunts designed to keep morale high, in Ukraine and the West. Their impact on the outcome of the war is negligible. These are Ukraine + NATO dealing as much damage as they think they can get away with. And Russia absorbing the blows because the alternative—open conflict with NATO and curtailing the freedoms of millions of Ukrainians in Russia[0]—is considered a worse option. For now at least.

I think it’s more than that, they do make a hit to capability albeit they would degrade some slowly.

They also target specific units generally those ones that are launching the cruise missile attacks on Ukraine, or more recently airborne bases or groups have been involved in the war.

> But the situation here is unique in that Ukrainians can pretend they are not paying the price, and Russia does not respond with significant escalation. For now at least.

These drones aren’t expensive so the price is a bit of a moot point really, the cardboard drones that have been rumoured to be used in one of the attacks only cost 3k, and the Ukrainian long range beaver drones are only 100k

Both of these are very cheap.

With regards to escalation what is Russia going to do to escalate?, Russia run out of ways to escalate this situation about a month ago when they decided to end the grain deal.

And the ships kept coming anyway.

> As for NATO, well, they are paying a price. Bunkers containing NATO officers have been busted.

I haven’t seen proof of this can you provide a credible source id be interested in seeing if.

> But thanks to the censorship in place we wouldn’t know, would we? In fact, Ukrainian officials have admitted more than once that the Russians know exactly what they are hitting.

A lot of the proof from Ukrainian hits comes from sat imagery, Russia is more than free to use its sats to get imagery over Ukraine and release it.

They don’t for whatever reason.

And we know when Russia gets proof of anything (like the single downed Bayrakter TB2 they got) they like to present it front and centre.

> And the effectiveness of Ukrainian air defense is obviously way exaggerated.[1]

Do you have a source for this?.

Notice rainworld refers to NATO as "them". You are responding to a Russian psyop account.

Lets not forget that russia uses drones and missiles for attacking grain terminals in ports, civilian infrastructure, restaurants, maternity wards and drama theathers where the word "children" is written so big that it could be seen from space.

So your glee at terrorists doing not so bad is very telling at what kind of society russian is.

Science has shown that responding to literal NAFO accounts[0] in good faith is a complete waste of time.

[0]: https://x.com/jnsaff

Can’t tell which of you have less there: science or good faith.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdhsPQEX0AALM9H?format=jpg&name=...

Indeed. There’s a pervasive social media-fuelled notion of superiority in this area that does not reflect reality. It hardly gets more one-sided than /r/RussiaUkraineWar2022.

I don't think I suggested the Ukrainians have superiority at all. If anything the fact that the Russians, despite their staggering incompetence, can employ drones effectively suggests that this new weapon system is an even more significant threat.

As for my choice of subreddit, I'm well aware that it's biased. But I'd rather watch Russian occupiers get killed than Ukrainians fighting for their right to exist.

despite their staggering incompetence

Easy on the hubris.

Your precious Russia went from "we'll take Kyiv in 3 days" to, more than a year later, still being unable to achieve air superiority and fielding T-55 museum pieces as its soldiers eat moldy rations.

That is complete and utter incompetence from what everyone thought was a major global power.

A shotgun is pretty effective at downing a drone. But, that requires seeing it coming before it is inside.

I'll see your five shotgun shells and raise you six drones.

Unaffordable at the margin, and impractical, for the offense.

"Tiny" as in commercial with endurance measured in minutes / km have little roll to fill theatre as large as IndoPac in terms of peer battle. This article talking about numbers in the 1000s for entire program when UKR is losing like 10K commercial drones PER MONTH.

When DoD say tiny, I'm guessing they mean fighter sized loyal wingman tier drones, with 1500km combat radius. Attritable platforms that cost 10s of millions where savings is mostly pilot over head. And operating those at scale involved is still very dependant on complex logistics vs delivering platters of DJI to grunts given 10 hours of training. Having enough shelters, hardened, distributed... base access, and basically entire support and logistics chain because you're still going to need a fuck load of mechanics to support order of magnitude more vehicles. Maybe cheaper per whatever unit of KPI they're measuring but still going to be remarkably expensive program.

