I worked on the control systems for Predators and Reapers back in the mid and late 00s, and the inefficiencies around process were enormous. Safety is extremely important, so you expect some slowness as a result, but it got pretty extreme. I remember one time having to do 6 weeks of testing around a one-line code change because a "helpful" dev fixed a small bug that had no practical impact. Yet because it changed the release build hash, we had to go through a full acceptance test. As you can imagine that incentivized only fixing important bugs, and even those we had to consider whether it was worth it or not. As a result there were a hole pile of bugs that we (and customers) ended up just living with.
On a separate note, I'm curious as to whether AI is making an inroads in that space. I would imagine very minimal, if at all, but very curious.
In Ukraine, the first place that was bombed was the red tape factory.
The drone industry was allowed to basically "do whatever as long as it works", consequences be damned. So they use civilian motors, batteries and SoCs, sketchy firmware with zero code inspection, and more. Does it work perfectly? No. It works well enough.
I wonder if anyone is going to learn a lesson about overregulation.
I'm not sure if "AI for red tape mitigation" is a thing, but "AI for killer drones" sure is. I suspect that "killer drones are insufficiently smart" is easier to fix with AI than "too much red tape". Because the amount of red tape, if unopposed, will expand to consume any capacity of dealing with it, AI or not.
You are making a good point but blaming the wrong thing.
Caution needn’t spiral cost. The reason US weapons cost so
Much is because it’s profitable.
Building things that work 80% of the time makes sense in wartime. It doesn’t as a rule. Hence wartime production will always be cheaper.
Americas problem is that the military industrial complex is built to maximize cost and profit for private corporations, despite them being entirely dependent on government.
Until they are nationalized, and the profit margins are eliminated, you will always pay 20-50% more than you should and gains from efficient won’t be realized.
Look at the auto industry in the US. It’s protected by tariffs and still incapable of matching the Chinese and others on cost. It mainly survives because of incentives which subsidize vehicle types other countries don’t want (pickups) and Americans only buy because of incentives.
Iran is building drones for £3k. The US clones cost 30x that for “additional features” the spec didn’t ask for.
> I wonder if anyone is going to learn a lesson about overregulation.
Seems unlikely. Regulation and Health & Safety are both societal luxuries, which only happen once societies are stable and prosperous enough to start valuing human life beyond its ability to perform labour.
The moment the bombs start dropping, the time for luxuries also stops, and the value of human life drops to value a person can produce defending their society. There isn’t the money or resources for anything more than that.
The US (most developed democracies) places an extremely high value on the lives of soldiers, because dead soldiers in foreign wars does terrible things to politicians in power. Paying 1000X more for the same tech as Ukraine to minimise the number of service members killed using it, is a pretty small price to pay.
No. Certainly not. The fundamentals of modern flight safety rules, Procedures and organizations were created in the Second World War when losses of aircraft and crew due to weather, environment, maintenance, poor training and so on greatly exceeded the losses inflicted by enemy action.
Rules and regulations on safety and health will maintain combat effectiveness and manpower where the loss -even temporary due to injuries or sickness- of well trained specialists (and don't forget that even a "simple" infantryman is a highly specialized expert in his field!) is not acceptable. Those rules were written in blood and modern western militaries can not sustain the rate of loss that Russia seems to be ok with. Western leader will be well advised to try to minimize losses to real combat casualties.
But I sure think that they will start to cut corners, at least where it comes down to documentation and purely cya.
> the value of human life drops to value a person can produce defending their society.
OP was talking about how US munitions software needs to go through a 6 week long integration test before it can be deployed. I seriously doubt that kind of testing would last very long if the US was engaged in peer level war, and their enemy had found a flew in their munitions guidance systems that made the munitions useless.
At the end of the day, when at war time isn’t just money, it’s also lives. When you have people dying on the frontlines, the risk of equipment failures from lack of testing will be substantially smaller that loss of lives from ineffective equipment, that can only be improved every other month.
The regulation crucially results in your recruits not dying for no good reason during training just because some random piece of trash equipment predictably failed.
Preventing that is much more important than the exact dollar efficiency of said equipment during peacetime.
Perhaps, but, for better or worse, it's about optics. It looks better to say a soldier died bravely in war than it does to say they died because of a friendly-fire incident with a drone with shoddy control software.
I'm not an expert but I think this is an old lesson in warfare, that guerillas can triumph over larger adversaries by being more exploratory/iterative and less rules-bound. Tolstoy tells this story in the second half of War and Peace. Likewise with Iraqi militants wreaking havoc with IEDs. People repelling an invader have every incentive to move fast.
I've just read that section of War and Peace and was blown away by the descriptions of guerrilla tactics as well as Tolstoy's way of capturing the state of mind of the Russian POWs and their ever-shifting relationships with their captors.
As an aside, the word Guerrilla (little war) was coined during Napoleon's occupation of Spain to describe the resistance effort by locals and peasants against the French army.
That applies everywhere. You’re commenting on a forum for startups that compete against established players. David will always, in the long run, win against Goliath.
> If you glass the villages and salt the fields, you even win against the taliban and vietkong.
You may win tactically, but you lose strategically - firstly by demonstrating that surrender is pointless, and secondly by creating a martyr movement across the world.
When you sow fields with salt, the only harvest you should reasonably expect is more blood.
Which binds the empire crime family together. This was how it was done allover until 1945. Its how its still done in russia, near china, how the middle east does things. That we "shall overcome" only applied to the west as a selfset achievement. And history tells us that the dead are forgotten. Nobody is out there avenging jews or armenians. Thus also the pro active paradigm of "better fuck around as a empire" then being "found out to be peace loving". Congrats to the anti western westerners, you won so much, you got the old world back.
Thinking of past notable Goliaths: Ma Bell has been reconstituting herself from the split apart companies, IBM and GE are… alive, and Edison Illuminating Company and Carnegie Steel are alive in successor companies.
I'm hesitant to use 'always' language but the innovator's dilemma is indeed another application of the same principle. It's remarkable when a company like Google can pivot in a way that threatens its existing core revenue streams.
> I wonder if anyone is going to learn a lesson about overregulation.
Regulation - or more generally - formalization comes with scaling up. A skunkworks project can innovate really fast, and has no integration and scale needs. When you want to scale up any project (hardware or software), integrating and scaling become a real bitch, and you need to ensure that everyone is on the same page or face costly "silly" mistakes that history is replit with.
You can't magick away coordination challenges by labeling the process "red tape." This happens every single time any small nimble organization grows beyond certain thresholds. On a personal level, organizing a trip for 3 friend is process-free, but for 10+ people requires checklists and heavier processes, for 30 people it becomes a nightmare requiring professional assistance. Low probability events become regular occurrences when you scale, and you have to plan and/or mitigate them adding "red tape".
Yes and no. Acceptable failure level is important.
It matters if you care about 1, 2, or 10 out of the 30 people on the trip missing a flight, getting lost, or going hungry.
Of course there's a bare minimum for a product that works at all. Beyond that there are increasing levels of rigor that focus on reliability, and these can be non-linear.
>The drone industry was allowed to basically "do whatever as long as it works", consequences be damned
Yes because Ukraine fights an existential war and at this point on both sides people just shrug when a few civilians get blown up.
The US isn't under existential threat and when they go to war their highest priority is to never risk the lives of operators and if possible, if only for PR reasons (and even then it doesn't always work) not generate news about rogue missiles or rogue killer drones. The attack on a school in Iran that killed 150 children apparently was already the result of a rushed mission that ignored procedures because this kind of thinking is starting to take hold in US defense circles.
That's not just an ethical disaster but also a political and strategic one because these events can rally enemies around a regime and the political arena is where for the US wars are won and lost, both at home and abroad.
I don’t know the details of that situation, but I have been on the other side of that debate.
People say “it’s a one line change” (once they argued it was a 1 bit change!). But lacking a fully controlled and hermetic build system with its own exhaustive test suite you can’t be sure about the relationship between the source and the binary. And that continues to every step to get the binary into production (updating existing devices, etc).
Sure, your ultra paranoid checking of everything might catch an extremely rare bug caused by something like interactions between a benign code change and a build system. But is it worth slowing down the development process by that much?
Is it worth missing out on an entire generation of technology, like what happened with US and the shift from 00s drone warfare and 20s drone warfare?
"It works well enough" is a significant understatement. I think it would be more accurate (especially given the perceptions at the outset of the war) to say that it has worked significantly better than anyone expected. Ukrainian ingenuity is single handedly driving conversations about the "future of warfare" in capitals from Brussels to DC to Beijing.
> I wonder if anyone is going to learn a lesson about overregulation.
This also misses the point imo. A simpler answer is "necessity is the mother of invention". There is value in a regime for peacetime. One is also a fool if they do not recognize needs change drastically in wartime. Two things can be true. The United States, like nearly all sensible nations, has almost always understood this and acted accordingly. On the other hand, nations that govern themselves as if they were on a perpetual war path are usually far less desirable societies. The idea that we need to speed rush "AI for killer drones" because otherwise we will find ourselves on the wrong end of an existential invasion are nonsensical. Americans would be far better off if our leaders and our people stopped acting like every potential conflict was existential.
There is no Russia on our borders. The only thing American adventures overseas have accomplished in the last two decades is making our country weaker.
Correct, but it goes deeper than just the building components. In the US you have to go through an entire military procurement process within each iteration loop. So you design a weapon, then try to sell it to the military, but just the process of demonstrating it and selling it to the military takes a long time and costs money. If you fail you can go back to the drawing board, but each iteration loop is probably a year minimum. And if you are successful now you have to set up and scale production. Get ready for years of environmental reviews and lawsuits.
In Ukraine the military will take any drone they can get their hands on, so all you have to do is build a drone, give a bunch of them to the army to try out on the Russians, and within a week they will tell you if it works or not. So your design iteration loop is probably weeks. If you are successful, the time between hearing the general say "give me 1 million" and when the bulldozers start clearing the factory site is probably measured in days.
Emergency is the mother of making exceptions. During both US gulf wars, the army broke from its long tradition of over-regulating new systems before they could be fielded, especially for small semi-autonomous platforms like flying drones and robots. Entirely new systems as well as major updates to fielded system were routinely prototyped in-country / on-the-battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. The demand for new capabilities and fixes was simply too great not to ship ASAP.
It's interesting that the red tape is still there on the Russian side. A Ukrainian drone maker can make a new one and put it on their brave1 website straight away, Russian ones have to go through a lengthy bureaucratic procurement process. I think Russian interceptor drones still can't use explosive warheads because regulation, health and safety etc. It's quite a plus for the Ukrainians.
cf the other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48845442 ; Ukraine has a hugely inventive and effective drone industry because it has to work. If it doesn't succeed, there is no Ukraine, and everyone involved in making the drones is dead, fled, in a POW camp, or sucked into the internal Russian displacement system away from their family.
By comparison, if the US products fail, there's no real negative effect on the mainland United States.
> if the US products fail, there's no real negative effect on the mainland United States
It's even worse than that. Schedules slipping and cost overruns are good things for the manufacturer, because they can charge more on top of their initial contract. Cost-plus ftw.
Cost plus isn’t nearly as common as it used to be.
But you still run into similar issues regardless of the contract structure. Try and build a rail network without anyone in government wanting something changed from the initial design for 20 years.
Yep, because of the incentives. Few people in the government making those choices are depending on the thing actually getting built.
Most are paid to prevent projects with a given defect type from proceeding. They aren't rewarded for the number of projects that succeed without defects. Preventing CYA from running wild is a legitimately hard problem to solve.
> Ukraine has a hugely inventive and effective drone industry because it has to work.
Well yes, that and the fact that cheap drone guerilla tactics have fairly recently become a technological possibility. Remember that Ukraine is actually a bit late to the party here, with Hezbollah and ISIS having used cheap drones with cameras and/or explosives tied to them years before Ukraine or Russia did. The asymmetry in cost between those cheap drones and the existing "more hightech = more better" militaries were (and are!) used to was already established. That a party such as Ukraine faced with a more advanced and much larger opponent would lean towards such an approach makes a lot of sense. Ukraine did not (and does not really) have significant amounts of the traditional stuff.
Now given that they chose that path, they have been very effective recently, but note that the tethered fiber-optic drones were a Russian invention. So even that deeply corrupt, large dinosaur of an institution innovated significantly. It is also important to note that a significant part of the recent successes of Ukraine are due to them having Starlink access and Russia no longer having it.
I'm not saying the sheer will to survive or the inventive organisation of the Ukranians did nothing (far from it), but I do think it is a mistake to think that their success should only be viewed through that lens.
They can pop out defects and if things go wrong and there's friendly fire or civilian loss, it's chalked up to scrappy efforts in war. The USA does not get the same amount of leeway, saving our people is a top priority and the media harps on any mistake.
And it makes sense. If the choice is between getting killed by the enemy and loosing the war or risking that one in 10 000 launches results in friendly fire it might be worth it but it would not be for a country not fighting a war for survival.
To be fair, I know plenty of people there. Drones are important, but they aren't the only reason the front is holding. Both sides rely heavily on drones.
> As you can imagine that incentivized only fixing important bugs, and even those we had to consider whether it was worth it or not.
Or you're batching your releases into larger builds because you know it'll take 6 weeks to test regardless. This increases the duration of each development iteration because you have 100 things you want to do and you could do that in, say, 4x13 week efforts, but with the added 6 weeks between iterations (and possibly more after it leaves your shop) that takes a one year effort and turns it into about 1.5. So the program office decides you should do one big release each year, which also ups the risk because a lot of testing that would catch bugs isn't done until the end in that big 6-week test effort. Oops, now your 1 year + 6 week effort just got turned into 1 year + 6 week + (unknown rework time) + 6 weeks. Probably 2 years.
My last job was like this, a full round of QAs manually testing, along with writing up a grandiose release document, stakeholder approvals, and whatnot, for something that should just take two days of development work, and an insistence on putting configuration values into the database, supposedly because it's "safer" than deploying a new configuration file.
If you are in an environment where deploying a new configuration file is easier than adding data in a pre-existing database, you are in a bad place already.
This is one of the reasons weapons and technology development overall explodes during wartime. Desperation is the cure for risk aversion.
It's also a reason to be skeptical of a military spending a bunch of money developing technology during peacetime. In reality the expensive stuff they went into the war with is always going to be less effective than the cheap stuff they came out with.
Maybe if you're in a war that actually threatens your country. In the US, the Republican Party wages wars (such as the Iran War) pretty exclusively to facilitate borrowing public money and dumping it into the pockets of the rich. What looks like waste to the taxpayer is a feature to Republicans and their paymasters (including Israel, in the case of the Iran War).
Life critical software that gets visibility by congress tends to be a very bureaucratic process. Your boss doesn't want your commit being the one that causes a worldwide diplomatic issue.
I assume that smaller/cheaper drones avoid a lot of this because the stakes aren't near as high and quite a bit of the development occurs in private industry first.
Yeah, the anti-regulation people when NASA experiments: "look at all these failures! Cut NASA funding and give public funds to the guy who purchases elections!"
The same people when SpaceX blows up a bunch of rockets: "wow, look at the innovation, they move so fast! Cut NASA funding and give public funds to the guy who purchases elections!"
NASA's failures as of late are less "dramatic explosions" and more "delays", "cost overruns" and "lack of ambition so severe it borders on criminal".
The last time NASA caught any serious flak was what, the Starliner shitshow? And that was just splash damage from Boeing getting dunked on by everyone at once.
> lack of ambition so severe it borders on criminal
I'm not sure what timeline you're thinking about, but JWST was launched pretty recently and it's pretty ambitious. But more to the point of my earlier post, NASA's "lack of ambition" is probably directly attributable to the "small government" people who penalize ambition in the public sector and praise it in the private, government contractor sector. The incentives to be ambitious in government are perverse when every "failure" is scrutinized and condemned by people who want government to fail so that they can justify taking public money and dumping it into private bank accounts.
A big part of the reason for useless Gateway was that NASA wanted post-ISS missions, but was too afraid to roll with a permanent Moon base instead. The other big part was that Orion sucked, and somehow, neither "get Orion to suck less" nor "roll with Orion, provision for HLS to do more" was in the cards. This only changed under Isaacman.
For every Curiosity and JWST, there's ARM and Artemis. It seems like it's getting better now, but very slowly.
NASA had real safety issues in the past - Space Shuttle is a testament to that. But if this is the fix, they clearly overcorrected.
There's some sort of happy middle ground between flying a ship that has a very significant chance of a catastrophic failure killing all crew and can't even fly unmanned, and almost not letting Ingenuity fly because the chance of failure was deemed too great. NASA didn't find it.
But aren't the politicians also corrupt? (or at least most of them) One therefore assumes that any action by congress must be corrupt. This appears borne out by the evidence over the past few decades.
That’s a damn good point, probably more costly and more of a hassle to adopt off-the-shelf products to work reliably in a military environment while minimizing risk.
We could always be less risk averse. We still seem to kill civilians at high rates and our own soldiers signed up to die. Gold-plated weapons aren't much good against peer powers anyway; it's production volume that wins those wars.
The obvious answer is that the more bugs you batch up, the higher the chances the next build fails - this is why CI became a thing, small iterative changes are safer and lead to greater throughput
CI doesn't mean doing all the tests all the time though. The expensive tests still wait until there's a major reason to run them. I had the same question as the parent and I still don't quite see why this can't work.
I didn't work on this project, but I've been involved with similar ones.
There is a process for getting a change into version control. Each change needs to have a (virtual) paper trail: motivation, risk analysis, sign-offs &c.
If you can't get something into VC quickly, you can't really do CI.
The obvious solution would be to have an integration branch that doesn't need the process to get in, do CI testing on that branch and then make the process for merging to the real branch.
I've never seen this done personally, but I have been told some places do it, and then you end up with "Change X, which got approved had a dependency on Change Y that didn't get approved and we didn't realize it until now because Change Y was put in the integration branch before Change X"
That sounds odd. The way it was done in every place I worked, is that a set of changes were approved for a release before they were planned and implemented. We organized the work as expected: each bug/feature on its own branch, with its own set of unit tests, etc., and automated testing applied on each commit. These branches are then merged to the integration branch once they are known good. Before the release process starts, QA would get a copy of the integration branch and test that.
The dependency problem doesn't exist, because all the features were already approved to be in the release. The only way there would be a problem is if someone decided late in the game to pull a feature and that feature was a dependency to something else.
What I described was for bugfixes, not features. Features were set in stone way before this.
I also maintain that it is impossible to know which changes depend on other changes. In one case, applying a bugfix that changed the order of allocations at startup caused vtable corruption somewhere else because it changed how much padding a particular malloc() call was returning, and someone was writing past the end of their allocation.
[edit]
Also note that what you described is not CI; things are developed on their own branches and not integrated immediately.
It's may seem like a nitpick but I think it's a whole different way off looking at it to phrase it as "applying a bugfix that changed the order of allocations at startup exposed memory corruption somewhere else"
I do think there is something to be said for both perspectives, especially for code that is extremely critical. With sufficient testing and determinism maybe you can actually make sure that dormant issues stay dormant meaning there is real value in being change-averse. Still it's a very precarious situation having a known memory corruption hoping it's the testing has made sure its benign in practice.
IMO All it exposed was writing past the end of buffers.
There was no memory corruption previously due to partially to luck, and partially to heavy testing (which would have exposed most forms of memory corruption).
I think it is fare to say that the change was a cause of the vtable corruption occurring, since without the change it didn't happen.
Once this is discovered, you need to rethink your change plan for the next release; if you back out this one change, your software will return to a working state. Whether doing that, or fixing your buffer overflow is the correct thing to do depends on a lot of specific factors.
Well, approval is a different beast from passing tests. But also, that's not how I was imagining this. I was imagining maintaining separate branches on top of each release, only combining them (merge or rebase or whatever) when you have a good reason to. That keeps things independent and makes it so you can always cut a release with solely the critical fixes (and test them in isolation, etc.) whenever needed, letting you integrate the noncritical ones opportunistically.
The bureaucratic development process sounds like Autosar in automotive. I am not surprised that newcomers from USA and Chinese auto companies are able to completely dominate in software because Autosar based development has been like giving a birth to a hedgehog. Slow and painful.
> one time having to do 6 weeks of testing around a one-line code change because a "helpful" dev fixed a small bug that had no practical impact
Roll back the change? Also, fix the approval process - no way that should have been approved.
Generally speaking that is risk management, an unavoidable engineering tradeoff. In lower stakes situations, for example a critical application or server for a small office, we let low-impact bugs accumulate: Imposing risks, and therefore eventual costs, to avoid minor workarounds and low-impact bugs is poor engineering and risk management.
Engineering and all risk management includes tradeoffs. It's easy to criticize the downside of the tradeoff - the same people criticize the reverse decision when the server (or drone) crashes - when someone is not responsible for both sides of it, when they are not accountable for their words when the outcome occurs.
That's speaking generally. It's also poor risk management to be overly safe. I don't know about the parents' situation. But drone crashes (risking humans), mission failure, $50 million losses, and associated downtime (including delays) and labor costs, seem like high costs that are worth some pain to avoid.