I don't think the idea is bad, but I think as solution for IndoPac (read China), this is a concept where PRC already and will continue to easily outscales US while having more flexible distributed basing options vs US access to partners in region. Really this is US following, and plugging gap while they figure out NGAD, B21, or other longer / stand off range delivery options AT SCALE over next decades as they net lose ability to bring fires into IndoPac/PRC near shore because it becomes increasingly unsurvivable for US carriers and air assets in region. Carriers because PRC ISR and missiles increasing/improving incredibly fast - much more than US can scale defense which is fundmentally limited by physical dimensions of ship hulls. Air because stealth workhorse F35 was designed for Europe, doesn't have range for IndoPac without vunerable tanking. Queue solution for distributed risks / soaking up missiles while maintaining capability. Only problem is PRC industrial bases can spam more missiles and more drones and better positioned to weather the attrition game.

It’s too early to tell what role they’ll fill in a symmetric conflict because Russia is increasingly cut off from high tech supplies. The fact that consumer drone videos of Russians getting bombed are coming out means that most infantry units don’t even have basic SIGINT to detect enemy RF emissions. That’s table stakes for a modern well equipped military with cheap civilian equivalents (Software defined radios). The smaller drones don’t seem to have any sophisticated navigation and targeting yet (the fixed wing loitering munition drones seem to be more advanced though). Otherwise they’re no less useful than the drones the US has been using since Afghanistan, just scaled down in size, capability, and cost.

The US and China are no doubt closely studying this conflict and evolving designs for both drones and counter measures since its obvious they’re a significant development in modern warfare that will be used in increasingly clever ways.

russians (and ukrainians) do you sdrs extensively to detect drones, communication and jamming equipment. for some values of extensively

Look into loitering munition. Drone can stay up for hours, and if it recognizes target (tank, truck...) it will attack it.

Most scary is fully autonomous mode (no GPS, no remote control). For past mile it uses image recognition, and can not be jammed.

Now imagine what this would do to aircraft carrier! Upper decks are very vulnerable!

US has three problems when it comes to drones:

1) No cheap reliable air defense. It can not take down hundreds of thousands of attacking drones. Patriots are like $1M per rocket.

2) No cheap kamikaze drones with large explosive payload. Bayraktar is basically a cruise missile at 1/1000th cost.

3) No software for self autonomy, and electronic warfare resistance. US relies to much on GPS and satellite signals that can be jammed.

Source: I follow russian telegram war channels.

Yet despite such advantages the war in Ukraine is effectively a stalemate at this moment. It looks to me as if mines have been a bigger factor current operations than drones.

I'm not minimizing drones by any means but there are many causes and effects in war.

It's excruciatingly slow, but there is movement, and the front-line defenses near Robotyne have recently been penetrated. I'm half-expecting some significant progress soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam has entered chat room

I've been following the ISW blog on Ukraine quite closely. It really does seem like small, cheap, commercially available drones are increasingly widely used on both sides. They're used not just for direct strikes, but also reconnaissance and transporting supplies. They're more expendable and easier for teams on the ground to deploy. They typically can fly at lower altitudes and therefore are better at avoiding modern air defence systems. Also they're a more recent innovation, which typically means the enemy has fewer strategies already in place to defend against it.

Drones aren't that new militarily speaking, and aren't particularly survivable against Russian EW systems: they're simply cheap enough that Ukraine can afford to replace the current rate of losses of about 10 000 UAVs per month (Meatgrinder: Russian Tactics in the Second Year of Its Invasion of Ukraine, p. iii)

The OP was questioning whether small drones are proving particularly useful in the Ukraine war. As far as I can tell they definitely are. Their affordability is certainly part of the reason why. Another reason is that their size, speed and altitude make them more difficult for traditional air defense systems to counteract.

> These drones are too small, slow, and low for jet fighters or anti-aircraft missiles to take out

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/06/dumb-and-cheap-when-faci...

> We have developed small radars capable of detecting compact, low-speed targets, which is exactly what drones are. Traditional radars often fail to detect such targets due to their low-altitude flight, as they are primarily designed to intercept high-flying objects like airplanes and missiles.

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/08/13/russians-are-workin...