Yeah FPV drones have massively increased the cost of invading a country. It's basically a return to WWI style trench warfare, except no man's land is the size of the range of the drones (20+ KM).
It's a million times worse than that. Drones have commoditization accuracy and precision and dramatically improved ISR, and that has produced a dramatic jump in lethality.
You used to be able to take a hit and survive a war. Those days are gone. Now you die because 1kg of C4 blew up your entire ass, or you take a less dramatic hit but you will never be dragged back to a field hospital.
Eventually the US or similar will have to get into this kind of war, and there will be a come to jesus moment for all the hoo rah americans who think your chances of surviving a war are based on anything other than sheer luck.
This is Bad, man.
Nukes already showed you can't make a weapon so crazily deadly and destructive that man would end war, so things will be bleak for the rest of humanity's reign.
Has seeing the horrors of the Ukraine war made you want the west to stop it and force a surrender? More horrors don't make people want less war. If anything, it may be the opposite. People pretend to be anti-war right up until there's a war and then suddenly it turns out they're actually anti-losing-the-war.
I want less war. I'm against attacking other countries, but totally in favor of defending yourself if you get attacked. Those aren't contradictory statements.
Surrendering to an aggressor will let the aggressor get what they want, hence making war more appealing. So it's coherent for anti-war people to resist and make it as hard as possible for an aggressor. Even Gandhi justified defensive war.
Humans just adapt and normalize things too quickly, so long term seeing more violence will just desensitize people and make it more acceptable. Just look at the difference between protected kids in suburbs vs kids growing up in bad areas.
In the late 1960s daily TV news coverage revealed the horrors of war to the American public as never before (just as Brady's photos had done in the Civil War). That palpable gruesomeness was instrumental in the rising tide of unpopularity enjoyed by the war (and Johnson) by the elections of 1968.
A month ago Sternenko had a crowdfunding campaign for the secret drones. Recently he showed the fruits of that campaign: new drones have better connection and now you can watch kills in 4k!
Also recent advances in battery tech brought increased energy density: the same drones which had range 20km now have 40km.
If you make a hammer, it can always be used to murder someone, but if you make an AK-47, there's only one way it can be used. So if you don't want what you make to be used for killing, don't make an AK-47. If you 're good at toolmaking, choose to make tools that are not weapons.
In contrast I read that Ukraine is approving 4+ new weapons systems PER DAY !!
Even when it comes to more expensive things like cruise missiles it seems the planning has to be that some high percentage of them may be shot down (and much higher for slower moving drones), so you really want them cheap and in high volume, with reliability somewhat of a secondary concern.
> Safety is extremely important, so you expect some slowness as a result, but it got pretty extreme. I remember one time having to do 6 weeks of testing around a one-line code change because a "helpful" dev fixed a small bug that had no practical impact.
Not to bring Tesla into this, but the contrast here is stunning. From a component manufacturer about the mindset of Tesla:
"Hey, we sent you over the new firmware for the component, check it out." (The test suite for this component takes approximately 36 hours to execute.)
Three hours later:
"This is working so much better, thanks a lot!"
"???"
"Oh, we just flashed a car we have here and took it out for a drive."
This just seems like poor planning. If it were planned better, you could group a bunch of smaller bug fixes under the same acceptance test. The full acceptance test is a good practice for safety critical systems. Project management just has to get better at doing smaller unit/int testing on each bug and then grouping those changes under the full acceptance test.
This only makes sense if you have to test each fix in complete isolation which seems silly even for government employees and contractor body shops. You can't batch 80 real bug fixes and 20 "silly bug with no practical impact" fixes together?
Surely the dev wasn't able to merge that one-line code fix causing 6 weeks of testing without any other eyes on it and without someone else's PR-like approval...right?
Basically, those guys trained a drone to beat human FPOV racers but they had access to the race course layout before the race and trained extensively on it. Can't do that on a battlefield.
Also: no shooting at enemy drones during FPOV races. Makes surviving to the end of the race simpler.
for sure, no way even an intelligent person could possibly make a text-to-speech typo when writing a comment on an informal internet forum. Definitely a lying liar who lies
I don't really understand how any of this contributes to "defense". Sounds like "offense" to me. Just patrolling the skies over non-white countries and launching missiles at weddings. The reason the Pentagon invests so heavily in this kind of technology is our wars are so indefensible, they can't convince Americans to sacrifice blood in any quantity for other people's natural resources.
> Introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen school of history, the term denoted one of three purported major races of humans: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid
There are ~350,000,000 of us. When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for.
What boggles my mind is that I make coffee at home because I'm frugal. I guess it is good the government and DoD are seeking cheaper alternatives also.
My favorite interview question: If I gave you a swarm of autonomous drones, what would you do with them?
There is a group in South Florida who stand watch over turtle nests on the beach to ensure the hatchlings make it to the ocean instead of instinctively moving towards the street lamps or the bright hotels. I would use drones to hover over the nests to detect if the turtles hatch so people don't have to stand there.
> When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that.
I like to think about how providing 4-week paid parental leave would cost $2 billion annually and actually help US families. Meanwhile we have spent over $100 billion on this war.
How do you even estimate that, human productivity is non linear to worktime and often, employees, when given good benefits are likely to be more productive.
also there's the fact of this having a ROI since people generate economic value in the longer run, and hence, more taxes
One would think, but the flip-side is that this supports more women in the workforce. Traditional roles of men working and women caring for kids seems like a bigger priority of this admin.
I do think it is a policy point that Democrats should absolutely be hammering them on. This is pro-worker and pro-family at very low cost.
Most of republican’s decisions become much more logically consistent once you realize they just want to control people, primarily women and minorities. It isn’t and has never been about “family values” or “religious freedom” or “small government”. If it was about those things, they would look far more like democrats.
> the possible events that could lead to World War 3. Iran is directly connected to all of that.
If any event has pushed us closer to WW3 it is the US's decision to preemptively attack Iran.
> Seems like money well spent.
Based on what outcome? The regime is still intact, if not stronger. They are likely more resolute in wanting a nuclear weapon, as we almost certainly wouldn't have attacked them if they had one. They have validated their control over the Straight of Hormuz and it's impact on our economy.
That's a propaganda line. Iran has lost most of its capacity to make war, but it can still harass.
The money is also not as relevant as people think. The amount of money is largely political fluff, not much in the way of serious economic impact in a $32 trillion economy.
Iraq was never really about WMDs. WMDs were a surface political mechanism to achieve the aims, which were different. If you look at all the individual events that transpired before then it was clear something had to be done, but it wasn't a neat one liner that's easy to rally people around like WMDs.
> My favorite interview question: If I gave you a swarm of autonomous drones, what would you do with them?
What signal are you looking for with that question? It feels much more like a thought experiment with friends while having a few pints than something reasonable for a job interview.
It was the initial culture / behavioral interview for a job developing AI for education of children. Considering how these drones are used in the article linked, the question is apropos.
> When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for.
(Your share of overall defense spending is ~1,000x higher, of course.)
I wish political leaders would express it that way. And you need to include the time factor: $10/year for 10 years differs from $20 for a one-time event. And somehow figure in capital accumulation (as opposed to e.g., consumables) and depreciation. But there are clear, effective ways to communicate it: 'I propose each American spend an average of $80/year for 50 years on this fighter jet program'. 'This moon mission will cost everyone $5/year for 2 years.'
To nitpick a little, I think your math is off: There are 350 million Americans, but we need to exclude most children, elderly, etc.
>It pales compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for.
Thinking of country-scale finances in the same way you think about personal finance is wrong in many ways. Take debt for example. As an individual, it's arguably best not to have debt at all. As a country, sovereign debt is the foundation of the world's money supply and fuels continuous economic growth.
Also, though the U.S. has $31 Trillion dollars of debt, $22 Trillion of that belongs to U.S. domestic traders.
If we were to cut our debt down to zero, we'd cripple ourselves with taxes and stifle growth. We'd have zero debt but we'd be sent into a massive economic depression, and that would likely ripple out across the planet.
Another way to look at it; I'll be long gone when a child born today will be paying it. Why do you think I'm concerned about a child who I will never meet getting stuck with debt I voted to accrue?
> instinctively moving towards the street lamps or the bright hotels.
> I would use drones to hover over the nests to detect if the turtles hatch so people don't have to stand there.
And put brighter lights on the drones to lead them in the right direction!
But if you asked me that in an interview, I would probably question whether I wanted to work there. I don't think random, irrelevant, put-me-on-the-spot questions help anyone on either side of that coin.
Operations is about 1/4 of the budget ($1.75T), and half of that is DoD. 60% is payments for entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The remaining 15% is debt service.
> The federal government costs about $19 billion per day to operate based on an annual budget of roughly $7 trillion.
$7 trillion is not operating expenses. Much goes into assets that are retained decades or more. The Interstate Highway System isn't an operating expense.
Probably is an issue but sea turtles hearing is adapted to ocean not air and low frequencies. Also, waves and wind blowing likely muffle a lot of noise.
The organizations that do this have mobile apps and collect tons of data. If I'm use ML, I'd start with time series forecasting to see if I can get the window done to a few hours.
Now you know why there is war. We have war because the U.S. is failing. Just look at the reversal of the 10 and 30 y bonds over the last 20 years. All the free money that was given to the oligarchs killed our economy.
Sexual assault allegations and literal Nazi symbolism tattooed on his body. Those things are acceptable now? These were the exact things that Democrats went after Hegseth for (who, for the record, is also a doofus like Platner).
You can guess where the bar is when the guy in the white house was literally convicted of sexual assault in a court of law, and he still won the republican nomination.
Now compare that against a credible accusation being enough to derail a senate hopeful in a must win seat for the Democrats. Sorry, I don't see the hypocrisy. Actually, I do see it, just not on the side you insist it's on.
> literally convicted of sexual assault in a court of law
It was a civil case, not criminal, and had included no physical evidence. And the claim was so old the statute of limitations had run out, but no worries, New York temporarily extended it so she could bring her lawsuit against Trump. It was bullshit, like most of these cases of women crawling out of the woodwork after decades during very critical times are.
When your standard is "believe all women, no matter how long it's been, no matter how politically convenient the timing is, no matter that there's nothing but anecdotal evidence", well, don't be surprised when it's used against your team.
> You can guess where the bar is
Have you considered that maybe people don't believe these political stunts rather than tacitly approve of what the person was accused of? You're even doubtful of the Platner one. This trick has been played one too many times for people to take them at face value anymore.
And lets just ignore him being long time friends with Epstein and burying the case?
Or the many other women that came forward. We trust Mr grab them by the pussy instead. That totally didn't cheat on his wife with a pornstar and paid her off illegally to keep quiet.
And they’re still on cnbc daily saying rates need to go down to save the us. There’s a guy on right now saying rates need to be lower to save the ai bubble.
> prevent billionaires from wasting even more money on boondoggles
This is what you want though? If everyone stops "wasting even more money on boondoggles" there is no innovation, and no jobs if nobody is making more boondoggles.
I mean 20 years ago, just like the original comment said. What is confusing? The last 20 years of interest rates are unremarkable, and certainly don't indicate the US is failing.
the last 20 years of interest rates absolutely are remarkable, and reflect massive (and historically unprecedented) intervention from the central bank.
because of the near collapse of the US financial system, almost exactly 20 years ago.
> There are ~350,000,000 of us. When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for.
Confiscating 100% of all billionaire wealth (~$8.4T)
covers
- ~1.1 years of federal spending (~$7.4T)
- ~4.4 years of deficits (~$1.9T)
- ~23% of debt (~$36T):
and pretty much kills US ability to rely on private sector
(and I dont think we have a way to rely on public sector)
The sooner we all start focusing on things that actually matter -- like improving democracy, quality of education (btw spending more may not solve it) etc -- the faster we will improve situation.
Cities like NYC pretty much can afford UBI (look at per capita spending on homelessness, public schools etc).
Taxing more may not be the answer.
*it should be studied what motivates people to repeat it
IMO its a useful populist slogan because it solves a different problem: The power that comes with being a billionaire. E.g. its all well and good to focus on fixing democracy instead, but if (some specific) billionaires are focused on deploying their wealth to destroy democracy, then what?
I've generally come around to believe that we need to limit wealth from a purely power / control point of view.
I think it's a great system of checks and balances- billionaires are only created by dealing with a lot of people and successfully solving a lot of problems. Once they have it, it's work to hold on to the money though. Politicians don't really produce anything measurable to show if they've helped or hurt society, and so they work to devalue the meaning of the dollar.
If you get rid of wealthy people's power, what takes its place other than politicians?
Hi again. You are definitely correct on the first point. But the second point shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works. Our economy highly favors capital over income. The only way to make billions and then lose it all is to be a complete degenerate. They will always be wealthy. The amount of money these people lose on a given day as the stock market bobs around demonstrates that once achieved, money in the hands of the wealthy operates on a level the average American really can't fathom. Over time, they will always continue to do well. Deploying capital, once earned, is not hard. If it is work, it must be one of easiest things to do in the world. It's like saying trust fund babies have to work hard. If it was hard to hold onto wealth our society would be an extremely different one. It's in fact so easy that a lot of the economics around startup investing comes from the phenomena that rich people get bored with their own money. Why settle for boglehead style returns when you can yolo millions of dollars into a potential > 10x return. How do you even spend a billion dollars? You really can't. The only way is to put it into things were again, it is far more advantaged than actual income. Yes there is some work involved in vetting and talent etc. But don't buy into all the hype. A lot of it comes down to luck and getting to the point where you have the capital to spread your bets, knowing the economics mean that even if you lose, you will still win. It's the getting there that is hard. Not the staying there.
It's very important to acknowledge this. Because this wealth is retained long after w/e the societal problem addressed that created the wealth is solved. It is an open question how to deal with that problem, which becomes a societal issue in its own right. I however also share your hesitancy to turn over said gains to politicians, who don't seem to solve any problems or produce any solutions. Unfortunately we shouldn't also forget that they are society's elected proxies. Perhaps we can strive for a system were both politicians and billionaires are weakened in furtherance of some notion of the common good. The idea of "reinvestment" need not be either a wholly public or private enterprise. Most successful societies understand the checks and balances lie somewhere in thinking less in terms of a public/private dichotomy and more like a public/private partnership. The United States used to operate more like this, before the Reagan era ushered in a time of pronounced deference to capital [1]. It would really not take much to bring things back into a more reasonable balance.
> Confiscating 100% of all billionaire wealth (~$8.4T) covers - ~1.1 years of federal spending (~$7.4T) - ~4.4 years of deficits (~$1.9T) - ~23% of debt (~$36T):
Adding a wealth tax doesn't mean eliminating existing income taxes.
> Cities like NYC pretty much can afford UBI (look at per capita spending on homelessness, public schools etc).
Perhaps , but what about poor states like West Virginia or Alabama. It's not universal if they don't receive benefits also.
Just remember those states are already handout states. They take more money in than they give back. They also have some bizarre cultural hatred for the blue states and cities that make this country an economic superpower. The idea NYC shouldn't do its best to take care of its own because people in Alabama aren't getting enough is nonsensical. Imo they already get far more than they deserve.
It mostly goes back to when mortgages (then other debts) were handled by local banks by law, then people in NYC changed those laws so all the money was routed to them. It's not like NYC is just purely more productive, it just found a way to ensure all money must go through them, and they take some of it as almost a form of a new tax. Not that this more central form of banking is all bad, but when almost all the "real" work (farming, building, factories, etc) is done outside the city and they have no real say in the matter it leads to resentment.
Contingency around wealth occurs in myriad ways. It's not like other blue cities are not wealthy. Obviously the financialization of the economy is quite evident in New York in particular, as it is in places like London or Shanghai or Hong Kong. This was often preceded by times when these cities were also notable as ports and more "real" (to use your phrase) centers of trade. Other blue cities do well for different reasons. The fact is the kind of "real" work you have described has been devalued over a long period of history, and going back to that is not desirable. Even in Roman times, Rome was not were the food was made. If you are a country today, as back then, were the greatest thing you can achieve is "food" and "building" you are considered a weak society. These are things humanity has already solved for centuries ago. Since the dawn of civilization. That's what civilization is. Advances since have always come with some degree of "financialization" or "service economy". If that makes you upset then you can give up the medicine, peace, science, etc that comes with civilization and go back to when "real" work was extremely valued because you had to kill for your food everyday. What could be more "real" than that?
I understand the resentment of poverty to wealth. This is not what I am referring to when it comes to Alabama and New York. The cultural resentment towards NYC in particular from these places is egregious. It's not about wealth, it's about religion, it's about diversity, and it's about demonization.
It's become such a thoughtless exercise on the mainstream right to essentially claim that people in New York City are not "real Americans". That they don't have "American values". To the point where when people like Ted Cruz get openly challenged on this it feels like something of a revelation. The moment Trump turned another such diatribe against Cruz was another strong signal he was going to take over that party.[1] And yet this lazy rhetorical convention has not retired. It is disgraceful. Why do major political candidates in a system with only two parties engage in such transparent attacks on a city of millions of their fellow citizens? Obama made one little "cling to their guns" comment and was forced to prostrate himself in apology. Meanwhile in these "red" states treating New Yorkers or other blue states as almost satanic is par for the course. This is not the resentment of wealth alone.
It would be one thing if it was just empty political rhetoric. But it is not. People in New York do not obsess over people in Alabama. We don't fantasize about sending our national guard into their states, or stealing their elections, or deporting their populations who don't look like us. We don't obsess about crime rates in their cities, which are worse in many red states per capita than our own. We tolerate the fact that most guns used in inner city crime, our so-called "gun free zones" come from guns in poorly regulated red states, as if the southside of Chicago houses weapon manufacturing factories. As far as I can tell the resentment from people in Alabama or Arkansas and the like comes from wanting to return to an age where they could pelt young black girls with hatred and abuse for wanting to go to school and having to suffer the federal government sending troops there to tell them to act like the civilized society they claim to be [2]. If you do not acknowledge a very specific type of hatred has been festering in these places for sometime I would suggest you are not paying enough attention and need to reacquaint yourself with your history. If we didn't have to protect people like the Little Rock Nine the same resentment would not exist. When Southern plantation owners could depend on enslaved labor, the gap between the North and the South was not so vast. Many of the framers understood in the long run this was not sustainable, and that a civil war was likely inevitable if "all men are created equal" was to actually succeed.
Along these lines, something we may wish to consider in the future is returning to a spirit of federalism, that is, a weaker federal government and more autonomous states. That is, provided retrograde states like Alabama or Arkansas do not once again use such a framework as a pretext to perpetuate a system of racial slavery onto their own citizens. Perhaps the average person in Alabama has learned enough that for the time being the best thing for them is to leave them not only more in charge of their own affairs, but far less in charge of our own. Who will they blame for their condition then? If the states somehow replicated a civil war style secession in peace would Alabama suddenly be enriched? Would the price of food suddenly disobey the laws of demand and supply? Is their plan to make no money at all? These are people who don't think tariffs affect prices. Then when their farmers predictably lose money blue states get robbed to pay the subsidy. All while this constant drumbeat of cultural war emanates from these places.
Imo we don't need to bend over backwards to indulge their resentment. We have suffered these types of people long enough. We already have debates within NYC about wealth and poverty. We don't need to add the ingredients that come from places like Alabama or West Virginia. Hillbilly Elegy style takes would be a little more palatable if people like JD Vance didn't come in and transparently serve the Epstein criminal class and call Americans who don't want their neighbors rounded up like dogs "domestic terrorists". I'll take John Brown over JD Vance any day of the week.
> The idea NYC shouldn't do its best to take care of its own because people in Alabama aren't getting enough is nonsensical. Imo they already get far more than they deserve.
Absent a federal wealth redistribution, yes NYC must do its best for it's residents. I'm not disagreeing with that. A federal wealth tax, however, would tax Alabama billionaires as much as it would tax NYC billionaires.
Good point. It is a good thing as you point out to remember that even so called "poor states" also suffer from pretty severe wealth inequality, in some cases perhaps more stark than one would find in the blue cities, if only because the floor can appear far wider and lower.
Or we can go even further with the fun thought exercise, by spreading the cost even more: Even $100,000,000,000,000,000 doesn't matter if you evenly distribute it across each atom in the usa.
I’m no military expert by any means but US appears to be obsessed with destroying some super important target to win, like they did with killing Iran leaders only to find out that new leader replace the perished.
The same with the other stuff, they have super important radar and super important ships that need to be defended and a failure creates irreplaceable loses.
Iran on the other hand, just like with their super important leaders lost all its “super weapons” like destroyers and the drone ships and yet again brought USA to its knees.
Maybe USA has more fundamental problems, not just drones. Maybe the problem is the obsession of wonderweapons for destroying wondertargets.
It is fascinating that there are so many movies revolving around the US president, as if he has some ability that no one has and you can’t simply elect a new one if the enemy gets him.
Maybe the desire for concentration of power and seeing everything through that lens is the issue?
The US in general, and this administration in particular, has bought into US exceptionalism and action movie tropes. Just gotta blow up the death star with the leader on board and then the war is over. In reality there's a chain of command and line of succession, and military equipment all around the country.
If they had been smart, they would have been learning from Ukraine, because we've found ourselves in basically the same position as Russia is with Ukraine, but with no appetite to puts boots on the ground (not that we should, but it's the only way to "win").
> If they had been smart, they would have been learning from Ukraine
This administration seems to have neither the required skills nor an interest to learn from mistakes. Even if they were filled with smart people, they would still fail because of their lack of skill and learning attitude.
I suspect even that was unexpected bonus by them. They just stumbled upon a way to manipulate the market. I have hard time to see any action by them as being thoughtful.
Viewed independently, I think VZ, Ukraine, and Iran look like a hodgepodge of strange actions. There is a consistent view that joins them, namely as we approach the end of the davidson window, putting pressure on China and Russia via oil restrictions might help dissuade a larger war in the Pacific.
This is just a personal opinion, but lines up with Ukraine (burning refineries), EU (seizing sanctioned tankers FINALLY), VZ (cutting exports to China and moving to USA), and Iran (close the strait every so often). The unifying thread seems to be applying consistent pressure around China.
The truth is that bombing campaigns alone have never been an effective way to end a conflict. All they do is strengthen resolve.
Even the most extreme case of the nuclear bombs in Japan - had Russia not also invaded from the North with 1.5 million troops, there's a chance they would not have surrendered (and even then it was after a multi-year bombing campaign that eviscerated every other city).
The only realistic scenario for regime change is boots on the ground. The Iran "experts" who suggested a bombing campaign were never serious people.
>...had Russia not also invaded from the North with 1.5 million troops, there's a chance they would not have surrendered
The Japanese had already moved all of their experienced troops from Manchuria before the Soviet invasion. They were maybe surprised that the USSR would break the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, but the defense of the home islands was their main concern at that point.
The Japanese knew the USSR was not a threat to the main islands as the Soviets could never have done a large invasion of Japan. The Soviets had a few ships that the USA had given them as part of Project Hula, but that is nothing compared to what would be needed for a full scale invasion of Japan. The Soviets did have plans to possibly attack Hokkaido, but as the wikipedia entry says "...Historians have generally considered it unlikely that an invasion of Hokkaido would have succeeded. "
In comparison, the proposed allied invasion was planned to have 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts. Even that wasn't considered enough:
>...Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, "[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops."
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just the beginning. At the time of bombing of Nagasaki already a third nuclear weapon was been assembled.
There were plans to increase the A-bomb production rate. After November 1945 U.S. would produce a atomic bomb every 10 days. The production rate for year 1946 was planned to be 6 bombs every month.
Had they not, the carpet bombings would have continued - not just the fire bombing of Tokyo, another 71 cities had also been bombed flat. With H&N that made a total of 74 cities down and a list of targets for future bombing still ready to work through.
FWiW the HE+incendiaries bombings used more planes but were cheaper overall than (at that time) atomic weapons - and (at that time) caused much the same amount of damage, injury, and death.
Don't overlook the "the people of this foreign land are yearning to be free of their current rulers, and just need a little help from their neighborly U.S. armed forces" trope. I think there are plenty of people who actually believe it.
People seem to forget that Iranians were rioting in the streets in the weeks leading up to the US attacking. The Iranian government was shooting protestors and pulled the plug on the internet.
The US (well Israel) saw this as the stars aligning. Trump even called on Iranians early in the engagement to seize the opportunity.
But the ground swell didn't happen, and the US got played. Trump rolled a critical fail.
From the videos and analysis I have seen, it was Kurdish militia that was formenting the riots. The US and Israel have even admitted to arming them. They were burning and destroying infrastructure, fighting and killing legitimate protesters, and fighting governement forces. So it was a 2 way fight between the militia and government forces with innocient protesters in the middle. Not trying to cast blame or defend any side, but these protesters are not fighters or soldiers, they are kind of like gen-Z TikTokers. So to plan an entire war around this "event" is kind of crazy. But the US government doesn't care, they just needed to sell the justification and everyone bought it.
I guess it doesn't matter if the Iranian people want regime change in their country. Lots of people want lots of different things (plus a pony). It only matters what they do. And it doesn't appear that they want regime change enough to take the risks of making it happen. I suppose this is the hubris of polling.
A.) Would you be happy if the government changed? (85% approval)
B.) Are you willing to potentially sacrifice your life and the lives of your sons to change the government? (3% approval)
Its like 2 dogs fighting, the US wants to win a display of dominance and have the other dog concede defeat - but if instead the other dog is prepared to die, now its a fight to the death and in fights to the death usually both sides die, even if one is stronger. The mentality of "we will just punch them till they capitulate" shows the US mentality, they're not in an existential struggle and they aren't ready to face one.
The pentagon can’t stop gold plating requirements, but that’s not just a problem of this administration. We’re still feeling the effects of the self inflicted hollowing out of the defense industry at the end of the Cold War, every defense contractor has learned that the only sane way to survive financially is to put as many bells and whistles on to their contracts as they can safe in the knowledge that the one or two other companies bidding for the contracts will be doing the exact same thing and the pentagon has lost the institutional knowledge on how to purchase systems and get anything like a good deal.
> It is fascinating that there are so many movies revolving around the US president, as if he has some ability that no one has and you can’t simply elect a new one if the enemy gets him.
One of the few exceptions was the Battlestar Galactica reboot, in which the entire chain of command was killed and the Agriculture Secretary ends up as the leader of the refugee humans.
Wow your take is that we need to just start mass killing off large swaths of "unimportant" people? This is wild. It's also been done before in Hanoi, and made a lot of people quite angry (and the others dead).
The US fails to learn the lessons of it's last... idk, every war since WWII. Leadership cites kill stats when it has nothing else to cite, but killing, while certainly an important part of war, is not the key to victory and that's why we keep losing. Actually winning wars requires controlling strategic points on the battlefield, both literally with armed combatants, and metaphorically by getting civilians to support you. The US fails at both. We show up with incredibly superior firepower, establish FOBs where we think we need, drive armored convoys to supply those FOBs but they take fire on every trip, have to look for and clear IEDs, what have you. There's no control apart from the FOBs themselves, and the enemy has easy run of all territory not being patrolled at that precise moment.
This is the same problem that doomed us in Vietnam, in Korea, in Iraq, and will doom us in Iran. It's also the same problem that fucked over South Africa and Rhodesia and seems to be a common problem for white supremacists, but that's just my editorializing.
In any case, showing up and killing shitloads of people and then leaving does not win wars, it just LOOKS kinda like it does if you have no idea how to win wars, and assures you promotions in your organization. As soon as your military leadership starts citing that instead of actual progress on the conflict and the objectives at hand, it's a safe bet they are on their way to loss via attrition.
And that's not the ONLY factor of course, our military is too expensive and relies too much on fancy tech as opposed to solid strategy, everything we use is hideously expensive so any losses we take tend to hit harder, etc. But I think this is the most important thing to cite when discussing America's inability to actually wage war in a way that does anything besides get service people killed and enrich the MIC.
First, despite the Millennium challenge being "debunked", it still played out in the same direction.
Second, and this is a big one, after the Church committee when the CIA was put under congressional oversight, a big majority of the clandestine work was put under Special Ops type groups, ie the Army Rangers, Navy Seals, etc.
When we were in Afghanistan, we would do the "target the leader" game, but it was far more dark in reality. Since we were going against a distributed insurgent force, we would send the special ops guys to targets intelligence deemed important. There'd be an op tempo of 2-3 a week. Years passed, and we didn't make any headway, so the op tempo was increased.
A target would be chosen, and the operators sent out. They'd kill the target, and look for any papers/documentation with other names. If you were this guy's dentist, you could be caught up in this. Since a majority of the operators didn't speak the language, they had no context to the names. It was more like the metadata network of connections exposed by Snowden.
Since we needed more operations(2-3 a night instead of a week), we'd go after less and less important targets, tangentially related to another target. We effectively turned the special ops groups into clandestine death squads with nearly zero accountability.
In addition, we were supporting warlords in the area that were pro-poppy cultivation and anti-Taliban. We'd protect the poppy plants that would go on to supply a large majority of the world's Heroin supply.
Where is this going? Well the cynic in me says it's simply a scam. We spend more on fancy military hardware that allows us to kill more effectively while barely pushing the needle on our goals. The mass amount of death we drop on populations creates new generations of "terrorist/freedom fighters" who rightfully have a grudge against the US war machine.
The money spent doesn't move the needle materially, but it provides propaganda in the form of "look at our death machines, we have the most in the world", which is a double edged sword of "hoorah" at home and "don't fuck with the crazy guy holding the gun" outside of home. The expensive weapons taxpayers buy from defense contractors are too expensive and complicated to build in bulk, so we run out quickly the second we have an enemy that can shoot back with more than an AK.
We're still trying to fight the war of 2-3 wars ago. We also learned from Vietnam that by no means should the general public easily learn the reality of the war. That worked until recently when the victim of a proxy war was able to upload daily videos onto tiktok and break the decades long good will between the US and an unnamed vassal.
Anyway, tl;dr, the ole military industrial complex is still at it, lobbying our government to spend money we don't have on wars we cannot afford as a public works program that only excels in death, rather than public works in healthcare, infrastructure, science, etc.
The USA Military strategists are/were quite aware that Iran is not an easy target.
They knew already that Iran might not belly up just because their leadership gets killed. And they knew very well how Iran is fighting (in the mountains) and that they will close the strait of hormuz
Trump overruled it. He thought it was as easy as venezuela and he might have assumed that the civil unrest helps.
That's speculation. We were going to attack Iran regardless. My point was, the attack you are talking about was done _by_ Israel and was not part of the plan.
There is quite a good book on the various problems with the US Military, and its hegemony leading to losing the arms race in missiles, and its various industry problems by Andrei Martyanov - naturalized US citizen, former Soviet military officer. Loves America, hates what its turned into, and marvels at the delusion of our military. MIC bloat is discussed here, as well as our fake financialized economy - which is not an indicator of being able to win wars.
I have only read the first book, and it was nice and humbling experience to me as an American.
In practical terms, the US is more fascist and more authoritarian than most countries. There must be thousands of soldiers who know the war is illegal and that they are committing war crimes. Yet they persist because, the president said so. Thus, the strange presumption that other countries worship their leader in the same way. Thus, the strange presumption that by just replacing the leader they can profoundly transform any country.
HN has been compromised by propaganda bots that can't decide between "The US is a paper tiger that can't win anything" and "The US is bullying poor Iran". Only a fool would think the US can't win militarily. Here's how:
1. Flatten Kharg
2. Flatten a dozen roads critical to transportation infrastructure
3. Continue the blockade
4. Stonewall peace attempts
5. Wait 5-6 weeks and win
The Trump administration isn't doing that because they're trying to avoid another generation unconditionally hating the US again. Having enemies that blindly hate you is how you get into Russia's situation where even an outright victory will result in IRA-style Ukrainian terrorist groups.
I thought this at first, but I’m not sure at this point.
The republican establishment has slaughtered the more populist anti-war wing of the party in primaries across the country. The democratic establishment has begun to do the same against their populist candidates. Politicians go on TV and brag about how they’re going to be eating lobster when asked about the state of the economy on their constituents. Every election post I see in a state with a couple contentious ones coming up is filled to the brim with boomers explaining how they’ll always vote on party loyalty, to the point of completely ignoring any of a candidates positions or motives.
These are not the actions of groups who are concerned about upcoming elections.
The US can "win" for some definition of the word but at what cost to the US and the world in general? Would that really be a win or would it be a loss?
> The Defense Innovation Unit notice called for drones capable of carrying many different sensor and weapons payloads up to 2,800 pounds and flying with a combat radius of at least 2,300 nautical miles—or 8,000 nautical miles on a one-way strike mission—while executing the same missions that the MQ-9A Reaper drone currently performs for the US military
I feel like they might be taking the wrong lesson from this. The Reaper costs $30-50 million precisely because its mission profile is to deliver 3,500 pounds of payload over 1,000 nautical mile radius.
The cheap Iranian and Ukrainian drones these are increasingly competing with are only delivering 50-100kg of payload - which is plenty to blow shit up, and doesn't require a big, expensive, reusable airframe.
Yeah, it's about requirements. The Ukraine war has shown that fast-iterating MVPs are better in many battlefield situations. The saying that militaries end up preparing for the prior war instead of the next, comes to mind.
True, but I think the US requirements are indeed different. Ukraine must repel invading forces in their own country -> lowish range, mass produced, not necessarily precision strike.
US want to project power far away from its shores -> long range, precision strike, long loitering time.
While it's clear the US is working on those types of drones too (cloning Shaheds, basically), the likely mission profile of the US requires we have that capability. Pick your potential future US conflict and it won't look like us flinging disposable drones over the border at Canada, but rather needing to project power from an aircraft carrier or forward base against an adversary, where range, payload, sensors, and more matter.
Quantity has a quality all its own, but there's no world where the US doesn't need a Reaper style drone in the arsenal.
I'm not sure if "future" is a good word for the widespread civil unrest, nascent insurgencies, and very normal soft-target gun battles that happen weekly here, but our "US conflict" looks like street-to-street fighting, within our own borders, with people who are already here.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." -- Ambassador Kosh, Babylon 5
Right, I can see the need for both, but that suggests to me that they could differentiate the sensor package + loiter drone significantly from the shahed clone (which, given that it is a one-way trip, has a very similar operational radius)
Does one really need to bring along 2,500 kg of ordinance, when we can launch another $50,000 shahed-equivalent at whatever hard targets the loitering drone locates?
Yes because the lag between Hellfire and target is way less than "launch Shahed and wait 20 minutes". A continuum of strike times has value, all the way up to hypersonics.
For sure, though I will note that a 8-rack of hellfires only accounts for around half the desired payload. I imagine they are still planning to strap JDAMs to these things as well
> I feel like they might be taking the wrong lesson from this. The Reaper costs $30-50 million precisely because its mission profile is to deliver 3,500 pounds of payload over 1,000 nautical mile radius.
Partly, but I think there also is a feedback loop. Reapers are expensive, so they must reliably reach their targets. That makes them more expensive (need to be faster, more reliable, less visible on radar, etc), so fewer get ordered, so they must get even more powerful and reliable. That makes them more expensive, etc.
Also, being very expensive, you want them to be able to return home after a mission. That again increases weight, costs.
- Reapers fly at a "medium" altitude, which is up to about 50,000 feet;
- They can fly up to 300mph;
- Despite being relatively high up they are relatively slow so lots of country have the military capability to shoot them down and have done so. This includes Iran and the Houthis;
- A typical payload is 2x GBU-31 JDAM (1000lb each). The explosive payload is roughly half that but these are relatively cheap (<$50,000) because they're barely-guided gravity bombs;
- They will also have 4x AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, which are precision-guided, costs $100k+ each but only has an explosive payload of under 20lb. When people talk about drone assassinations that becccame super-popular in the Obama administration, this is largely what they're talking about;
- You can also skip the JDAMs and just have 8x Hellfires instead.
Now Shahed drones aren't as fast, don't fly as high, aren't as precise and you know they're there (a lot of Hellfire attacks are a surprise). But they're incredibly cheap and they overwhelm missile defences easily just by sheer volume. In fact, we're using $1-4M Patriot interceptors to shoot down $20k drones. Obviously that's not going to scale when Iran can produce thousands a month and the supply lag for Patriots is actually years long. Supplies of certain missile defense munitions are suspected to be critically low already and will take years to replenish.
So where I'm going with all this is that Reapers and Sheheds serve different purposes but however you look at it, a $50M Reaper with $1M+ in munitions is WAY less efficient at deliverying payloads that a swarm of cheap drones, particularly when your enemy has invested a lot in missile defense and your $50M Reaper is vulnerable to air-defense systems from even non-state actors (ie the Houthis).
Put another way, $20k for a 50-100kg payload is incredibly efficient and the US has essentially been forced to evacuate all their Gulf bases because they're completely unable to defend them. Billions in damage has been done to these bases too.
The Reaper just isn't fit for purpose anymore. Use it against a more militarized opponennt (eg Russia, China) and they'll shoot those things down like it was a carnival side show.
A 50-100kg payload is only useful against soft targets if the purpose is to "blow shit up". It is the reason Ukraine needed to develop platforms like Flamingo with a much larger warhead capacity than a cheap drone can carry.
There's an ok documentary on a similar situation (A10 Thunder II) on curiosity stream and it explains how politics basically causes problems like this.
Always fighting the last war. But wait until you see how the next generation of our drones fails in a future war!
Being less flip, the pull quote suggests (per my bias) our drone design is as much influenced by how much shit contractors can sell to put on a drone as it is by tactical needs. The kinds of targets that would require one ton of explosive are fixed sites that have been specifically hardened against attack. You'd hope some modern McArthur would look at the situation and say, "Screw it, we will just go around those sites and bomb the hell out of their supply lines with tiny drones", but what the hell do I know?
The defense industry has spent the last 40+ years grooming the DoD into thinking it costs $30mil/unit to produce missiles and drones. They should have rejected any of the bids, but being fueled by massively excessive taxes in the USA, they don't have to answer to any sort of efficiency or profitability.
These things should cost less than a Toyota Camry.
An MQ-9 has roughly the same wingspan as an A-10 - they're not small birds.
An MQ-9 needs to have a good sensor ball, ideally with both color and IR, gps jamming resistance, weapons integration with multiple types of missiles (ideally large enough to take out something larger than a motorcycle), good on-target time INCLUDING transit time (if it can only stare for one hour on target it'd be pointless), good uplink and downlink to reliably move that data (you don't want to lose track when a missile flies off), and the architecture to support, including ground control stations.
You CAN stuff someone in Cessna, give em a camera, a radio, and some mortar rounds to toss out the back, but that's not going to work for most use cases.
It really depends on the kind of war being fought.
If the cheap solution involves having troops only a dozen miles away from the enemy, then you're going to take casualties, and funeral costs are FAR more expensive then the cost to buy a large bird and fly it from a 100+ miles away.
Yeah, but you can always buy a slightly smaller bird, strap the warhead directly to it, and fly that into your target 100+ miles away.
Guided missiles specifically are insanely pricey by comparison to the warhead alone; just for the possibility that your slow, vulnerable drone might be able to return (and be used again) you have to make very expensive engineering tradeoffs, and even when the thing comes back you have to repair and service it, too (and stock it up with more expensive missiles).
between these extremes there are, parent posits, some efficiencies to be had. Do you agree that its at least possible to get a cheaper solution thats 90% of the way there? Ukraine seems to do pretty well for themselves on this front, and several other countries around the world are no slouches either. Even iran themselves do quite well. Sure their drones dont have the fanciest optics or whatever, but when looking at a cost per millitary effectiveness standpoint, are five redundant drones with worse optics better than one big one? what about five hundred vs one? five thousand? The same logic goes for most of the components.
>> are five redundant drones with worse optics better than one big one
Depends on the goal. If the goal is to make high precision strikes - one big drone with tons of capabilities.
If the goal is the terror strike campaign like russian - cheap Shahed drones are the best.
It costs $30M/unit because our trillion dollar defense budget is mostly just a jobs program (25%) and wealth transfer apparatus (75%). Killing people is just a side effect.
That budget and wealth transfer requires the US Dollar to remain the world's reserve currency. A lot of the killing has to do with ensuring it remains that way.
Taxes in the US go to a cluster of major items. Medicare, other medical, Social Security, interest, VA benefits and veteran's medical care, federal spending on the indigent or disabled, and Defense. Those together are 94% of annual federal spending.
None of that spending is subject to that much debate; all the remaining "debate" is over the remaining 6%.
I don't think defense is really as discretionary as it seems. A lot of it is effectively bribing and menacing trading partners to keep trading with the US on favorable terms through cash transfers, provision of military equipment, training, and mutual defense pacts among other diplomatic agreements.
Japan didn't just decide on its own free will to become a pacifist country dedicated to exporting cheap, high-quality manufactured goods to the United States. General MacArthur did that.
Everything on your list but VA benefits and defense are very regularly called into question. Even VA benefits are questioned pretty regularly, but that tends to be put down pretty quickly.
> A lot of it is effectively bribing and menacing trading partners
That's just a byproduct of propping up the military industrial complex; have to have conflicts to justify giving the primes sole-source cost+ contracts so they can meet their quarterly EPS targets.
From what I know, the 'defense' industry has their production cleverly across all 50 states so that they're seen as one of the few sources of stable employment for most, sadly.
It's not actually that many people in the grand scheme at ~1.1 million according to the CRS, but it is spread out very effectively so that massive cuts can be directly felt by any chosen House representative or senator. It's partially a capacity preservation system as well, for defense a nation wants to be able to produce a significant portion of it's military hardware needs in a war domestically and you need to keep those industries alive somehow against cheaper foreign producers so you have the Berry Amendment that requires clothing etc purchased by the DoD to only use US made materials.
And yet so much of the spending goes to big ticket items benefitting defense contractors while things that actually benefit the soldiers (better armor, better VA hospitals) go by the wayside.