This sounds great but you still need tanks, humvees, missiles, artillery shells, anti-rocket systems, helicopters, etc. to fight wars. (Lots of them, too.) Adding drones does not address that need any more than the introduction of breech-loading rifles changed the need for other types of military equipment.

And before we get too excited about eliminating carrier-like warships and transport aircraft...How does everyone think the drones will get onto the battlefield?

Drones are another component of combined arms but you need the rest of the stack to use them effectively, plus boots on the ground to hold territory.

Nobody who actually understands warfare believes that aerial drones will obviate armies and navies.

Among the definitional characteristics of air power are its impermanence and dependence on logistic support, and you bet your ass NATO countries know this. It's been established doctrine for years. Decades.

But predicting that $thing will render boots on the ground obsolete is a tradition dating back to time immemorial.

You can measure in nominal dollars, inflation-adjusted dollars, percentage of GDP … or in the only way that matters in war: in comparison to your adversaries

Surprise! It’s neither getting smaller nor cheaper. Smarter? Well, war is pretty dumb … again, it ought to be compared to what we could be doing instead.

I’m not well versed on the current state of military procurement, but this kind of vaguely resembles the NGAD idea/programme that’s been going on for many years now.

The article is also incredibly light on details.

> How would Replicator work on the battlefield? The initial step might be mobilizing two separate swarms of small, unmanned vehicles. The first group, numbering in the tens of thousands, would be focused on surveillance and reconnaissance, sending back uncountable millions of data bits to form a precise targeting picture. Second, the battlespace would be turned over to hundreds or thousands of vehicles large enough to accommodate payloads of explosives. Working alongside them would be drones carrying out cyberattacks to blind the enemy, effectively “cloaking” our own forces while destroying an enemy’s fighting ability.

Isn’t this already how the US mostly conducts operations, but without the tiny drones part? Take advantage of overwhelming air, intelligence, and logistical superiority to quickly neutralise enemy targets. I believe it’s literally in the latest edition of the released doctrine documents: use the clear superiority of US combined arms to coordinate multi domain operations.

This really feels like a mostly fluff piece without any real substance. I haven’t seen any major evidence of a doctrinal change to smaller drones and platforms; NGAD seems alive and well, leaning in traditional American technological and organisational capacity as a core part of doctrine.

Meaning weaker and ineffective. The last great battle they fought in Afghan was absolute humiliation. With peak of 400K troops station in Afghan for near 2 decades with near 10T spent with 1 single objective to remove Taleban. They return home fleeing in great Kabul flee incident gifting countless high tech weapons there to Talebans (to resold to Russians and Chinese). Trained 10K Afghanis commandos to join as mercs worldwide or seeded next round of 911 2.0 in USA. Tactics and weapon severely destroyed by Russians shovels (some American troops got slaughtered there as well under the guise of mercs). Talk about Syria, even more humiliating. The ops there when needed, actually had to request permissions with Wagners general there (not even Russian MoD). Cheaper? They win a war first, then we see and evaluate. As current standing, they are at best 3rd or 4th army in the world in actual combat.

No, it’s not:

> The FY 2023 DoD Budget request of $773.0 billion is a $30.7 billion, or 4.1% increase, from the FY 2022 enacted amount.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/298001...

The article is exploring the idea of moving away from large, multi-year, multi-billion platforms (like aircraft carriers). And it is doing so from the lens of most-effective warfighting capabilities, not from a budget reduction mindset.

I think the implication is what the US military is buying is getting smaller, cheaper and smarter, not that the US military is downsizing.

Wish I could use that same logic in my budget requests. Yeah, the department is still spending a lot of money, but each library we buy is more specialized now!

That's actually a decent comparison. "We're spending just as much, but we're deploying lots of smaller containerized applications instead of one giant on-prem monolith."

That’s lower than inflation, making it a reduction in real terms.

I would guess that not being in hot conflict has decent effect... You burn less money when you don't do anything yourself.

https://archive.is/OuQOY

US MIL also needs to get more lethal. Smaller, cheaper (relative), and smarter are good measures moving in a good direction, but lethality a critical factor for winning wars.

no it is not getting cheaper, much propaganda bloomberg loves it

Actually, as a fraction of GDP, the defense budget is getting smaller as you can see here:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/mili...

Cheers.

Why would you look at it as a % of GDP?

Wouldnt a better comparison be inflation adjusted dollars?

Percentage of gdp would better show what percentage of our resources and people time is being spent.

It could also just reflect some other program getting more money

Hmm yeah makes sense

Good one, but in general, don't trust Macrotrends. Almost every number you can find on it is verifiably false. Sometimes the mistakes are ridiculous and laughable. Not sure who maintains this site, but it regularly produces nonsense.

World Bank database is a much better resource. So is CIA factbook although making historical comparisons using it is inconvenient.

Perhaps. Nonetheless it's ~10x Russia's[1] and ~3.5x China's. The majority of the the remaining Top 10 spenders are allies. It's not a matter of GDP, it's a matter of: exactly who and what necessitates such excess? And what is the associated opportunity cost?

[1] And yet it didn't prevent Russia's quest for Ukraine.

The largest part of the defense budget is pay and benefits, and it turns out Americans are much more expensive to employ than Chinese. China has 2.1 million active duty service members while the US only has 1.3 million.[1] The US also requires all equipment to be manufactured in the US, which is much more expensive than manufacturing in China. You need to account for military purchasing power parity to have an honest discussion about defense spending.[2]

> And what is the associated opportunity cost?

The entire global economy relies on trade, which relies on ocean shipping, which relies on freedom of navigation, which is enforced primarily by the US Navy. American security guarantees have also allowed and protected the development of prosperous democracies like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. There’s also the time the US military led a coalition to stop Milosevic’s campaign of ethnic cleaning in the former Yugoslavia. The opportunity cost here is a poorer, less prosperous, less democratic world with even more genocide and war.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_...

[2] https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/debating-defence-budgets-why-...

The US was winning the shooting war in Ukraine the last time I checked (we may not technically be at war with Russia, but we are in most practical senses of the word).

// The US was winning the shooting war

How would we know? I live in the US but speak fluent Russian and have lots of family from Ukraine, and yet I don't feel like having access to all these perspectives enables me to have a sense for where the truth is.

I can say that what we see in the west is not the whole story - lots of victories, footage of droned Russians, and an occasional reference to a fallen Ukrainians hero. In more pro-russian sources, you get exactly the opposite idea and visuals - lots of blown up Ukrainian and destroyed equipment. If you don't see that on regular basis and what I described sounds surprising, you are getting a very filtered view of what's going on.

I can't claim where the truth is but I know the picture most westerners get by default is very rosy vs reality.

Ukraine is still in the fight over eighteen months after an invasion that was planned to topple Kyiv in three days. I would say the Ukrainians probably deserve more credit than the United States for this outcome, but if you asked anyone in the winter of 2021/2022 to predict the outcome of a full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine is doing much better than one would have reasonably expected.

It was never planned for 3 days. That's just another fake sound bite.

The war was brewing since 2014 and everyone in U.S. government knew it and everyone in Russia knew it.

Here's the late Senator McCain 9 years ago in Kiev: https://youtu.be/93eyhO8VTdg?si=5oIEG-V3BXLhAywd

Here's him and Lindsey Graham again 8 years ago talking about arming and training Ukrainians: https://www.youtube.com/live/AnvF_EzYQ8Q?si=qRMch8mQR5AIPi6m

Here's a surprisingly nuanced perspective at the State Department in 2008: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html#efmBTn...

> The war was brewing since 2014 and everyone in U.S. government knew it and everyone in Russia knew it.

The war arguably started in 2014. 2022 was when Russia went all in on regime change, a goal they have failed to achieve for over a year and a half now.

Looks like it wavers slightly between 3.5 and 4.5%, depending on whether they're actively invading a middle eastern country or not.

Thanks for saving me a click.

alright. let's talk the number. how much would it cost to kill a sand dweller or amazon swinger? how high is the return of investment to get some oil?

I always suggest that the best way to reduce military spending, in particular for the US, would be to focus on soft power. Build schools and hospitals, turn the country into a role-model for others (make it look the country is seriously into being a democracy, improve living standards, reduce inequality, etc), and so many other relatively low-cost measures that would prevent a non-trivial amount of friction that ends up in direct offensive military action.