> but being fueled by massively excessive taxes in the USA
I think it's even worse, it's funded a lot more by debt than excessive taxes, taxation in the USA is not even that excessive (to its own detriment since the budget is never balanced).
The last balanced budget was in 2001 and it was passed by a Republican controlled House and Senate [0]. Clinton somehow gets complete credit for it, even though the executive branch doesn't directly control the budget and congress controls the power of the purse.
It's kind of funded by the demand for dollars due to whole world needing dollars to trade with them. So that it's not the USA and Americans paying all that interest in inflation due to money printing
Correct, now let's also talk about US government-funded [research, healthcare, education, construction, foreign aid, intelligence, infrastructure, entitlements]
Except almost everyone has their pet topic where they'll defend any amount of spending.
This statement implies a misrepresentation of how these kinds of supply chains work.
These are captured markets, there is no competition. The bar is set high, or specifically, so that small players cannot compete, and this is done by extensiive relationship management at all levels, and heavy marketing.
It takes a situation like Ukraine to 'prove' to everyone that 'cheap things can work well'.
Even in the face of glaring evidence form Ukraine the system is slow to react.
Shaheds are used for years and the US just let their gear sit out in the open in the Gulf.
You could provide 'irrefutable evidence' to a political system of some fact, it's not hugely helpful.
The system does not change until the power dynamics do - aka Iran destroyed gazillions in US gear and some senior level people are 'demanding answers'.
Defence contracts are an 'inside game' it's extremely political.
Only when people are in a rush do they start to look at outside agencies to find the best gear for the problem they need to solve 'right now'.
>It takes a situation like Ukraine to 'prove' to everyone that 'cheap things can work well'.
It's likely not even that. According to Jacek Bartosiak, Polish geopolitics popularisator, it came by a kind of blind "luck".
He travels a lot to Ukraine and talks a lot with military and dual use manufacturers.
Regular arms manufacturing in Ukraine was, just like anywhere else, not very innovative and dominated by big actors that could make sure nobody else can enter the market.
But the drones were not seen by them as anything serious, and due to dire needs the market has been deregulated, which allowed many small businesses to flourish and develop the fantastic industry that Ukraine is so proud of now.
But that came mostly because the big fish let the small underdogs on the market because they thought there is no market.
I once worked at a startup that did just that. Developed a system that was significantly better and cheaper than an existing legacy solution. One of the generals who saw the DARPA demonstration overrode the whole bureaucracy and brought it with him into theater.
Five years later the startup had been bought by a major military contractor, budgets ballooned, a number of the original people (including me) left, our software was on its way to becoming the legacy solution, and the cycle continued.
After seeing how US military contracting works up close, I no longer find it surprising that military tech costs orders of magnitude more than commercial or consumer tech. It's also not surprising why so few organizations are able to do both government and consumer/commercial technology -- optimizing for one makes you ill-suited to compete in the other.
Most government agencies cant even pick a different vendor for toilet paper. I cannot imagine the politics involved for trying to supply weapons. All those stories on Flock cameras and being insecure etc is politics at play. Companies know the government will take a decade or more to change vendors, if ever.
Makes sense, drone technology has come an insane distance since these were developed.
Probably the biggest learning from the Ukraine war alone is the effectiveness of cheap drones. It was suspected for years but hadn't been put to the test yet.
>>Probably the biggest learning from the Ukraine war alone is the effectiveness of cheap drones. It was suspected for years but hadn't been put to the test yet.
Some of us were paying attention as early as the 2016-17 Battle of Mosul, when ISIS was using DJI drones to drop grenades into the turret hatches of Iraqi uparmored Humvees. Others started to notice during the Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, when Azeri UAV superiority dominated Armenian ground forces. But all of these professionals were like the military officers who observed the Boer Wars, and the Russo-Japanese War, and then wrote in the military journals of their day about how machineguns were gonna change warfare in a very bad way.
Flag officers still slept-walked into the carnage of WW1 trench warfare....shrug. "History doesn't repeat but it rhymes."
Ok, all the negatives aside, focused on silver linings. I am musing how it's good that the US is finding this out now, and not in a really big conflict on it's own home territory in which it cannot get out of (ie an invasion).
Yes, the world seeing her weakness could increase the chances of someone trying (or wanting to). But I think this will help spur on a defense startup and spending spree.
Personally? China. Is it rational, IDK. It's just the largest more capable power at this moment. (particularly their industrial base and ability to out produce weapons / soldiers)
It's not rational. China has even less interest in invading the USA than the USA has in invading China. And I think the USA's interest is effectively zero.
here's more irrational. Because they have >1M single men who will never have a bride. Maybe they want to come and take.
Maybe Xi decides they're mad that we're defending Taiwain.
Maybe the decide to do the inverse vietnam and that the American left deserves to be freed from "Trump" and that communism is freedom and virtuous to give to the American people.
Why would they want to? China’s entire economic model relies on the US remaining a stable, wealthy consumer base for their industrial output. Physically invading your largest customer is a form of economic suicide.
They don't want to govern California; they want to ensure that the global infrastructure, shipping lanes, and institutions run on Chinese technology and standards. From Beijing's perspective, a kinetic war on the US mainland destroys the exact global economy they are trying to lead.
Ignore that we funded the taliban and warlords for the next 50 years with 1.9 billion in vehicles, machine guns, small arms, night vision, and explosives?
I didn't ignore that. That solidly fits under "completely predictable colossal failure".
But the next 50 years of funding they received came from money we spent prior to us leaving. Certainly we could have done a better job with the withdrawal (to put it lightly), but it's nonetheless good that we aren't still spending money there.
We can't just completely exit Iran without a time machine. Dufus Donny attempting to escape his Epstein folly by kicking the hornet's nest and now Iran holds the gulf hostage for as long as they want.
guess what, Iran will hold the gulf hostage regardless if US is there or not
exactly like the nightmare Afghanistan is for women there now left to the Taliban
regardless if US was there or not it would have happened
world is an absolutely horrible place filled with monsters
you can't say all these countries should be saved by US and then end USAID to let a million people die with food and medication already paid for left rotting in warehouses
btw we are also starving all the people in Cuba to death with an illegal blockcade since the start of the year, so why is Cuba our responsibility too?
at some point WE become worse monsters, we're at that point
The US has been the monster for most of the world for the last 70 years. It's shocking that most Americans still don't see that.
The Middle-East's bad record on human rights can be traced back to in large part to the meddling of the US, because it serves the interests of Israel and because of oil. In the time of Nasser, the Middle-East was a different place.
The strait was open with no tolls before the Israel/US attacks. Everyone with a brain and a modicum of imagination (except Trump, apparently) knew for decades that Iran had the latent capability to close the strait, and hence preferred either a diplomatic resolutions or a defacto detente.
Will be quite interesting what the end evolution of this will be.
I think high direct movability (like droping a few meters or shifting left/right) might be the next bigger thing for these. Easy enough to add, will make it even harder for air defence missiles catching them.
Besides, the air defence missiles are a lot more expensive than what a drone does.
And in Russia you saw another huge issue: How to shoot down a drone in your city without missing it and destroying something else?
How much payload do you need anyway? Like imagine oil refinery: how much kilo of c4 do you need? I don't think that much.
Or imagine a formation of drones with small payloads and starting to crash in one house wall like into putins palace or the white house.
They could obviously have foreseen the current failures in 2015. It is irrelevant, since the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Generals who routinely give theatrical performances for the cameras want the big toys for their districts.
The goal in Iran is also not to win but to keep the Gulf monarchies, the EU, Japan and China down by means of a low intensity forever war.
> The goal in Iran is also not to win but to keep the Gulf monarchies, the EU, Japan and China down by means of a low intensity forever war.
Eh... The US can not survive an economical war against the entire world.
But anyway, somebody forgot to warn whoever created this strategy that the US society is constructed in a way that doesn't allow barriers against they exporting all their oil. They will either run out, or they will see some societal changes.
In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of establishing the military-industrial complex [1]. We are seeing the fruits of that now that despite an annual budget over $1T the US has been militarily defeated by Iran (and Afghanistan). We build $13B aircraft carriers that don't work [2].
Defense contracting is nothing more than a wealth transfer from the government to the wealthy. This is what unfettered cost plus contracts looks like. We ridicule the Russian military for their insane levels of corruption (eg paying for tanks that never get built and the generals pocketing the money) but really the same thing has happened here. The things get built but they don't work and the entire industry is built around hiring former Pentagon people who specialize in procurement.
It doesn't have to be this way. Some of the US military's past equipment was legendary. The M1 rifle and M4/M16 family were cheap, reliable and effective. The Jeep was legendary for its reliability. The original M1 Abrams tank is widely considered the best tank the military ever built. If you listen to anyone in the military they'll tell you the vehicles are constantly broken down, hard to repair, expensive to maintain and outright dangerous.
Every dollar spent on the military is a dollar not spent on roads, schools, bridges, hospitals and trains, things that would actually benefit people. We're bankrupting ourselves to enrich the shareholders of Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Corp and General Dynamics for what exactly?
And the proposed "defense" budget for 2027 is $1.5T, a roughly 50% increase.
This is also why I laugh whenever anyone pushes the idea that China is the Big Bad [tm], for two reasons. First, they don't have to be. We just want their to be a scary enemy to justify all this. Second, if they were, they would destroy us because it would ultimately come down to military industrial capability and we would lose. Orders of magnitude lose.
> And the proposed "defense" budget for 2027 is $1.5T, a roughly 50% increase
Yeah, this is mind-boggling. The requested increase is roughly the size of the entire 2004 military budget. 2004, when we were fighting two separate ground wars.
There were close to 200k US troops on the ground in combat theaters in 2004. We're proposing to add a "2004 US military" to our military. The unnecessary wars we will start with this capacity[1] will cause havoc in unpredictable places.
>We're bankrupting ourselves to enrich the shareholders of Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Corp and General Dynamics for what exactly?
We do it to keep manufacturing knowledge and ability in the country. I really cannot stress enough how many thousands of companies exist purely because of the defense budget. It's never going away because it employs so many people. That's why red or blue or independent no one ever cuts it. It's welfare that creates work so the whole ideological spectrum has something to like.
The big names you mention are the names that end up on the final product, but those products often have a couple thousand different (all American) suppliers feeding them. Virtually all of the money in the defense budget flows back into the economy. The sum total of those players profits last years amounts to 2% of the budget, and that's assuming it's all military.
A simple example are screws. You cannot make a living making screws in the US. It makes zero economic sense because it's impossible to compete with 2nd/3rd world countries (read:China). But the military (well contractors with a mandate) will buy your screws at a price that allows you to live a decent life and employ a team of people.
This way when shit hits the fan, the US will still have a supply of screws (pretty damn important), a supply of people who know how to make screws, and in the mean time those people get benefits and careers.
Now take this idea and repeat it for everything from paper cups to tank shells to folding chairs to wire sheathing (the military buys literally everything, always wants American made, and will happily pay a premium for it).
You're saying we need to retain manufacturing capability and expertise. I agree.
I'm saying we need to stop being bled dry by private weapons manufacturers on cost plus contracts who are rewarded, by definition, by making the system as expensive as possible.
If we were truly interested in having an effective military, we would bring production in-house and focus on standardized vehicles and weapons systems with standardized interchangeable parts on production lines that can be scaled up if necessary.
While I am critical of Ukraine being in talks to join the EU (which IMHO it shouldn't), I am quite happy that we in EU kind of have built good relationships with Ukraine - military drone construction knowledge and expierience will become a key technology field, as cooperations between Ukraine and Europe after the war (however that will look like) will probably strengthen europes defense capabilities.
Because given the current state it is in, it will receive net-payments from the other EU states for decades and we are already on a descending path economically in the EU. No more foreign subsidies and helps until we got our own ship back on course.
> It envisions delivery of “20 mission-ready aircraft” by 2031.
Hmm, I'm not sure they fully address the problem if that is what is being proposed. The world will be an entirely different place by 2031 and 20 drones is .... meaningless? Surely they should be talking in the thousands or tens of thousands.
US should be split up so it can't do any more damage to the world. Americans can't be trusted with putting that much power in the hands of a few people anyway.
China and Russia would love that. It would also be very bad for European security that is mostly guaranteed by U.S. strength and willingness to fight wars.
I wasn’t aware of that but it looks like he is upset that Spain won’t meet its defense spending commitments for NATO. Which goes back to my point about how the EU is totally reliant on the US for security. Europe’s biggest threat is itself, they won’t even do the bare minimum to ensure their security.
US would spend that money regardless of what Europe spent as they want to continue to use it to oppress and destroy the world. And the real reason they want us to spend more is to buy more weapons from them.
Some arbitrary threshold set by a completely demented US president (25% of government budget or whatever nonsense that idiot asked NATO peers to spend, probably on american mil. tech) has nothing to do with how european countries would/are able to defend themselves.
In a metaphorical sense, Ukraine is the scrappy 'startup' aka highly maneuverable speed boat that can turn on a dime, and the US Department of Defence is a cargo ship that takes years to execute a single turn. The drone playbook is out there, plain for all to see but there are too many entrenched stakeholder interests and incentives for the US to emulate the Ukraine drone playbook. You think the US would establish underground 3D printing drone factories? That would be an insult to its military industrial complex, and a tarnish on its sterling prestige, n'est ce pas?
It's disappointing how often the public gives a silent thumbs up on military spend. Okay I'll grant most US citizens would have preferred Trump hadn't gotten into this war.
But most talk is about the $$ cost of this war, how little Trump has to show for it, and price of gasoline & groceries.
Instead (for US citizens), the talk should be about what else could have benefitted from those $$, and now isn't because it'll be used to re-stock weaponry. Think healthcare, infrastructure, education, research, etc etc.
that's still comes up far short of the total bill. the US never talks about the destruction to civilian infrastructure, the number of innocents killed, the loss of any ability to claim to be on the 'right side'.
these are seeds that will ensure that the US is treated like Russia, or WWII Germany, or Iran. A rabid aggressor that will need to be isolated and eventually contained.
I worked on the control systems for Predators and Reapers back in the mid and late 00s, and the inefficiencies around process were enormous. Safety is extremely important, so you expect some slowness as a result, but it got pretty extreme. I remember one time having to do 6 weeks of testing around a one-line code change because a "helpful" dev fixed a small bug that had no practical impact. Yet because it changed the release build hash, we had to go through a full acceptance test. As you can imagine that incentivized only fixing important bugs, and even those we had to consider whether it was worth it or not. As a result there were a hole pile of bugs that we (and customers) ended up just living with.
On a separate note, I'm curious as to whether AI is making an inroads in that space. I would imagine very minimal, if at all, but very curious.
In Ukraine, the first place that was bombed was the red tape factory.
The drone industry was allowed to basically "do whatever as long as it works", consequences be damned. So they use civilian motors, batteries and SoCs, sketchy firmware with zero code inspection, and more. Does it work perfectly? No. It works well enough.
I wonder if anyone is going to learn a lesson about overregulation.
I'm not sure if "AI for red tape mitigation" is a thing, but "AI for killer drones" sure is. I suspect that "killer drones are insufficiently smart" is easier to fix with AI than "too much red tape". Because the amount of red tape, if unopposed, will expand to consume any capacity of dealing with it, AI or not.
You are making a good point but blaming the wrong thing.
Caution needn’t spiral cost. The reason US weapons cost so Much is because it’s profitable.
Building things that work 80% of the time makes sense in wartime. It doesn’t as a rule. Hence wartime production will always be cheaper.
Americas problem is that the military industrial complex is built to maximize cost and profit for private corporations, despite them being entirely dependent on government.
Until they are nationalized, and the profit margins are eliminated, you will always pay 20-50% more than you should and gains from efficient won’t be realized.
Look at the auto industry in the US. It’s protected by tariffs and still incapable of matching the Chinese and others on cost. It mainly survives because of incentives which subsidize vehicle types other countries don’t want (pickups) and Americans only buy because of incentives.
Iran is building drones for £3k. The US clones cost 30x that for “additional features” the spec didn’t ask for.
> I wonder if anyone is going to learn a lesson about overregulation.
Seems unlikely. Regulation and Health & Safety are both societal luxuries, which only happen once societies are stable and prosperous enough to start valuing human life beyond its ability to perform labour.
The moment the bombs start dropping, the time for luxuries also stops, and the value of human life drops to value a person can produce defending their society. There isn’t the money or resources for anything more than that.
The US (most developed democracies) places an extremely high value on the lives of soldiers, because dead soldiers in foreign wars does terrible things to politicians in power. Paying 1000X more for the same tech as Ukraine to minimise the number of service members killed using it, is a pretty small price to pay.
No. Certainly not. The fundamentals of modern flight safety rules, Procedures and organizations were created in the Second World War when losses of aircraft and crew due to weather, environment, maintenance, poor training and so on greatly exceeded the losses inflicted by enemy action.
Rules and regulations on safety and health will maintain combat effectiveness and manpower where the loss -even temporary due to injuries or sickness- of well trained specialists (and don't forget that even a "simple" infantryman is a highly specialized expert in his field!) is not acceptable. Those rules were written in blood and modern western militaries can not sustain the rate of loss that Russia seems to be ok with. Western leader will be well advised to try to minimize losses to real combat casualties.
But I sure think that they will start to cut corners, at least where it comes down to documentation and purely cya.
I think I covered all that with
> the value of human life drops to value a person can produce defending their society.
OP was talking about how US munitions software needs to go through a 6 week long integration test before it can be deployed. I seriously doubt that kind of testing would last very long if the US was engaged in peer level war, and their enemy had found a flew in their munitions guidance systems that made the munitions useless.
At the end of the day, when at war time isn’t just money, it’s also lives. When you have people dying on the frontlines, the risk of equipment failures from lack of testing will be substantially smaller that loss of lives from ineffective equipment, that can only be improved every other month.
And yet the regulation actually will result in more dead soldiers or else it wouldn't be the first thing that goes out the window in a war.
The regulation crucially results in your recruits not dying for no good reason during training just because some random piece of trash equipment predictably failed.
Preventing that is much more important than the exact dollar efficiency of said equipment during peacetime.
Perhaps, but, for better or worse, it's about optics. It looks better to say a soldier died bravely in war than it does to say they died because of a friendly-fire incident with a drone with shoddy control software.
I'm not an expert but I think this is an old lesson in warfare, that guerillas can triumph over larger adversaries by being more exploratory/iterative and less rules-bound. Tolstoy tells this story in the second half of War and Peace. Likewise with Iraqi militants wreaking havoc with IEDs. People repelling an invader have every incentive to move fast.
I've just read that section of War and Peace and was blown away by the descriptions of guerrilla tactics as well as Tolstoy's way of capturing the state of mind of the Russian POWs and their ever-shifting relationships with their captors.
As an aside, the word Guerrilla (little war) was coined during Napoleon's occupation of Spain to describe the resistance effort by locals and peasants against the French army.
That applies everywhere. You’re commenting on a forum for startups that compete against established players. David will always, in the long run, win against Goliath.
> David will always, in the long run, win against Goliath.
Every Goliath may, in the long run, meet a David that beats it, but this premise ignores all the thousands of Davids that don't win.
Historybooks are 90% filled with tales of exterminations, slaughter of citystates and permanent area destruction.
If you glass the villages and salt the fields, you even win against the taliban and vietkong.
> If you glass the villages and salt the fields, you even win against the taliban and vietkong.
You may win tactically, but you lose strategically - firstly by demonstrating that surrender is pointless, and secondly by creating a martyr movement across the world.
When you sow fields with salt, the only harvest you should reasonably expect is more blood.
Which binds the empire crime family together. This was how it was done allover until 1945. Its how its still done in russia, near china, how the middle east does things. That we "shall overcome" only applied to the west as a selfset achievement. And history tells us that the dead are forgotten. Nobody is out there avenging jews or armenians. Thus also the pro active paradigm of "better fuck around as a empire" then being "found out to be peace loving". Congrats to the anti western westerners, you won so much, you got the old world back.
"Some" David will always in the long run, win against Goliath. But many, many millions will be buried.
Thinking of past notable Goliaths: Ma Bell has been reconstituting herself from the split apart companies, IBM and GE are… alive, and Edison Illuminating Company and Carnegie Steel are alive in successor companies.
I'm hesitant to use 'always' language but the innovator's dilemma is indeed another application of the same principle. It's remarkable when a company like Google can pivot in a way that threatens its existing core revenue streams.
> I wonder if anyone is going to learn a lesson about overregulation.
Regulation - or more generally - formalization comes with scaling up. A skunkworks project can innovate really fast, and has no integration and scale needs. When you want to scale up any project (hardware or software), integrating and scaling become a real bitch, and you need to ensure that everyone is on the same page or face costly "silly" mistakes that history is replit with.
You can't magick away coordination challenges by labeling the process "red tape." This happens every single time any small nimble organization grows beyond certain thresholds. On a personal level, organizing a trip for 3 friend is process-free, but for 10+ people requires checklists and heavier processes, for 30 people it becomes a nightmare requiring professional assistance. Low probability events become regular occurrences when you scale, and you have to plan and/or mitigate them adding "red tape".
Yes and no. Acceptable failure level is important.