Making more lethal and cheaper weapons is one way, sure, but one key goal of a standing military in peacetime is to maintain peace, and that can be achieved in many ways cheaper than that.

If that worked, wouldn't Sweden be loved by their neighbors? Instead they're joining NATO for protection and the terrorist threat level is currently at 4 out of 5.

The people we often fight against don't share your values. There isn't a single enemy in the world that hates us for not reducing inequality. Russia didnt invade Ukraine to improve their living standards; and ISIS doesn't hate us for our lack of a social safety net. Our failings are just propaganda talking points for dictators and other terrible people to distract their people from their own failings. Even if we were perfect, they would find something to talk about. They do not want to be your friend.

I agree other investment can reduce the likelihood for war though.. domestic green energy production, electric cars, etc reduce the amount of money going to dictatorships and limit their influence, for example.

>turn the country into a role-model for others

you're assuming that they (others) care about this and do not want to hurt you

Not sure what "you" means in this case. I'm not American and I don't live in the US.

If it's about the US wanting to hurt me, I don't live in a country rich with oil, but I grew up in one that currently has a government less than aligned with American interests, part of the BRICS that's pushing for dedollarization of foreign commerce in the block.

As for a lot of people being really upset about the US, it's not that surprising after invading two countries (one on manufactured evidence about WMD and against the recommendation of the international community), bombing them back to stone age, destabilizing their governments (with the excuse of giving them a "democracy"), and then leaving them to their own luck. And that's all part of what happened this century. I'm not even considering the American involvement in coups, extraordinary renditions, and extra-judicial executions, which generate surprisingly little international outrage, or the much bloodier involvement in South American dictatorships in the 60's and 70's.

I really like the people, but I don't trust the American government to always do the moral thing.

>Not sure what "you" means in this case. I'm not American and I don't live in the US.

by "you" I meant US.

so, this assumes that other do not want to hurt US.

OK. Why would people want to hurt the US in ways military power become a deterrence?

Well, I think we can ask ourselves the same question in terms of Ukraine.

People, crazies, dictators, etc, whatever - have their reasons.

Ukraine no longer has nukes.

hmm, so the nukes were/could be deterrence, which kinda proves the point

Soft power doesn't work without hard power, or someone who wields hard power on your behalf. Countries that currently use soft power most prominently are doing so to attract attention from the citizenry of hard powers such as the US, so that if a conflict arises, said citizenry will be so offended at their friends being harmed that they'll feel an increased duty to join the fight. (this ignores non-military uses of soft power)

> Making more lethal and cheaper weapons is one way, sure, but one key goal of a standing military in peacetime is to maintain peace, and that can be achieved in many ways cheaper than that.

Looking at an a propos use case, how would this approach have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

>> Looking at an a propos use case, how would this approach have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

"What's going on here is that the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path. And the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked. And I believe that the policy that I'm advocating, which is neutralising Ukraine, and then building it up economically, and getting it out of the competition between Russia on one side, NATO on the other side is the best thing that could happen to the Ukrainians. What we're doing is encouraging the Ukrainians to play tough with the Russians. We're encouraging, the Ukrainians to think that they will ultimately become part of the West, because we will ultimately defeat Putin, and we will ultimately get our way, time is on our side. And of course, the Ukrainians are playing along with this."

-- John J. Mearsheimer, 2015

It is not the responsibility of the US to prevent an invasion in another country. A country's military is to protect its own borders and citizens and as a last resort after diplomacy fails.

US influence in Ukraine in 2014 precipitated the Russian invasion. Leaving Ukraine alone in 2014 may have meant no invasion and no war. Sounds pretty great to me.

Assisting Ukraine was a surefire way to start a conflict with Russia. Putin warned an invasion would be the result of NATO expansion. The US ignored the warning and shutdown diplomacy with Russia. This left Russia with no alternative but military force.

Our leaders are playing a deadly game where some choices have near certain outcomes. They chose the path to war as they have for 70 years. The peaceful path would have been to leave Ukraine alone and keep talking to Putin.

> Assisting Ukraine was a surefire way to start a conflict with Russia. Putin warned an invasion would be the result of NATO expansion. The US ignored the warning and shutdown diplomacy with Russia. This left Russia with no alternative but military force.

Interesting comment because NATO never accepted Ukraine as a member or even gave them a MAP, hell even Germany promised Putin before he invaded that Ukraine would never be in NATO, that didn’t do anything.

The quickly deleted Russian victory article also doesn’t mention NATO at all either.

I think it’s far more likely that this has more to do with Russias and more bluntly Putins want to recreate the USSR and imperialism.

I mean the Russian victory article does talk about how Ukraines independence was a mistake and how they have corrected that “mistake”.

A NATO country (US) gave money and weapons to a country that NATO agreed to not allow into NATO. To the country on the otherwise of that agreement (Russia) that sure looks like the start of expansion. Then the US doubled down. From 2014 to 2022, the United States has committed more than $46 billion in security assistance “to help Ukraine preserve its territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve interoperability with NATO,”, according to the State Department.[1]

The US signed a treaty saying it wouldn't add Ukraine to NATO. Then supports UKraine with the stated goal of "interoperability" with NATO. The US did all but sign a treaty making it official.

After Russia invaded in 2022 the US told Ukraine to not negotiate peace. Every step of the way the choice has been made towards conflict instead of a diplomatic solution. I don't know how you can look at the course of events and come to any other conclusion other than the US wants a proxy war with Russia. No choice by the US has been towards peace.

[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040

> A NATO country (US) gave money and weapons to a country that NATO agreed to not allow into NATO. To the country on the otherwise of that agreement (Russia) that sure looks like the start of expansion.

Your source appears to indicate this started after Russia invaded in 2014. So unless Russians can see into the future I don’t see how that can be the cause.

> The US signed a treaty saying it wouldn't add Ukraine to NATO. Then supports UKraine with the stated goal of "interoperability" with NATO. The US did all but sign a treaty making it official.

I’ve never seen such a treaty can you link it?.

> After Russia invaded in 2022 the US told Ukraine to not negotiate peace. Every step of the way the choice has been made towards conflict instead of a diplomatic solution. I don't know how you can look at the course of events and come to any other conclusion other than the US wants a proxy war with Russia. No choice by the US has been towards peace.

I don’t think this is what happened, what I think happened is that when Ukraine recaptured territories (Bucha being the best example) and saw the absolute horrors that the Russians had left behind, they decided there would be no negotiating.

I can understand that, I wouldn’t want to negotiate with someone who had committed such heinous crimes against my people either.

> The peaceful path would have been to leave Ukraine alone and keep talking to Putin.

Not necessarily leaving it alone, but making it into a buffer state where no superpower would be able to exert more influence than the other. If something like that becomes enshrined in their constitution, the legal framework for keeping the country safe and neutral would be in place and everyone would profit, including Ukrainians.

Now that ship has sailed and this became a no-win scenario. Russia will fight to the last Ukrainian for Crimea because it just can't afford losing Sevastopol.

Congratulations to all involved.

> making it into a buffer state where no superpower would be able to exert more influence than the other

That is a diplomatic solution that could have been arranged my continuing diplomacy with Russia.

And, instead, the US opted to stir up opposition despite the multiple warnings (and, quite obvious indications) that Russia would be prompted to act.

Anything like that would require giving Russia a perpetual lease on Sevastopol, as well as assured access to the base. When Ukrainian politicians started floating the idea of not renewing the lease past 2015, there was very little Russia could do but to take what they needed by force, and create an unsustainable situation within Ukraine.

This whole thing could have been solved by an e-mail in 2014.

The US already has a lot of soft power. It is more about Hollywood and McDonald's though.

Turning the country in a role model, although obviously a good thing for its citizens, is no match for propaganda with regard to foreign relationships.

> It is more about Hollywood and McDonald's though.

Well... It's not working really well, right?

Soft power doesn't work when a single viral propaganda video on TikTok or Instagram can convince a 3rd world country that country X is to blame for all their problems.

Maybe it's time to focus more on TikTok then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com