It matters if you care about 1, 2, or 10 out of the 30 people on the trip missing a flight, getting lost, or going hungry.
Of course there's a bare minimum for a product that works at all. Beyond that there are increasing levels of rigor that focus on reliability, and these can be non-linear.
>The drone industry was allowed to basically "do whatever as long as it works", consequences be damned
Yes because Ukraine fights an existential war and at this point on both sides people just shrug when a few civilians get blown up.
The US isn't under existential threat and when they go to war their highest priority is to never risk the lives of operators and if possible, if only for PR reasons (and even then it doesn't always work) not generate news about rogue missiles or rogue killer drones. The attack on a school in Iran that killed 150 children apparently was already the result of a rushed mission that ignored procedures because this kind of thinking is starting to take hold in US defense circles.
That's not just an ethical disaster but also a political and strategic one because these events can rally enemies around a regime and the political arena is where for the US wars are won and lost, both at home and abroad.
I don’t know the details of that situation, but I have been on the other side of that debate.
People say “it’s a one line change” (once they argued it was a 1 bit change!). But lacking a fully controlled and hermetic build system with its own exhaustive test suite you can’t be sure about the relationship between the source and the binary. And that continues to every step to get the binary into production (updating existing devices, etc).
Welcome to Tradeoff Town.
Sure, your ultra paranoid checking of everything might catch an extremely rare bug caused by something like interactions between a benign code change and a build system. But is it worth slowing down the development process by that much?
Is it worth missing out on an entire generation of technology, like what happened with US and the shift from 00s drone warfare and 20s drone warfare?
Usually not.
In this case, it's probably more about preventing a foreign-compromised build system / developer from getting malicious code into lethal devices.
It depends. For a JS web front end? Go crazy.
For the consensus algorithm in your distributed database? slow down there buddy...
You have to ask: how bad could this get? How hard will it be to fix? Could we loose or corrupt user data?
"It works well enough" is a significant understatement. I think it would be more accurate (especially given the perceptions at the outset of the war) to say that it has worked significantly better than anyone expected. Ukrainian ingenuity is single handedly driving conversations about the "future of warfare" in capitals from Brussels to DC to Beijing.
> I wonder if anyone is going to learn a lesson about overregulation.
This also misses the point imo. A simpler answer is "necessity is the mother of invention". There is value in a regime for peacetime. One is also a fool if they do not recognize needs change drastically in wartime. Two things can be true. The United States, like nearly all sensible nations, has almost always understood this and acted accordingly. On the other hand, nations that govern themselves as if they were on a perpetual war path are usually far less desirable societies. The idea that we need to speed rush "AI for killer drones" because otherwise we will find ourselves on the wrong end of an existential invasion are nonsensical. Americans would be far better off if our leaders and our people stopped acting like every potential conflict was existential.
There is no Russia on our borders. The only thing American adventures overseas have accomplished in the last two decades is making our country weaker.
Correct, but it goes deeper than just the building components. In the US you have to go through an entire military procurement process within each iteration loop. So you design a weapon, then try to sell it to the military, but just the process of demonstrating it and selling it to the military takes a long time and costs money. If you fail you can go back to the drawing board, but each iteration loop is probably a year minimum. And if you are successful now you have to set up and scale production. Get ready for years of environmental reviews and lawsuits.
In Ukraine the military will take any drone they can get their hands on, so all you have to do is build a drone, give a bunch of them to the army to try out on the Russians, and within a week they will tell you if it works or not. So your design iteration loop is probably weeks. If you are successful, the time between hearing the general say "give me 1 million" and when the bulldozers start clearing the factory site is probably measured in days.
Emergency is the mother of making exceptions. During both US gulf wars, the army broke from its long tradition of over-regulating new systems before they could be fielded, especially for small semi-autonomous platforms like flying drones and robots. Entirely new systems as well as major updates to fielded system were routinely prototyped in-country / on-the-battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. The demand for new capabilities and fixes was simply too great not to ship ASAP.
It's interesting that the red tape is still there on the Russian side. A Ukrainian drone maker can make a new one and put it on their brave1 website straight away, Russian ones have to go through a lengthy bureaucratic procurement process. I think Russian interceptor drones still can't use explosive warheads because regulation, health and safety etc. It's quite a plus for the Ukrainians.
And the consequence of this is a total lack of the consequences when something goes wrong. Complete with a PR cover-up all over the world.
cf the other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48845442 ; Ukraine has a hugely inventive and effective drone industry because it has to work. If it doesn't succeed, there is no Ukraine, and everyone involved in making the drones is dead, fled, in a POW camp, or sucked into the internal Russian displacement system away from their family.
By comparison, if the US products fail, there's no real negative effect on the mainland United States.
> if the US products fail, there's no real negative effect on the mainland United States
It's even worse than that. Schedules slipping and cost overruns are good things for the manufacturer, because they can charge more on top of their initial contract. Cost-plus ftw.
Cost plus isn’t nearly as common as it used to be.
But you still run into similar issues regardless of the contract structure. Try and build a rail network without anyone in government wanting something changed from the initial design for 20 years.
Yep, because of the incentives. Few people in the government making those choices are depending on the thing actually getting built.
Most are paid to prevent projects with a given defect type from proceeding. They aren't rewarded for the number of projects that succeed without defects. Preventing CYA from running wild is a legitimately hard problem to solve.
> Ukraine has a hugely inventive and effective drone industry because it has to work.
Well yes, that and the fact that cheap drone guerilla tactics have fairly recently become a technological possibility. Remember that Ukraine is actually a bit late to the party here, with Hezbollah and ISIS having used cheap drones with cameras and/or explosives tied to them years before Ukraine or Russia did. The asymmetry in cost between those cheap drones and the existing "more hightech = more better" militaries were (and are!) used to was already established. That a party such as Ukraine faced with a more advanced and much larger opponent would lean towards such an approach makes a lot of sense. Ukraine did not (and does not really) have significant amounts of the traditional stuff.
Now given that they chose that path, they have been very effective recently, but note that the tethered fiber-optic drones were a Russian invention. So even that deeply corrupt, large dinosaur of an institution innovated significantly. It is also important to note that a significant part of the recent successes of Ukraine are due to them having Starlink access and Russia no longer having it.
I'm not saying the sheer will to survive or the inventive organisation of the Ukranians did nothing (far from it), but I do think it is a mistake to think that their success should only be viewed through that lens.
To add that Ukraine was also USSR's drone research center; not to detract from what you are saying.
They can pop out defects and if things go wrong and there's friendly fire or civilian loss, it's chalked up to scrappy efforts in war. The USA does not get the same amount of leeway, saving our people is a top priority and the media harps on any mistake.
It's an existential threat for Ukraine. The US has not faced a similar (external) existential threat in a very long time.
Ukraine fights back or they lose their sovereignty. Most of the conflicts the US gets into, it's entirely a choice to put soldiers at risk.
So yeah, the evaluation of war effort will be different, because the situations are completely different.
And it makes sense. If the choice is between getting killed by the enemy and loosing the war or risking that one in 10 000 launches results in friendly fire it might be worth it but it would not be for a country not fighting a war for survival.
Yeah, their tech development in drones is really impressive. An invading army has a way of focusing the mind and bureaucracy.
To be fair, I know plenty of people there. Drones are important, but they aren't the only reason the front is holding. Both sides rely heavily on drones.
Well there's long term impact but yea that doesn't create enough political pressure to make process efficient
Not sure if you're alluding to this but it's analogous to the same differences between startups and big tech companies.
Startups = have few resources, product has to work or company dies
Big tech = minimal cost of failure, instead minimizing risk
And yet this mechanic is also why startups are able to innovate and bring new products to market so much faster.
[flagged]
> As you can imagine that incentivized only fixing important bugs, and even those we had to consider whether it was worth it or not.
Or you're batching your releases into larger builds because you know it'll take 6 weeks to test regardless. This increases the duration of each development iteration because you have 100 things you want to do and you could do that in, say, 4x13 week efforts, but with the added 6 weeks between iterations (and possibly more after it leaves your shop) that takes a one year effort and turns it into about 1.5. So the program office decides you should do one big release each year, which also ups the risk because a lot of testing that would catch bugs isn't done until the end in that big 6-week test effort. Oops, now your 1 year + 6 week effort just got turned into 1 year + 6 week + (unknown rework time) + 6 weeks. Probably 2 years.
My last job was like this, a full round of QAs manually testing, along with writing up a grandiose release document, stakeholder approvals, and whatnot, for something that should just take two days of development work, and an insistence on putting configuration values into the database, supposedly because it's "safer" than deploying a new configuration file.
If you are in an environment where deploying a new configuration file is easier than adding data in a pre-existing database, you are in a bad place already.
This is one of the reasons weapons and technology development overall explodes during wartime. Desperation is the cure for risk aversion.
It's also a reason to be skeptical of a military spending a bunch of money developing technology during peacetime. In reality the expensive stuff they went into the war with is always going to be less effective than the cheap stuff they came out with.
Maybe if you're in a war that actually threatens your country. In the US, the Republican Party wages wars (such as the Iran War) pretty exclusively to facilitate borrowing public money and dumping it into the pockets of the rich. What looks like waste to the taxpayer is a feature to Republicans and their paymasters (including Israel, in the case of the Iran War).
Life critical software that gets visibility by congress tends to be a very bureaucratic process. Your boss doesn't want your commit being the one that causes a worldwide diplomatic issue.
I assume that smaller/cheaper drones avoid a lot of this because the stakes aren't near as high and quite a bit of the development occurs in private industry first.
> visibility by congress tends to be a very bureaucratic process
See also SpaceX vs. NASA. No way would NASA have been allowed to blow up as many rockets as SpaceX did to finally get to their working solution.
Yeah, the anti-regulation people when NASA experiments: "look at all these failures! Cut NASA funding and give public funds to the guy who purchases elections!"
The same people when SpaceX blows up a bunch of rockets: "wow, look at the innovation, they move so fast! Cut NASA funding and give public funds to the guy who purchases elections!"
NASA's failures as of late are less "dramatic explosions" and more "delays", "cost overruns" and "lack of ambition so severe it borders on criminal".
The last time NASA caught any serious flak was what, the Starliner shitshow? And that was just splash damage from Boeing getting dunked on by everyone at once.
> lack of ambition so severe it borders on criminal
I'm not sure what timeline you're thinking about, but JWST was launched pretty recently and it's pretty ambitious. But more to the point of my earlier post, NASA's "lack of ambition" is probably directly attributable to the "small government" people who penalize ambition in the public sector and praise it in the private, government contractor sector. The incentives to be ambitious in government are perverse when every "failure" is scrutinized and condemned by people who want government to fail so that they can justify taking public money and dumping it into private bank accounts.
A big part of the reason for useless Gateway was that NASA wanted post-ISS missions, but was too afraid to roll with a permanent Moon base instead. The other big part was that Orion sucked, and somehow, neither "get Orion to suck less" nor "roll with Orion, provision for HLS to do more" was in the cards. This only changed under Isaacman.
For every Curiosity and JWST, there's ARM and Artemis. It seems like it's getting better now, but very slowly.
This is kind of an odd reply as what is going on now is exactly what one would expect from a culture that cannot take risks at all.
1. Something blows up.
2. It gets pasted all over the news.
3. People wonder why we give NASA money to blow stuff up
4. Congress people with room temperature IQs grill NASA admin for months.
5. NASA becomes risk adverse.
6. Today.
NASA had real safety issues in the past - Space Shuttle is a testament to that. But if this is the fix, they clearly overcorrected.
There's some sort of happy middle ground between flying a ship that has a very significant chance of a catastrophic failure killing all crew and can't even fly unmanned, and almost not letting Ingenuity fly because the chance of failure was deemed too great. NASA didn't find it.
I would guess that DoD procurement rules have more to do with it than Congress, but perhaps Congress defined DoD procurement rules.
Milspec is expensive and process heavy, see what a B52 replacement trash can costs, for just one example.
DoD procurement rules are largely the outcome of Congress trying to prevent executive-industry corruption through mandated process.
But aren't the politicians also corrupt? (or at least most of them) One therefore assumes that any action by congress must be corrupt. This appears borne out by the evidence over the past few decades.
If you think Milspec is expensive, you should see the cost of not having a Milspec supply chain while still being risk-averse.
That’s a damn good point, probably more costly and more of a hassle to adopt off-the-shelf products to work reliably in a military environment while minimizing risk.
We could always be less risk averse. We still seem to kill civilians at high rates and our own soldiers signed up to die. Gold-plated weapons aren't much good against peer powers anyway; it's production volume that wins those wars.
Why would those fixes not be batched up? So fix 20% of those and do one round of testing?
The obvious answer is that the more bugs you batch up, the higher the chances the next build fails - this is why CI became a thing, small iterative changes are safer and lead to greater throughput
CI doesn't mean doing all the tests all the time though. The expensive tests still wait until there's a major reason to run them. I had the same question as the parent and I still don't quite see why this can't work.
I didn't work on this project, but I've been involved with similar ones.
There is a process for getting a change into version control. Each change needs to have a (virtual) paper trail: motivation, risk analysis, sign-offs &c.
If you can't get something into VC quickly, you can't really do CI.
The obvious solution would be to have an integration branch that doesn't need the process to get in, do CI testing on that branch and then make the process for merging to the real branch.
I've never seen this done personally, but I have been told some places do it, and then you end up with "Change X, which got approved had a dependency on Change Y that didn't get approved and we didn't realize it until now because Change Y was put in the integration branch before Change X"
That sounds odd. The way it was done in every place I worked, is that a set of changes were approved for a release before they were planned and implemented. We organized the work as expected: each bug/feature on its own branch, with its own set of unit tests, etc., and automated testing applied on each commit. These branches are then merged to the integration branch once they are known good. Before the release process starts, QA would get a copy of the integration branch and test that.
The dependency problem doesn't exist, because all the features were already approved to be in the release. The only way there would be a problem is if someone decided late in the game to pull a feature and that feature was a dependency to something else.
What I described was for bugfixes, not features. Features were set in stone way before this.
I also maintain that it is impossible to know which changes depend on other changes. In one case, applying a bugfix that changed the order of allocations at startup caused vtable corruption somewhere else because it changed how much padding a particular malloc() call was returning, and someone was writing past the end of their allocation.
[edit]
Also note that what you described is not CI; things are developed on their own branches and not integrated immediately.
It's may seem like a nitpick but I think it's a whole different way off looking at it to phrase it as "applying a bugfix that changed the order of allocations at startup exposed memory corruption somewhere else"
I do think there is something to be said for both perspectives, especially for code that is extremely critical. With sufficient testing and determinism maybe you can actually make sure that dormant issues stay dormant meaning there is real value in being change-averse. Still it's a very precarious situation having a known memory corruption hoping it's the testing has made sure its benign in practice.
IMO All it exposed was writing past the end of buffers.
There was no memory corruption previously due to partially to luck, and partially to heavy testing (which would have exposed most forms of memory corruption).
I think it is fare to say that the change was a cause of the vtable corruption occurring, since without the change it didn't happen.
Once this is discovered, you need to rethink your change plan for the next release; if you back out this one change, your software will return to a working state. Whether doing that, or fixing your buffer overflow is the correct thing to do depends on a lot of specific factors.
Well, approval is a different beast from passing tests. But also, that's not how I was imagining this. I was imagining maintaining separate branches on top of each release, only combining them (merge or rebase or whatever) when you have a good reason to. That keeps things independent and makes it so you can always cut a release with solely the critical fixes (and test them in isolation, etc.) whenever needed, letting you integrate the noncritical ones opportunistically.
True, but if each run of CI takes 6 weeks then you're going to vastly hamper development.
The bureaucratic development process sounds like Autosar in automotive. I am not surprised that newcomers from USA and Chinese auto companies are able to completely dominate in software because Autosar based development has been like giving a birth to a hedgehog. Slow and painful.
> one time having to do 6 weeks of testing around a one-line code change because a "helpful" dev fixed a small bug that had no practical impact
Roll back the change? Also, fix the approval process - no way that should have been approved.
Generally speaking that is risk management, an unavoidable engineering tradeoff. In lower stakes situations, for example a critical application or server for a small office, we let low-impact bugs accumulate: Imposing risks, and therefore eventual costs, to avoid minor workarounds and low-impact bugs is poor engineering and risk management.
Engineering and all risk management includes tradeoffs. It's easy to criticize the downside of the tradeoff - the same people criticize the reverse decision when the server (or drone) crashes - when someone is not responsible for both sides of it, when they are not accountable for their words when the outcome occurs.
That's speaking generally. It's also poor risk management to be overly safe. I don't know about the parents' situation. But drone crashes (risking humans), mission failure, $50 million losses, and associated downtime (including delays) and labor costs, seem like high costs that are worth some pain to avoid.
This is why Ukraine is making equivalent tech now for 1/10th the price. It's great to see.
All the drone footage is actually pretty horrific to see.
It's always been pretty horrific. We just didn't have bodycam livestreams invented during trench warfare times.
Yeah FPV drones have massively increased the cost of invading a country. It's basically a return to WWI style trench warfare, except no man's land is the size of the range of the drones (20+ KM).
It's a million times worse than that. Drones have commoditization accuracy and precision and dramatically improved ISR, and that has produced a dramatic jump in lethality.
You used to be able to take a hit and survive a war. Those days are gone. Now you die because 1kg of C4 blew up your entire ass, or you take a less dramatic hit but you will never be dragged back to a field hospital.
Eventually the US or similar will have to get into this kind of war, and there will be a come to jesus moment for all the hoo rah americans who think your chances of surviving a war are based on anything other than sheer luck.
This is Bad, man.
Nukes already showed you can't make a weapon so crazily deadly and destructive that man would end war, so things will be bleak for the rest of humanity's reign.
the gray zone is ~200km so long as you have ISR drones able to see it
artillery, missiles, and long range drones are in the mix too. AI enabled spotting makes ISR detection rapid and effective.
some kubernetes container spots a random pixel that means hidden vehicles and a HIMARS strike is dispatched ASAP
Hopefully making the real horrors of war visible to the public/world will make war less frequent. Alas...
Has seeing the horrors of the Ukraine war made you want the west to stop it and force a surrender? More horrors don't make people want less war. If anything, it may be the opposite. People pretend to be anti-war right up until there's a war and then suddenly it turns out they're actually anti-losing-the-war.
I want less war. I'm against attacking other countries, but totally in favor of defending yourself if you get attacked. Those aren't contradictory statements.
Never start a fight but always finish one.
Surrendering to an aggressor will let the aggressor get what they want, hence making war more appealing. So it's coherent for anti-war people to resist and make it as hard as possible for an aggressor. Even Gandhi justified defensive war.
Humans just adapt and normalize things too quickly, so long term seeing more violence will just desensitize people and make it more acceptable. Just look at the difference between protected kids in suburbs vs kids growing up in bad areas.
People have been saying this since Vietnam (and actually now that I think about a little more, this may actually have happened).
In the late 1960s daily TV news coverage revealed the horrors of war to the American public as never before (just as Brady's photos had done in the Civil War). That palpable gruesomeness was instrumental in the rising tide of unpopularity enjoyed by the war (and Johnson) by the elections of 1968.
A month ago Sternenko had a crowdfunding campaign for the secret drones. Recently he showed the fruits of that campaign: new drones have better connection and now you can watch kills in 4k!
Also recent advances in battery tech brought increased energy density: the same drones which had range 20km now have 40km.
Yes, but it's not necessarily more horrific than the unseen effect of the 155mm shells. It's just that those don't come with killcams.
(The killcam is a WW2 invention, starting with linking cine cameras to the machine guns of fighter aircraft)
Most of us who build weapons of war live with some awful dilemmas. One of them is:
We want to perform our work skillfully, effectively, and professionally. But we never want our tools to actually be needed.
(Another is that we can't effectively create a shield without the risk of it being used as a sword.)
Well then don't make weapons of war.
If you make a hammer, it can always be used to murder someone, but if you make an AK-47, there's only one way it can be used. So if you don't want what you make to be used for killing, don't make an AK-47. If you 're good at toolmaking, choose to make tools that are not weapons.
Or as my dad, a CSAR pilot, used to say, "I'd be happy to be out of a job."
Depends on who's on the receiving end.
Actually nothing cheers me up more than seeing Russians being hunted down and killed by drones. Fuck them.
You must be British.
I agree. Nightmare fuel.
[flagged]
In contrast I read that Ukraine is approving 4+ new weapons systems PER DAY !!
Even when it comes to more expensive things like cruise missiles it seems the planning has to be that some high percentage of them may be shot down (and much higher for slower moving drones), so you really want them cheap and in high volume, with reliability somewhat of a secondary concern.
> Safety is extremely important, so you expect some slowness as a result, but it got pretty extreme. I remember one time having to do 6 weeks of testing around a one-line code change because a "helpful" dev fixed a small bug that had no practical impact.
Not to bring Tesla into this, but the contrast here is stunning. From a component manufacturer about the mindset of Tesla:
"Hey, we sent you over the new firmware for the component, check it out." (The test suite for this component takes approximately 36 hours to execute.)
Three hours later:
"This is working so much better, thanks a lot!"
"???"
"Oh, we just flashed a car we have here and took it out for a drive."
"?!?"
Oof.
This just seems like poor planning. If it were planned better, you could group a bunch of smaller bug fixes under the same acceptance test. The full acceptance test is a good practice for safety critical systems. Project management just has to get better at doing smaller unit/int testing on each bug and then grouping those changes under the full acceptance test.
This only makes sense if you have to test each fix in complete isolation which seems silly even for government employees and contractor body shops. You can't batch 80 real bug fixes and 20 "silly bug with no practical impact" fixes together?
Surely the dev wasn't able to merge that one-line code fix causing 6 weeks of testing without any other eyes on it and without someone else's PR-like approval...right?
>> On a separate note, I'm curious as to whether AI is making an inroads in that space. I would imagine very minimal, if at all, but very curious.
tl;dr, not in practice. Far as I can tell this is still the SOTA in FPOV drone autonomy:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-drone-racing
Basically, those guys trained a drone to beat human FPOV racers but they had access to the race course layout before the race and trained extensively on it. Can't do that on a battlefield.
Also: no shooting at enemy drones during FPOV races. Makes surviving to the end of the race simpler.
a "hole pile" of ...?!
I'm surprised that someone who uses such a phrase was working on classified hardware in the "mid and late 00s".
for sure, no way even an intelligent person could possibly make a text-to-speech typo when writing a comment on an informal internet forum. Definitely a lying liar who lies
"Software saved the aerospace industry. Every other way of adding cost to an aircraft also adds weight."
If safety is extremely important, why there were bugs in the first place? Surely these should have been caught before code would get into main, no?
I don't really understand how any of this contributes to "defense". Sounds like "offense" to me. Just patrolling the skies over non-white countries and launching missiles at weddings. The reason the Pentagon invests so heavily in this kind of technology is our wars are so indefensible, they can't convince Americans to sacrifice blood in any quantity for other people's natural resources.
Drones can be used for both offense and defense. For example the usage of drones in Ukraine can be classified as defense.
[flagged]
[flagged]
They are white [1].
[1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21211671-1997-revisi...
Drones fly over Gaza all the time, scaring the shit out of people and sometimes murdering them senselessly. They have done this over many countries.
They certainly look white to me.
Are Spanish people white or Hispanic according to those definitions?
'Original peoples' is an interesting phrase. Neanderthals? Beaker people?
A single category for everyone from Pakistanis to Japanese is weird.
I think they meant Caucasian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
> Introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen school of history, the term denoted one of three purported major races of humans: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid
Sounds totally legit.
Caucasian includes South Asians and some East Africans according to that definition.
The best defense...
There are ~350,000,000 of us. When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for.
What boggles my mind is that I make coffee at home because I'm frugal. I guess it is good the government and DoD are seeking cheaper alternatives also.
My favorite interview question: If I gave you a swarm of autonomous drones, what would you do with them?
There is a group in South Florida who stand watch over turtle nests on the beach to ensure the hatchlings make it to the ocean instead of instinctively moving towards the street lamps or the bright hotels. I would use drones to hover over the nests to detect if the turtles hatch so people don't have to stand there.
What would you do?
> When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that.
I like to think about how providing 4-week paid parental leave would cost $2 billion annually and actually help US families. Meanwhile we have spent over $100 billion on this war.
My back of napkin figures gave me about $20-40b. I'm curious how you got to the $2 billion number?
I'm curious about your napkin math, care to share?
I got mine from a paper published by the University of Chicago: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/735565.
How do you even estimate that, human productivity is non linear to worktime and often, employees, when given good benefits are likely to be more productive.
also there's the fact of this having a ROI since people generate economic value in the longer run, and hence, more taxes
Considering the push for reproduction from this admin and his technocrats, I'm curious if they would consider something like this.
One would think, but the flip-side is that this supports more women in the workforce. Traditional roles of men working and women caring for kids seems like a bigger priority of this admin.
I do think it is a policy point that Democrats should absolutely be hammering them on. This is pro-worker and pro-family at very low cost.
Most of republican’s decisions become much more logically consistent once you realize they just want to control people, primarily women and minorities. It isn’t and has never been about “family values” or “religious freedom” or “small government”. If it was about those things, they would look far more like democrats.
They don't want all Americans to reproduce. Making a law they want still needs a couple of Supreme Court decisions overturned.
California already more or less provides 8 weeks of paid parental leave (PFL program).
That is great, unfortunately almost 90% of the country lives in a state other than California.
88.5%, to be precise.
So far….
[flagged]
> the possible events that could lead to World War 3. Iran is directly connected to all of that.
If any event has pushed us closer to WW3 it is the US's decision to preemptively attack Iran.
> Seems like money well spent.
Based on what outcome? The regime is still intact, if not stronger. They are likely more resolute in wanting a nuclear weapon, as we almost certainly wouldn't have attacked them if they had one. They have validated their control over the Straight of Hormuz and it's impact on our economy.
[flagged]
Hundreds of billions spent on a war you lost and best case scenario is going back to the deal Obama made. Money well spent indeed.
That's a propaganda line. Iran has lost most of its capacity to make war, but it can still harass.
The money is also not as relevant as people think. The amount of money is largely political fluff, not much in the way of serious economic impact in a $32 trillion economy.
There were WMDs in Iraq too right?
Iraq was never really about WMDs. WMDs were a surface political mechanism to achieve the aims, which were different. If you look at all the individual events that transpired before then it was clear something had to be done, but it wasn't a neat one liner that's easy to rally people around like WMDs.
Wow. It's like you're trying not to get it.
> My favorite interview question: If I gave you a swarm of autonomous drones, what would you do with them?
What signal are you looking for with that question? It feels much more like a thought experiment with friends while having a few pints than something reasonable for a job interview.
It was the initial culture / behavioral interview for a job developing AI for education of children. Considering how these drones are used in the article linked, the question is apropos.
I would make them fly around helping people and stuff
World Peace
> When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for.
(Your share of overall defense spending is ~1,000x higher, of course.)
I wish political leaders would express it that way. And you need to include the time factor: $10/year for 10 years differs from $20 for a one-time event. And somehow figure in capital accumulation (as opposed to e.g., consumables) and depreciation. But there are clear, effective ways to communicate it: 'I propose each American spend an average of $80/year for 50 years on this fighter jet program'. 'This moon mission will cost everyone $5/year for 2 years.'
To nitpick a little, I think your math is off: There are 350 million Americans, but we need to exclude most children, elderly, etc.
>It pales compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for.
Thinking of country-scale finances in the same way you think about personal finance is wrong in many ways. Take debt for example. As an individual, it's arguably best not to have debt at all. As a country, sovereign debt is the foundation of the world's money supply and fuels continuous economic growth.
Also, though the U.S. has $31 Trillion dollars of debt, $22 Trillion of that belongs to U.S. domestic traders.
If we were to cut our debt down to zero, we'd cripple ourselves with taxes and stifle growth. We'd have zero debt but we'd be sent into a massive economic depression, and that would likely ripple out across the planet.
I see this parroted constantly but it seems to be getting proven wrong by Japan and, frankly, the US
> There are ~350,000,000 of us. When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that.
Less than half are net income tax payers, IIRC. So if you pay income tax, you're actually on the hook for more $6, on average.
Another way to look at it; I'll be long gone when a child born today will be paying it. Why do you think I'm concerned about a child who I will never meet getting stuck with debt I voted to accrue?
Sounds like Social Security.
> instinctively moving towards the street lamps or the bright hotels.
> I would use drones to hover over the nests to detect if the turtles hatch so people don't have to stand there.
And put brighter lights on the drones to lead them in the right direction!
But if you asked me that in an interview, I would probably question whether I wanted to work there. I don't think random, irrelevant, put-me-on-the-spot questions help anyone on either side of that coin.
Na, there aren't "~350,000,000 of us".
You are just assuming that the whole readership of Hacker News are US-citizens.
I, for example, are from an EU country. So "there are 450,000,000 of us" if I'd had a similar attitude.
Presumably “us” is “population of the US”, not HN readers.
Would have been nice to do that in Lebanon so that woman could still be alive.
$3 is still too much and I would rather it go towards paying the debt down.
Side note: The federal government costs about $19 billion per day to operate based on an annual budget of roughly $7 trillion.
So $1 billion is about equal to 4 hour hours of government spending.
Operations is about 1/4 of the budget ($1.75T), and half of that is DoD. 60% is payments for entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The remaining 15% is debt service.
> The federal government costs about $19 billion per day to operate based on an annual budget of roughly $7 trillion.
$7 trillion is not operating expenses. Much goes into assets that are retained decades or more. The Interstate Highway System isn't an operating expense.
Every mile of road is an operating expense. Looking at a report from NY state:
> Based on aggregate highway spending reported in 2009, the average statewide cost of maintaining a lane mile was $13,841.
source (pdf): https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/local-government/publications/p...
> Every mile of road is an operating expense.
Has, not is. Clearly you didn’t take Intro to Object-Oriented Programming in CS.
Nah, I use rust so every mile implements OperatingExpense.
Yikes, that is a lot.
Those drones are pretty noisy though.
Probably is an issue but sea turtles hearing is adapted to ocean not air and low frequencies. Also, waves and wind blowing likely muffle a lot of noise.
The organizations that do this have mobile apps and collect tons of data. If I'm use ML, I'd start with time series forecasting to see if I can get the window done to a few hours.
Now you know why there is war. We have war because the U.S. is failing. Just look at the reversal of the 10 and 30 y bonds over the last 20 years. All the free money that was given to the oligarchs killed our economy.
In this particular case I think it's just because Trump can't resist doing every single thing Israel wants.
its because they have him on tape having sex with children
But what about Graham Platner?
/s
Sexual assault allegations and literal Nazi symbolism tattooed on his body. Those things are acceptable now? These were the exact things that Democrats went after Hegseth for (who, for the record, is also a doofus like Platner).
The left's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
You can guess where the bar is when the guy in the white house was literally convicted of sexual assault in a court of law, and he still won the republican nomination.
Now compare that against a credible accusation being enough to derail a senate hopeful in a must win seat for the Democrats. Sorry, I don't see the hypocrisy. Actually, I do see it, just not on the side you insist it's on.
> literally convicted of sexual assault in a court of law
It was a civil case, not criminal, and had included no physical evidence. And the claim was so old the statute of limitations had run out, but no worries, New York temporarily extended it so she could bring her lawsuit against Trump. It was bullshit, like most of these cases of women crawling out of the woodwork after decades during very critical times are.
When your standard is "believe all women, no matter how long it's been, no matter how politically convenient the timing is, no matter that there's nothing but anecdotal evidence", well, don't be surprised when it's used against your team.
> You can guess where the bar is
Have you considered that maybe people don't believe these political stunts rather than tacitly approve of what the person was accused of? You're even doubtful of the Platner one. This trick has been played one too many times for people to take them at face value anymore.
And lets just ignore him being long time friends with Epstein and burying the case?
Or the many other women that came forward. We trust Mr grab them by the pussy instead. That totally didn't cheat on his wife with a pornstar and paid her off illegally to keep quiet.
I'm willing to put up with a lot to put the brakes on Trump. But since I'm not in Maine, it's not up to me.
And they’re still on cnbc daily saying rates need to go down to save the us. There’s a guy on right now saying rates need to be lower to save the ai bubble.
Yes, save the asset holders, damn the peasants. even Trump said he wants to see housing prices go higher.
These people do not care about you. You need to hate them more.
Do you think the common person benefits from high interest rates? Pray tell, how?
It helps keep inflation under control, for one thing. For another, it helps prevent billionaires from wasting even more money on boondoggles.
> prevent billionaires from wasting even more money on boondoggles
This is what you want though? If everyone stops "wasting even more money on boondoggles" there is no innovation, and no jobs if nobody is making more boondoggles.
10y rates are almost exactly where they were 20 years ago, and about 10% lower than they were 20 years before that.
So...what are you talking about?
You mean just before ‘08?
I mean 20 years ago, just like the original comment said. What is confusing? The last 20 years of interest rates are unremarkable, and certainly don't indicate the US is failing.
wow.
just before the major financial crisis, and QE?
the last 20 years of interest rates absolutely are remarkable, and reflect massive (and historically unprecedented) intervention from the central bank.
because of the near collapse of the US financial system, almost exactly 20 years ago.
> There are ~350,000,000 of us. When I read we spent $1B, I think about how I'm responsible for $3 of that. It doesn't matter considering the ~$117,550 of the national debt I'm responsible for. It palls compared to the $3,000 a year in interest towards the national debt I'm responsible for.
tax billionaires, then
not a fan of defending billionairs, but is mostly a useless populist slogan*
You can do full Dekulakization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization) on them and it won't change anything in current economic situation.
Confiscating 100% of all billionaire wealth (~$8.4T) covers - ~1.1 years of federal spending (~$7.4T) - ~4.4 years of deficits (~$1.9T) - ~23% of debt (~$36T):
and pretty much kills US ability to rely on private sector (and I dont think we have a way to rely on public sector)
The sooner we all start focusing on things that actually matter -- like improving democracy, quality of education (btw spending more may not solve it) etc -- the faster we will improve situation.
Cities like NYC pretty much can afford UBI (look at per capita spending on homelessness, public schools etc). Taxing more may not be the answer.
*it should be studied what motivates people to repeat it
IMO its a useful populist slogan because it solves a different problem: The power that comes with being a billionaire. E.g. its all well and good to focus on fixing democracy instead, but if (some specific) billionaires are focused on deploying their wealth to destroy democracy, then what?
I've generally come around to believe that we need to limit wealth from a purely power / control point of view.
I think it's a great system of checks and balances- billionaires are only created by dealing with a lot of people and successfully solving a lot of problems. Once they have it, it's work to hold on to the money though. Politicians don't really produce anything measurable to show if they've helped or hurt society, and so they work to devalue the meaning of the dollar.
If you get rid of wealthy people's power, what takes its place other than politicians?
Hi again. You are definitely correct on the first point. But the second point shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works. Our economy highly favors capital over income. The only way to make billions and then lose it all is to be a complete degenerate. They will always be wealthy. The amount of money these people lose on a given day as the stock market bobs around demonstrates that once achieved, money in the hands of the wealthy operates on a level the average American really can't fathom. Over time, they will always continue to do well. Deploying capital, once earned, is not hard. If it is work, it must be one of easiest things to do in the world. It's like saying trust fund babies have to work hard. If it was hard to hold onto wealth our society would be an extremely different one. It's in fact so easy that a lot of the economics around startup investing comes from the phenomena that rich people get bored with their own money. Why settle for boglehead style returns when you can yolo millions of dollars into a potential > 10x return. How do you even spend a billion dollars? You really can't. The only way is to put it into things were again, it is far more advantaged than actual income. Yes there is some work involved in vetting and talent etc. But don't buy into all the hype. A lot of it comes down to luck and getting to the point where you have the capital to spread your bets, knowing the economics mean that even if you lose, you will still win. It's the getting there that is hard. Not the staying there.
It's very important to acknowledge this. Because this wealth is retained long after w/e the societal problem addressed that created the wealth is solved. It is an open question how to deal with that problem, which becomes a societal issue in its own right. I however also share your hesitancy to turn over said gains to politicians, who don't seem to solve any problems or produce any solutions. Unfortunately we shouldn't also forget that they are society's elected proxies. Perhaps we can strive for a system were both politicians and billionaires are weakened in furtherance of some notion of the common good. The idea of "reinvestment" need not be either a wholly public or private enterprise. Most successful societies understand the checks and balances lie somewhere in thinking less in terms of a public/private dichotomy and more like a public/private partnership. The United States used to operate more like this, before the Reagan era ushered in a time of pronounced deference to capital [1]. It would really not take much to bring things back into a more reasonable balance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
> Confiscating 100% of all billionaire wealth (~$8.4T) covers - ~1.1 years of federal spending (~$7.4T) - ~4.4 years of deficits (~$1.9T) - ~23% of debt (~$36T):
Adding a wealth tax doesn't mean eliminating existing income taxes.
> Cities like NYC pretty much can afford UBI (look at per capita spending on homelessness, public schools etc).
Perhaps , but what about poor states like West Virginia or Alabama. It's not universal if they don't receive benefits also.
Just remember those states are already handout states. They take more money in than they give back. They also have some bizarre cultural hatred for the blue states and cities that make this country an economic superpower. The idea NYC shouldn't do its best to take care of its own because people in Alabama aren't getting enough is nonsensical. Imo they already get far more than they deserve.
It mostly goes back to when mortgages (then other debts) were handled by local banks by law, then people in NYC changed those laws so all the money was routed to them. It's not like NYC is just purely more productive, it just found a way to ensure all money must go through them, and they take some of it as almost a form of a new tax. Not that this more central form of banking is all bad, but when almost all the "real" work (farming, building, factories, etc) is done outside the city and they have no real say in the matter it leads to resentment.
This point is overly generous.
Contingency around wealth occurs in myriad ways. It's not like other blue cities are not wealthy. Obviously the financialization of the economy is quite evident in New York in particular, as it is in places like London or Shanghai or Hong Kong. This was often preceded by times when these cities were also notable as ports and more "real" (to use your phrase) centers of trade. Other blue cities do well for different reasons. The fact is the kind of "real" work you have described has been devalued over a long period of history, and going back to that is not desirable. Even in Roman times, Rome was not were the food was made. If you are a country today, as back then, were the greatest thing you can achieve is "food" and "building" you are considered a weak society. These are things humanity has already solved for centuries ago. Since the dawn of civilization. That's what civilization is. Advances since have always come with some degree of "financialization" or "service economy". If that makes you upset then you can give up the medicine, peace, science, etc that comes with civilization and go back to when "real" work was extremely valued because you had to kill for your food everyday. What could be more "real" than that?
I understand the resentment of poverty to wealth. This is not what I am referring to when it comes to Alabama and New York. The cultural resentment towards NYC in particular from these places is egregious. It's not about wealth, it's about religion, it's about diversity, and it's about demonization.
It's become such a thoughtless exercise on the mainstream right to essentially claim that people in New York City are not "real Americans". That they don't have "American values". To the point where when people like Ted Cruz get openly challenged on this it feels like something of a revelation. The moment Trump turned another such diatribe against Cruz was another strong signal he was going to take over that party.[1] And yet this lazy rhetorical convention has not retired. It is disgraceful. Why do major political candidates in a system with only two parties engage in such transparent attacks on a city of millions of their fellow citizens? Obama made one little "cling to their guns" comment and was forced to prostrate himself in apology. Meanwhile in these "red" states treating New Yorkers or other blue states as almost satanic is par for the course. This is not the resentment of wealth alone.
It would be one thing if it was just empty political rhetoric. But it is not. People in New York do not obsess over people in Alabama. We don't fantasize about sending our national guard into their states, or stealing their elections, or deporting their populations who don't look like us. We don't obsess about crime rates in their cities, which are worse in many red states per capita than our own. We tolerate the fact that most guns used in inner city crime, our so-called "gun free zones" come from guns in poorly regulated red states, as if the southside of Chicago houses weapon manufacturing factories. As far as I can tell the resentment from people in Alabama or Arkansas and the like comes from wanting to return to an age where they could pelt young black girls with hatred and abuse for wanting to go to school and having to suffer the federal government sending troops there to tell them to act like the civilized society they claim to be [2]. If you do not acknowledge a very specific type of hatred has been festering in these places for sometime I would suggest you are not paying enough attention and need to reacquaint yourself with your history. If we didn't have to protect people like the Little Rock Nine the same resentment would not exist. When Southern plantation owners could depend on enslaved labor, the gap between the North and the South was not so vast. Many of the framers understood in the long run this was not sustainable, and that a civil war was likely inevitable if "all men are created equal" was to actually succeed.
Along these lines, something we may wish to consider in the future is returning to a spirit of federalism, that is, a weaker federal government and more autonomous states. That is, provided retrograde states like Alabama or Arkansas do not once again use such a framework as a pretext to perpetuate a system of racial slavery onto their own citizens. Perhaps the average person in Alabama has learned enough that for the time being the best thing for them is to leave them not only more in charge of their own affairs, but far less in charge of our own. Who will they blame for their condition then? If the states somehow replicated a civil war style secession in peace would Alabama suddenly be enriched? Would the price of food suddenly disobey the laws of demand and supply? Is their plan to make no money at all? These are people who don't think tariffs affect prices. Then when their farmers predictably lose money blue states get robbed to pay the subsidy. All while this constant drumbeat of cultural war emanates from these places.
Imo we don't need to bend over backwards to indulge their resentment. We have suffered these types of people long enough. We already have debates within NYC about wealth and poverty. We don't need to add the ingredients that come from places like Alabama or West Virginia. Hillbilly Elegy style takes would be a little more palatable if people like JD Vance didn't come in and transparently serve the Epstein criminal class and call Americans who don't want their neighbors rounded up like dogs "domestic terrorists". I'll take John Brown over JD Vance any day of the week.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM6qRl3dSME [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
> The idea NYC shouldn't do its best to take care of its own because people in Alabama aren't getting enough is nonsensical. Imo they already get far more than they deserve.
Absent a federal wealth redistribution, yes NYC must do its best for it's residents. I'm not disagreeing with that. A federal wealth tax, however, would tax Alabama billionaires as much as it would tax NYC billionaires.
Good point. It is a good thing as you point out to remember that even so called "poor states" also suffer from pretty severe wealth inequality, in some cases perhaps more stark than one would find in the blue cities, if only because the floor can appear far wider and lower.
Or we can go even further with the fun thought exercise, by spreading the cost even more: Even $100,000,000,000,000,000 doesn't matter if you evenly distribute it across each atom in the usa.
I’m no military expert by any means but US appears to be obsessed with destroying some super important target to win, like they did with killing Iran leaders only to find out that new leader replace the perished.
The same with the other stuff, they have super important radar and super important ships that need to be defended and a failure creates irreplaceable loses. Iran on the other hand, just like with their super important leaders lost all its “super weapons” like destroyers and the drone ships and yet again brought USA to its knees.
Maybe USA has more fundamental problems, not just drones. Maybe the problem is the obsession of wonderweapons for destroying wondertargets.
It is fascinating that there are so many movies revolving around the US president, as if he has some ability that no one has and you can’t simply elect a new one if the enemy gets him.
Maybe the desire for concentration of power and seeing everything through that lens is the issue?
The US in general, and this administration in particular, has bought into US exceptionalism and action movie tropes. Just gotta blow up the death star with the leader on board and then the war is over. In reality there's a chain of command and line of succession, and military equipment all around the country.
If they had been smart, they would have been learning from Ukraine, because we've found ourselves in basically the same position as Russia is with Ukraine, but with no appetite to puts boots on the ground (not that we should, but it's the only way to "win").
> If they had been smart, they would have been learning from Ukraine
This administration seems to have neither the required skills nor an interest to learn from mistakes. Even if they were filled with smart people, they would still fail because of their lack of skill and learning attitude.
Why do you think war in Iran is a mistake? They definitely became richer. Isn't it the goal of the people in power at the moment?
I suspect even that was unexpected bonus by them. They just stumbled upon a way to manipulate the market. I have hard time to see any action by them as being thoughtful.
>Just gotta blow up the death star with the leader on board
The fact they unironically used Star Wars in their war memes was an amazing self-own.
Yes, literally scrawny underdog rebels against the hecking iranian islamic death-star
Viewed independently, I think VZ, Ukraine, and Iran look like a hodgepodge of strange actions. There is a consistent view that joins them, namely as we approach the end of the davidson window, putting pressure on China and Russia via oil restrictions might help dissuade a larger war in the Pacific.
This is just a personal opinion, but lines up with Ukraine (burning refineries), EU (seizing sanctioned tankers FINALLY), VZ (cutting exports to China and moving to USA), and Iran (close the strait every so often). The unifying thread seems to be applying consistent pressure around China.
Nobody made Russia decide to invade Ukraine, without which there would be no burning refineries.
Nobody made China gear up to reclaim Taiwan. If we/EU didn't like Ukraine burning RU gas we could apply dissuasive power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bgMl3NQwS4
Germany plays Russian anthem like you've never heard it before (Dec 12, 2021)
(did he cry ?)
The truth is that bombing campaigns alone have never been an effective way to end a conflict. All they do is strengthen resolve.
Even the most extreme case of the nuclear bombs in Japan - had Russia not also invaded from the North with 1.5 million troops, there's a chance they would not have surrendered (and even then it was after a multi-year bombing campaign that eviscerated every other city).
The only realistic scenario for regime change is boots on the ground. The Iran "experts" who suggested a bombing campaign were never serious people.
>...had Russia not also invaded from the North with 1.5 million troops, there's a chance they would not have surrendered
The Japanese had already moved all of their experienced troops from Manchuria before the Soviet invasion. They were maybe surprised that the USSR would break the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, but the defense of the home islands was their main concern at that point.
The Japanese knew the USSR was not a threat to the main islands as the Soviets could never have done a large invasion of Japan. The Soviets had a few ships that the USA had given them as part of Project Hula, but that is nothing compared to what would be needed for a full scale invasion of Japan. The Soviets did have plans to possibly attack Hokkaido, but as the wikipedia entry says "...Historians have generally considered it unlikely that an invasion of Hokkaido would have succeeded. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Soviet_invasion_of_Ho...
In comparison, the proposed allied invasion was planned to have 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts. Even that wasn't considered enough:
>...Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, "[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just the beginning. At the time of bombing of Nagasaki already a third nuclear weapon was been assembled.
There were plans to increase the A-bomb production rate. After November 1945 U.S. would produce a atomic bomb every 10 days. The production rate for year 1946 was planned to be 6 bombs every month.
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1...
So after 1946 there would be not much of Japan left to invade.
The bombing of Iran is nowhere the scale of bombing of Japan, see for example the fire bombing of Tokyo.
Kind of moot given Japan surrendered.
Had they not, the carpet bombings would have continued - not just the fire bombing of Tokyo, another 71 cities had also been bombed flat. With H&N that made a total of 74 cities down and a list of targets for future bombing still ready to work through.
FWiW the HE+incendiaries bombings used more planes but were cheaper overall than (at that time) atomic weapons - and (at that time) caused much the same amount of damage, injury, and death.
Korean war was way more extreme. NK has been bombed into an absolute moonscape, yet never surrendered.
Don't overlook the "the people of this foreign land are yearning to be free of their current rulers, and just need a little help from their neighborly U.S. armed forces" trope. I think there are plenty of people who actually believe it.
People seem to forget that Iranians were rioting in the streets in the weeks leading up to the US attacking. The Iranian government was shooting protestors and pulled the plug on the internet.
The US (well Israel) saw this as the stars aligning. Trump even called on Iranians early in the engagement to seize the opportunity.
But the ground swell didn't happen, and the US got played. Trump rolled a critical fail.
From the videos and analysis I have seen, it was Kurdish militia that was formenting the riots. The US and Israel have even admitted to arming them. They were burning and destroying infrastructure, fighting and killing legitimate protesters, and fighting governement forces. So it was a 2 way fight between the militia and government forces with innocient protesters in the middle. Not trying to cast blame or defend any side, but these protesters are not fighters or soldiers, they are kind of like gen-Z TikTokers. So to plan an entire war around this "event" is kind of crazy. But the US government doesn't care, they just needed to sell the justification and everyone bought it.
The one surest way to stop a starting revolution is for a foreigner to start murdering civilians all around.
Yes, Trump said American help is on the way and did nothing for a month, waiting regime to kill protesters.
How it could be a surprise more riots didn't happen?
Are you sure the claim is false?
> Are you sure the claim is false?
No one in Iran wants their children bombed for US to "free them". US and Israel don't care about Iran.
They just want to destroy our country and take our wealth. Like they have been doing all over the world.
Source: Iranian who doesn't support the Islamic Republic, but have some family members who do.
We can resolve our internal issues with discourse (and sometimes violence if it comes to it).
I guess it doesn't matter if the Iranian people want regime change in their country. Lots of people want lots of different things (plus a pony). It only matters what they do. And it doesn't appear that they want regime change enough to take the risks of making it happen. I suppose this is the hubris of polling.
A.) Would you be happy if the government changed? (85% approval)
B.) Are you willing to potentially sacrifice your life and the lives of your sons to change the government? (3% approval)
Like almost everything, it's almost certainly false for some people. And almost certainly true for others.
It's almost like you can't paint an entire country with one brush?
Its like 2 dogs fighting, the US wants to win a display of dominance and have the other dog concede defeat - but if instead the other dog is prepared to die, now its a fight to the death and in fights to the death usually both sides die, even if one is stronger. The mentality of "we will just punch them till they capitulate" shows the US mentality, they're not in an existential struggle and they aren't ready to face one.
The pentagon can’t stop gold plating requirements, but that’s not just a problem of this administration. We’re still feeling the effects of the self inflicted hollowing out of the defense industry at the end of the Cold War, every defense contractor has learned that the only sane way to survive financially is to put as many bells and whistles on to their contracts as they can safe in the knowledge that the one or two other companies bidding for the contracts will be doing the exact same thing and the pentagon has lost the institutional knowledge on how to purchase systems and get anything like a good deal.
> It is fascinating that there are so many movies revolving around the US president, as if he has some ability that no one has and you can’t simply elect a new one if the enemy gets him.
One of the few exceptions was the Battlestar Galactica reboot, in which the entire chain of command was killed and the Agriculture Secretary ends up as the leader of the refugee humans.
Wow your take is that we need to just start mass killing off large swaths of "unimportant" people? This is wild. It's also been done before in Hanoi, and made a lot of people quite angry (and the others dead).
The US was not brought down to its knees. That is propaganda speaking, not reality. Jeez.
Your comment basically summarizes the thinking behind the "flawless victory" PR video.
The US fails to learn the lessons of it's last... idk, every war since WWII. Leadership cites kill stats when it has nothing else to cite, but killing, while certainly an important part of war, is not the key to victory and that's why we keep losing. Actually winning wars requires controlling strategic points on the battlefield, both literally with armed combatants, and metaphorically by getting civilians to support you. The US fails at both. We show up with incredibly superior firepower, establish FOBs where we think we need, drive armored convoys to supply those FOBs but they take fire on every trip, have to look for and clear IEDs, what have you. There's no control apart from the FOBs themselves, and the enemy has easy run of all territory not being patrolled at that precise moment.
This is the same problem that doomed us in Vietnam, in Korea, in Iraq, and will doom us in Iran. It's also the same problem that fucked over South Africa and Rhodesia and seems to be a common problem for white supremacists, but that's just my editorializing.
In any case, showing up and killing shitloads of people and then leaving does not win wars, it just LOOKS kinda like it does if you have no idea how to win wars, and assures you promotions in your organization. As soon as your military leadership starts citing that instead of actual progress on the conflict and the objectives at hand, it's a safe bet they are on their way to loss via attrition.
And that's not the ONLY factor of course, our military is too expensive and relies too much on fancy tech as opposed to solid strategy, everything we use is hideously expensive so any losses we take tend to hit harder, etc. But I think this is the most important thing to cite when discussing America's inability to actually wage war in a way that does anything besides get service people killed and enrich the MIC.
> Maybe USA has more fundamental problems
Yes we do, it is called imperialism. Now with a sprinkle of senile Fascism.
[dead]
There's a lot of stuff at play here.
First, despite the Millennium challenge being "debunked", it still played out in the same direction.
Second, and this is a big one, after the Church committee when the CIA was put under congressional oversight, a big majority of the clandestine work was put under Special Ops type groups, ie the Army Rangers, Navy Seals, etc.
When we were in Afghanistan, we would do the "target the leader" game, but it was far more dark in reality. Since we were going against a distributed insurgent force, we would send the special ops guys to targets intelligence deemed important. There'd be an op tempo of 2-3 a week. Years passed, and we didn't make any headway, so the op tempo was increased.
A target would be chosen, and the operators sent out. They'd kill the target, and look for any papers/documentation with other names. If you were this guy's dentist, you could be caught up in this. Since a majority of the operators didn't speak the language, they had no context to the names. It was more like the metadata network of connections exposed by Snowden.
Since we needed more operations(2-3 a night instead of a week), we'd go after less and less important targets, tangentially related to another target. We effectively turned the special ops groups into clandestine death squads with nearly zero accountability.
In addition, we were supporting warlords in the area that were pro-poppy cultivation and anti-Taliban. We'd protect the poppy plants that would go on to supply a large majority of the world's Heroin supply.
Where is this going? Well the cynic in me says it's simply a scam. We spend more on fancy military hardware that allows us to kill more effectively while barely pushing the needle on our goals. The mass amount of death we drop on populations creates new generations of "terrorist/freedom fighters" who rightfully have a grudge against the US war machine.
The money spent doesn't move the needle materially, but it provides propaganda in the form of "look at our death machines, we have the most in the world", which is a double edged sword of "hoorah" at home and "don't fuck with the crazy guy holding the gun" outside of home. The expensive weapons taxpayers buy from defense contractors are too expensive and complicated to build in bulk, so we run out quickly the second we have an enemy that can shoot back with more than an AK.
We're still trying to fight the war of 2-3 wars ago. We also learned from Vietnam that by no means should the general public easily learn the reality of the war. That worked until recently when the victim of a proxy war was able to upload daily videos onto tiktok and break the decades long good will between the US and an unnamed vassal.
Anyway, tl;dr, the ole military industrial complex is still at it, lobbying our government to spend money we don't have on wars we cannot afford as a public works program that only excels in death, rather than public works in healthcare, infrastructure, science, etc.
Its the issue of the orange clown.
The USA Military was quite aware that killing Irans Leadership is not 'it'.
But Trump saw how well venezuela worked so that was it.
Yeah USA politics is not 4D Chess.
The US didn't do that, Israel did. I suspect behind closed doors, Trump thought Bibi went a little overboard there
? It was a coordinated air strike from USA and Isreal.
Isreals only power to doing so, was knowing USA was behind it.
Can't name any strikes Israel did that the US didn't support?
The USA Military strategists are/were quite aware that Iran is not an easy target.
They knew already that Iran might not belly up just because their leadership gets killed. And they knew very well how Iran is fighting (in the mountains) and that they will close the strait of hormuz
Trump overruled it. He thought it was as easy as venezuela and he might have assumed that the civil unrest helps.
I suppose you have reliable sources for this?
There were plenty of YT Videos of Military analysis and News Paper articles about why USA suddenly attacked Iran.
Adelson Family as donor to Trump and Bibi.
Other donors might have motivated him too: Bernard Marcus and Paul Singer
I can't collect though a list of sources to read through for my statements. But i don't think my view is very controversal at all.
That's speculation. We were going to attack Iran regardless. My point was, the attack you are talking about was done _by_ Israel and was not part of the plan.
There is quite a good book on the various problems with the US Military, and its hegemony leading to losing the arms race in missiles, and its various industry problems by Andrei Martyanov - naturalized US citizen, former Soviet military officer. Loves America, hates what its turned into, and marvels at the delusion of our military. MIC bloat is discussed here, as well as our fake financialized economy - which is not an indicator of being able to win wars.
I have only read the first book, and it was nice and humbling experience to me as an American.
https://www.amazon.com/Disintegration-Indicators-Coming-Amer...
Blog:
https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/
Review:
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2022/08/how-russia-views-...
In practical terms, the US is more fascist and more authoritarian than most countries. There must be thousands of soldiers who know the war is illegal and that they are committing war crimes. Yet they persist because, the president said so. Thus, the strange presumption that other countries worship their leader in the same way. Thus, the strange presumption that by just replacing the leader they can profoundly transform any country.
HN has been compromised by propaganda bots that can't decide between "The US is a paper tiger that can't win anything" and "The US is bullying poor Iran". Only a fool would think the US can't win militarily. Here's how:
1. Flatten Kharg
2. Flatten a dozen roads critical to transportation infrastructure
3. Continue the blockade
4. Stonewall peace attempts
5. Wait 5-6 weeks and win
The Trump administration isn't doing that because they're trying to avoid another generation unconditionally hating the US again. Having enemies that blindly hate you is how you get into Russia's situation where even an outright victory will result in IRA-style Ukrainian terrorist groups.
Losing the war to avoid even bigger problems that’s not worth dealing with is pretty standard way of losing the war.
The military is just there to enact political aims. The military could leave Iran a radioactive wasteland for that matter.
The reason the trump administration is suing for peace is because the midterms are coming up, and the situation for Republicans looks dire.
> and the situation for Republicans looks dire.
I thought this at first, but I’m not sure at this point.
The republican establishment has slaughtered the more populist anti-war wing of the party in primaries across the country. The democratic establishment has begun to do the same against their populist candidates. Politicians go on TV and brag about how they’re going to be eating lobster when asked about the state of the economy on their constituents. Every election post I see in a state with a couple contentious ones coming up is filled to the brim with boomers explaining how they’ll always vote on party loyalty, to the point of completely ignoring any of a candidates positions or motives.
These are not the actions of groups who are concerned about upcoming elections.
The US can "win" for some definition of the word but at what cost to the US and the world in general? Would that really be a win or would it be a loss?
> The Defense Innovation Unit notice called for drones capable of carrying many different sensor and weapons payloads up to 2,800 pounds and flying with a combat radius of at least 2,300 nautical miles—or 8,000 nautical miles on a one-way strike mission—while executing the same missions that the MQ-9A Reaper drone currently performs for the US military
I feel like they might be taking the wrong lesson from this. The Reaper costs $30-50 million precisely because its mission profile is to deliver 3,500 pounds of payload over 1,000 nautical mile radius.
The cheap Iranian and Ukrainian drones these are increasingly competing with are only delivering 50-100kg of payload - which is plenty to blow shit up, and doesn't require a big, expensive, reusable airframe.
Yeah, it's about requirements. The Ukraine war has shown that fast-iterating MVPs are better in many battlefield situations. The saying that militaries end up preparing for the prior war instead of the next, comes to mind.
True, but I think the US requirements are indeed different. Ukraine must repel invading forces in their own country -> lowish range, mass produced, not necessarily precision strike.
US want to project power far away from its shores -> long range, precision strike, long loitering time.
While it's clear the US is working on those types of drones too (cloning Shaheds, basically), the likely mission profile of the US requires we have that capability. Pick your potential future US conflict and it won't look like us flinging disposable drones over the border at Canada, but rather needing to project power from an aircraft carrier or forward base against an adversary, where range, payload, sensors, and more matter. Quantity has a quality all its own, but there's no world where the US doesn't need a Reaper style drone in the arsenal.
> potential future US conflict
I'm not sure if "future" is a good word for the widespread civil unrest, nascent insurgencies, and very normal soft-target gun battles that happen weekly here, but our "US conflict" looks like street-to-street fighting, within our own borders, with people who are already here.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." -- Ambassador Kosh, Babylon 5
Right, I can see the need for both, but that suggests to me that they could differentiate the sensor package + loiter drone significantly from the shahed clone (which, given that it is a one-way trip, has a very similar operational radius)
Does one really need to bring along 2,500 kg of ordinance, when we can launch another $50,000 shahed-equivalent at whatever hard targets the loitering drone locates?
Yes because the lag between Hellfire and target is way less than "launch Shahed and wait 20 minutes". A continuum of strike times has value, all the way up to hypersonics.
For sure, though I will note that a 8-rack of hellfires only accounts for around half the desired payload. I imagine they are still planning to strap JDAMs to these things as well
> I feel like they might be taking the wrong lesson from this. The Reaper costs $30-50 million precisely because its mission profile is to deliver 3,500 pounds of payload over 1,000 nautical mile radius.
Partly, but I think there also is a feedback loop. Reapers are expensive, so they must reliably reach their targets. That makes them more expensive (need to be faster, more reliable, less visible on radar, etc), so fewer get ordered, so they must get even more powerful and reliable. That makes them more expensive, etc.
Also, being very expensive, you want them to be able to return home after a mission. That again increases weight, costs.
Result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper says only 575 got built over a period of about 20 years. In comparison, the USA built about 96,000 aircraft in 1944 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_product...), reaching that total in about two days.
So I looked up the specs and found:
- Reapers fly at a "medium" altitude, which is up to about 50,000 feet;
- They can fly up to 300mph;
- Despite being relatively high up they are relatively slow so lots of country have the military capability to shoot them down and have done so. This includes Iran and the Houthis;
- A typical payload is 2x GBU-31 JDAM (1000lb each). The explosive payload is roughly half that but these are relatively cheap (<$50,000) because they're barely-guided gravity bombs;
- They will also have 4x AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, which are precision-guided, costs $100k+ each but only has an explosive payload of under 20lb. When people talk about drone assassinations that becccame super-popular in the Obama administration, this is largely what they're talking about;
- You can also skip the JDAMs and just have 8x Hellfires instead.
Now Shahed drones aren't as fast, don't fly as high, aren't as precise and you know they're there (a lot of Hellfire attacks are a surprise). But they're incredibly cheap and they overwhelm missile defences easily just by sheer volume. In fact, we're using $1-4M Patriot interceptors to shoot down $20k drones. Obviously that's not going to scale when Iran can produce thousands a month and the supply lag for Patriots is actually years long. Supplies of certain missile defense munitions are suspected to be critically low already and will take years to replenish.
So where I'm going with all this is that Reapers and Sheheds serve different purposes but however you look at it, a $50M Reaper with $1M+ in munitions is WAY less efficient at deliverying payloads that a swarm of cheap drones, particularly when your enemy has invested a lot in missile defense and your $50M Reaper is vulnerable to air-defense systems from even non-state actors (ie the Houthis).
Put another way, $20k for a 50-100kg payload is incredibly efficient and the US has essentially been forced to evacuate all their Gulf bases because they're completely unable to defend them. Billions in damage has been done to these bases too.
The Reaper just isn't fit for purpose anymore. Use it against a more militarized opponennt (eg Russia, China) and they'll shoot those things down like it was a carnival side show.
If you look at us military procurement over the past 20 years you will find that many, many projects have been sunk because of this exact reason.
A 50-100kg payload is only useful against soft targets if the purpose is to "blow shit up". It is the reason Ukraine needed to develop platforms like Flamingo with a much larger warhead capacity than a cheap drone can carry.
There's an ok documentary on a similar situation (A10 Thunder II) on curiosity stream and it explains how politics basically causes problems like this.
Always fighting the last war. But wait until you see how the next generation of our drones fails in a future war!
Being less flip, the pull quote suggests (per my bias) our drone design is as much influenced by how much shit contractors can sell to put on a drone as it is by tactical needs. The kinds of targets that would require one ton of explosive are fixed sites that have been specifically hardened against attack. You'd hope some modern McArthur would look at the situation and say, "Screw it, we will just go around those sites and bomb the hell out of their supply lines with tiny drones", but what the hell do I know?
In short: War is sell.
The defense industry has spent the last 40+ years grooming the DoD into thinking it costs $30mil/unit to produce missiles and drones. They should have rejected any of the bids, but being fueled by massively excessive taxes in the USA, they don't have to answer to any sort of efficiency or profitability.
These things should cost less than a Toyota Camry.
An MQ-9 has roughly the same wingspan as an A-10 - they're not small birds.
An MQ-9 needs to have a good sensor ball, ideally with both color and IR, gps jamming resistance, weapons integration with multiple types of missiles (ideally large enough to take out something larger than a motorcycle), good on-target time INCLUDING transit time (if it can only stare for one hour on target it'd be pointless), good uplink and downlink to reliably move that data (you don't want to lose track when a missile flies off), and the architecture to support, including ground control stations.
You CAN stuff someone in Cessna, give em a camera, a radio, and some mortar rounds to toss out the back, but that's not going to work for most use cases.
The modern (UA) take is to strap the warhead directly on the thing, make it just as big as needed and directly fly everything into the target.
If you insist on firing guided missiles at ground targets from a drone that returns to base you're never gonna be able to compete on cost.
It really depends on the kind of war being fought.
If the cheap solution involves having troops only a dozen miles away from the enemy, then you're going to take casualties, and funeral costs are FAR more expensive then the cost to buy a large bird and fly it from a 100+ miles away.
Yeah, but you can always buy a slightly smaller bird, strap the warhead directly to it, and fly that into your target 100+ miles away.
Guided missiles specifically are insanely pricey by comparison to the warhead alone; just for the possibility that your slow, vulnerable drone might be able to return (and be used again) you have to make very expensive engineering tradeoffs, and even when the thing comes back you have to repair and service it, too (and stock it up with more expensive missiles).
between these extremes there are, parent posits, some efficiencies to be had. Do you agree that its at least possible to get a cheaper solution thats 90% of the way there? Ukraine seems to do pretty well for themselves on this front, and several other countries around the world are no slouches either. Even iran themselves do quite well. Sure their drones dont have the fanciest optics or whatever, but when looking at a cost per millitary effectiveness standpoint, are five redundant drones with worse optics better than one big one? what about five hundred vs one? five thousand? The same logic goes for most of the components.
>> are five redundant drones with worse optics better than one big one
Depends on the goal. If the goal is to make high precision strikes - one big drone with tons of capabilities. If the goal is the terror strike campaign like russian - cheap Shahed drones are the best.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
It costs $30M/unit because our trillion dollar defense budget is mostly just a jobs program (25%) and wealth transfer apparatus (75%). Killing people is just a side effect.
> Killing people is just a side effect
That budget and wealth transfer requires the US Dollar to remain the world's reserve currency. A lot of the killing has to do with ensuring it remains that way.
> but being fueled by massively excessive taxes in the USA
Not excessive taxes, a political choice to spend a lot of the revenue on defense.
And anyone who wants to reduce military spending will get asked:
"Don't you support our troops?"
And that'll be the end of that
Taxes in the US go to a cluster of major items. Medicare, other medical, Social Security, interest, VA benefits and veteran's medical care, federal spending on the indigent or disabled, and Defense. Those together are 94% of annual federal spending.
None of that spending is subject to that much debate; all the remaining "debate" is over the remaining 6%.
I don't think defense is really as discretionary as it seems. A lot of it is effectively bribing and menacing trading partners to keep trading with the US on favorable terms through cash transfers, provision of military equipment, training, and mutual defense pacts among other diplomatic agreements.
Japan didn't just decide on its own free will to become a pacifist country dedicated to exporting cheap, high-quality manufactured goods to the United States. General MacArthur did that.
Everything on your list but VA benefits and defense are very regularly called into question. Even VA benefits are questioned pretty regularly, but that tends to be put down pretty quickly.
> A lot of it is effectively bribing and menacing trading partners
That's just a byproduct of propping up the military industrial complex; have to have conflicts to justify giving the primes sole-source cost+ contracts so they can meet their quarterly EPS targets.
I think there is a lot of discord over medicare/medical, social security, and interest at least, but maybe I'm just in a bubble.
And let's not forget: the voters back them on this.
From what I know, the 'defense' industry has their production cleverly across all 50 states so that they're seen as one of the few sources of stable employment for most, sadly.
It's not actually that many people in the grand scheme at ~1.1 million according to the CRS, but it is spread out very effectively so that massive cuts can be directly felt by any chosen House representative or senator. It's partially a capacity preservation system as well, for defense a nation wants to be able to produce a significant portion of it's military hardware needs in a war domestically and you need to keep those industries alive somehow against cheaper foreign producers so you have the Berry Amendment that requires clothing etc purchased by the DoD to only use US made materials.
And yet so much of the spending goes to big ticket items benefitting defense contractors while things that actually benefit the soldiers (better armor, better VA hospitals) go by the wayside.
[dead]
[flagged]
> but being fueled by massively excessive taxes in the USA
I think it's even worse, it's funded a lot more by debt than excessive taxes, taxation in the USA is not even that excessive (to its own detriment since the budget is never balanced).
> since the budget is never balanced
When the Republicans rule.
The last balanced budget was in 2001 and it was passed by a Republican controlled House and Senate [0]. Clinton somehow gets complete credit for it, even though the executive branch doesn't directly control the budget and congress controls the power of the purse.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/106th_United_States_Congress
It's kind of funded by the demand for dollars due to whole world needing dollars to trade with them. So that it's not the USA and Americans paying all that interest in inflation due to money printing
Correct, now let's also talk about US government-funded [research, healthcare, education, construction, foreign aid, intelligence, infrastructure, entitlements]
Except almost everyone has their pet topic where they'll defend any amount of spending.
If you think you can produce them for cheaper, you could make yourself a lot of money and save taxpayers a lot of money by starting your own company.
This statement implies a misrepresentation of how these kinds of supply chains work.
These are captured markets, there is no competition. The bar is set high, or specifically, so that small players cannot compete, and this is done by extensiive relationship management at all levels, and heavy marketing.
It takes a situation like Ukraine to 'prove' to everyone that 'cheap things can work well'.
Even in the face of glaring evidence form Ukraine the system is slow to react.
Shaheds are used for years and the US just let their gear sit out in the open in the Gulf.
You could provide 'irrefutable evidence' to a political system of some fact, it's not hugely helpful.
The system does not change until the power dynamics do - aka Iran destroyed gazillions in US gear and some senior level people are 'demanding answers'.
Defence contracts are an 'inside game' it's extremely political.
Only when people are in a rush do they start to look at outside agencies to find the best gear for the problem they need to solve 'right now'.
>It takes a situation like Ukraine to 'prove' to everyone that 'cheap things can work well'.
It's likely not even that. According to Jacek Bartosiak, Polish geopolitics popularisator, it came by a kind of blind "luck".
He travels a lot to Ukraine and talks a lot with military and dual use manufacturers.
Regular arms manufacturing in Ukraine was, just like anywhere else, not very innovative and dominated by big actors that could make sure nobody else can enter the market.
But the drones were not seen by them as anything serious, and due to dire needs the market has been deregulated, which allowed many small businesses to flourish and develop the fantastic industry that Ukraine is so proud of now.
But that came mostly because the big fish let the small underdogs on the market because they thought there is no market.
Hope I'm not mixing anything up.
I once worked at a startup that did just that. Developed a system that was significantly better and cheaper than an existing legacy solution. One of the generals who saw the DARPA demonstration overrode the whole bureaucracy and brought it with him into theater.
Five years later the startup had been bought by a major military contractor, budgets ballooned, a number of the original people (including me) left, our software was on its way to becoming the legacy solution, and the cycle continued.
After seeing how US military contracting works up close, I no longer find it surprising that military tech costs orders of magnitude more than commercial or consumer tech. It's also not surprising why so few organizations are able to do both government and consumer/commercial technology -- optimizing for one makes you ill-suited to compete in the other.
Most government agencies cant even pick a different vendor for toilet paper. I cannot imagine the politics involved for trying to supply weapons. All those stories on Flock cameras and being insecure etc is politics at play. Companies know the government will take a decade or more to change vendors, if ever.
Makes sense, drone technology has come an insane distance since these were developed.
Probably the biggest learning from the Ukraine war alone is the effectiveness of cheap drones. It was suspected for years but hadn't been put to the test yet.
>>Probably the biggest learning from the Ukraine war alone is the effectiveness of cheap drones. It was suspected for years but hadn't been put to the test yet.
Some of us were paying attention as early as the 2016-17 Battle of Mosul, when ISIS was using DJI drones to drop grenades into the turret hatches of Iraqi uparmored Humvees. Others started to notice during the Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, when Azeri UAV superiority dominated Armenian ground forces. But all of these professionals were like the military officers who observed the Boer Wars, and the Russo-Japanese War, and then wrote in the military journals of their day about how machineguns were gonna change warfare in a very bad way.
Flag officers still slept-walked into the carnage of WW1 trench warfare....shrug. "History doesn't repeat but it rhymes."
Ok, all the negatives aside, focused on silver linings. I am musing how it's good that the US is finding this out now, and not in a really big conflict on it's own home territory in which it cannot get out of (ie an invasion).
Yes, the world seeing her weakness could increase the chances of someone trying (or wanting to). But I think this will help spur on a defense startup and spending spree.
Who do you imagine is going to invade the USA?
Personally? China. Is it rational, IDK. It's just the largest more capable power at this moment. (particularly their industrial base and ability to out produce weapons / soldiers)
It's not rational. China has even less interest in invading the USA than the USA has in invading China. And I think the USA's interest is effectively zero.
here's more irrational. Because they have >1M single men who will never have a bride. Maybe they want to come and take.
Maybe Xi decides they're mad that we're defending Taiwain.
Maybe the decide to do the inverse vietnam and that the American left deserves to be freed from "Trump" and that communism is freedom and virtuous to give to the American people.
Like I said, probably not rational.
Why would they want to? China’s entire economic model relies on the US remaining a stable, wealthy consumer base for their industrial output. Physically invading your largest customer is a form of economic suicide.
They don't want to govern California; they want to ensure that the global infrastructure, shipping lanes, and institutions run on Chinese technology and standards. From Beijing's perspective, a kinetic war on the US mainland destroys the exact global economy they are trying to lead.
You're assuming economics is the ultimate goal and not just a tool in service of a greater goal.
there's a better way for 100% savings
just completely exit like Afghanistan
and remember all this military hardware eventually ends up in the hands of police departments domestically, next decade is going to be wild
$21 TRILLION spent on militarization 2001-2021
* https://ips-dc.org/report-state-of-insecurity-cost-militariz...
imagine how much by 2031, at least double
ps. they are still executing fishermen without trial off Venezuela at a million dollars a pop
> ps. they are still executing fishermen without trial off
Oh. You should have started with this.
The fact that this person thinks the Afghanistan exit was a success should have let you know he is a crackpot well before the last sentence.
The Afghanistan exit was a completely predictable colossal failure, but it did mean we stopped lighting money on fire in Afghanistan.
Ignore that we funded the taliban and warlords for the next 50 years with 1.9 billion in vehicles, machine guns, small arms, night vision, and explosives?
I didn't ignore that. That solidly fits under "completely predictable colossal failure".
But the next 50 years of funding they received came from money we spent prior to us leaving. Certainly we could have done a better job with the withdrawal (to put it lightly), but it's nonetheless good that we aren't still spending money there.
Don't forget that before, the Talibs were seen as crazy fundamentalists and outsiders, probably called Khariji IIRC.
US bombings convinced the people to them and made them into state protecting freedom fighters, which they initially were not.
What you resist, persists. What you fight, grows stronger.
>just completely exit like Afghanistan
We can't just completely exit Iran without a time machine. Dufus Donny attempting to escape his Epstein folly by kicking the hornet's nest and now Iran holds the gulf hostage for as long as they want.
guess what, Iran will hold the gulf hostage regardless if US is there or not
exactly like the nightmare Afghanistan is for women there now left to the Taliban
regardless if US was there or not it would have happened
world is an absolutely horrible place filled with monsters
you can't say all these countries should be saved by US and then end USAID to let a million people die with food and medication already paid for left rotting in warehouses
btw we are also starving all the people in Cuba to death with an illegal blockcade since the start of the year, so why is Cuba our responsibility too?
at some point WE become worse monsters, we're at that point
The US has been the monster for most of the world for the last 70 years. It's shocking that most Americans still don't see that.
The Middle-East's bad record on human rights can be traced back to in large part to the meddling of the US, because it serves the interests of Israel and because of oil. In the time of Nasser, the Middle-East was a different place.
> regardless if US was there or not it would have happened
Sources please. The war initiated by US and Israel motivated Iran put pressure on the US by closing the strait and attacking the regional US allies.
Google: straight of hormuz 2026 closure timeline
Graciously, "if the US was there or not" is a reference to the US navy being near/in the straight of hormuz.
The strait was open with no tolls before the Israel/US attacks. Everyone with a brain and a modicum of imagination (except Trump, apparently) knew for decades that Iran had the latent capability to close the strait, and hence preferred either a diplomatic resolutions or a defacto detente.
US actions caused the current regime to gain power in Iran...
Like how their actions managed to spawn ISIS and the taliban.
The US isn't in the business of saving anyone, they are the monster of the world.
[flagged]
As much as I love democracy its unfortunate we both get to vote
Empathy.
[flagged]
Will be quite interesting what the end evolution of this will be.
I think high direct movability (like droping a few meters or shifting left/right) might be the next bigger thing for these. Easy enough to add, will make it even harder for air defence missiles catching them.
Besides, the air defence missiles are a lot more expensive than what a drone does.
And in Russia you saw another huge issue: How to shoot down a drone in your city without missing it and destroying something else?
How much payload do you need anyway? Like imagine oil refinery: how much kilo of c4 do you need? I don't think that much.
Or imagine a formation of drones with small payloads and starting to crash in one house wall like into putins palace or the white house.
> And in Russia you saw another huge issue: How to shoot down a drone in your city without missing it and destroying something else?
More drones.
The Defense Innovation Unit was founded in 2015 and is full of SV interest groups:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Innovation_Unit
They could obviously have foreseen the current failures in 2015. It is irrelevant, since the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Generals who routinely give theatrical performances for the cameras want the big toys for their districts.
The goal in Iran is also not to win but to keep the Gulf monarchies, the EU, Japan and China down by means of a low intensity forever war.
> The goal in Iran is also not to win but to keep the Gulf monarchies, the EU, Japan and China down by means of a low intensity forever war.
Eh... The US can not survive an economical war against the entire world.
But anyway, somebody forgot to warn whoever created this strategy that the US society is constructed in a way that doesn't allow barriers against they exporting all their oil. They will either run out, or they will see some societal changes.
I know a few people who could have used some of that $1 Billion. I mean what is Musk and Altman going to do when they need to be bailed out?
In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of establishing the military-industrial complex [1]. We are seeing the fruits of that now that despite an annual budget over $1T the US has been militarily defeated by Iran (and Afghanistan). We build $13B aircraft carriers that don't work [2].
Defense contracting is nothing more than a wealth transfer from the government to the wealthy. This is what unfettered cost plus contracts looks like. We ridicule the Russian military for their insane levels of corruption (eg paying for tanks that never get built and the generals pocketing the money) but really the same thing has happened here. The things get built but they don't work and the entire industry is built around hiring former Pentagon people who specialize in procurement.
It doesn't have to be this way. Some of the US military's past equipment was legendary. The M1 rifle and M4/M16 family were cheap, reliable and effective. The Jeep was legendary for its reliability. The original M1 Abrams tank is widely considered the best tank the military ever built. If you listen to anyone in the military they'll tell you the vehicles are constantly broken down, hard to repair, expensive to maintain and outright dangerous.
Every dollar spent on the military is a dollar not spent on roads, schools, bridges, hospitals and trains, things that would actually benefit people. We're bankrupting ourselves to enrich the shareholders of Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Corp and General Dynamics for what exactly?
And the proposed "defense" budget for 2027 is $1.5T, a roughly 50% increase.
This is also why I laugh whenever anyone pushes the idea that China is the Big Bad [tm], for two reasons. First, they don't have to be. We just want their to be a scary enemy to justify all this. Second, if they were, they would destroy us because it would ultimately come down to military industrial capability and we would lose. Orders of magnitude lose.
[1]: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwigh...
[2]: https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/04/the-ford-class-is-not-th...
> And the proposed "defense" budget for 2027 is $1.5T, a roughly 50% increase
Yeah, this is mind-boggling. The requested increase is roughly the size of the entire 2004 military budget. 2004, when we were fighting two separate ground wars.
There were close to 200k US troops on the ground in combat theaters in 2004. We're proposing to add a "2004 US military" to our military. The unnecessary wars we will start with this capacity[1] will cause havoc in unpredictable places.
>We're bankrupting ourselves to enrich the shareholders of Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Corp and General Dynamics for what exactly?
We do it to keep manufacturing knowledge and ability in the country. I really cannot stress enough how many thousands of companies exist purely because of the defense budget. It's never going away because it employs so many people. That's why red or blue or independent no one ever cuts it. It's welfare that creates work so the whole ideological spectrum has something to like.
The big names you mention are the names that end up on the final product, but those products often have a couple thousand different (all American) suppliers feeding them. Virtually all of the money in the defense budget flows back into the economy. The sum total of those players profits last years amounts to 2% of the budget, and that's assuming it's all military.
A simple example are screws. You cannot make a living making screws in the US. It makes zero economic sense because it's impossible to compete with 2nd/3rd world countries (read:China). But the military (well contractors with a mandate) will buy your screws at a price that allows you to live a decent life and employ a team of people.
This way when shit hits the fan, the US will still have a supply of screws (pretty damn important), a supply of people who know how to make screws, and in the mean time those people get benefits and careers.
Now take this idea and repeat it for everything from paper cups to tank shells to folding chairs to wire sheathing (the military buys literally everything, always wants American made, and will happily pay a premium for it).
You're making a different argument.
You're saying we need to retain manufacturing capability and expertise. I agree.
I'm saying we need to stop being bled dry by private weapons manufacturers on cost plus contracts who are rewarded, by definition, by making the system as expensive as possible.
If we were truly interested in having an effective military, we would bring production in-house and focus on standardized vehicles and weapons systems with standardized interchangeable parts on production lines that can be scaled up if necessary.
Drones killing drones in the sky. Each side is just burning piles of money until one runs out. Imagine if that could be put towards something useful.
in as much what I'm about to say might be unconstitutional -
but free speech anyways -
the U.S military i.e West Point folks & officers from drawn from the army & other branches need to take over. they're smart & get things done.
politicians and corruption from the military industrial complex have taken over.
it's no longer pragmatism, problem solving but about who greases who.
While I am critical of Ukraine being in talks to join the EU (which IMHO it shouldn't), I am quite happy that we in EU kind of have built good relationships with Ukraine - military drone construction knowledge and expierience will become a key technology field, as cooperations between Ukraine and Europe after the war (however that will look like) will probably strengthen europes defense capabilities.
I'm curious, why do you think Ukraine shouldn't want to join the EU? Or do you think the EU shouldn't want them to join?
Because given the current state it is in, it will receive net-payments from the other EU states for decades and we are already on a descending path economically in the EU. No more foreign subsidies and helps until we got our own ship back on course.
> It envisions delivery of “20 mission-ready aircraft” by 2031.
Hmm, I'm not sure they fully address the problem if that is what is being proposed. The world will be an entirely different place by 2031 and 20 drones is .... meaningless? Surely they should be talking in the thousands or tens of thousands.
Another novel approach to saving money: stop fighting Israel's wars
US should be split up so it can't do any more damage to the world. Americans can't be trusted with putting that much power in the hands of a few people anyway.
China and Russia would love that. It would also be very bad for European security that is mostly guaranteed by U.S. strength and willingness to fight wars.
President threatened (emptily) to cut off all trade from Spain the other day.
I wasn’t aware of that but it looks like he is upset that Spain won’t meet its defense spending commitments for NATO. Which goes back to my point about how the EU is totally reliant on the US for security. Europe’s biggest threat is itself, they won’t even do the bare minimum to ensure their security.
US would spend that money regardless of what Europe spent as they want to continue to use it to oppress and destroy the world. And the real reason they want us to spend more is to buy more weapons from them.
Some arbitrary threshold set by a completely demented US president (25% of government budget or whatever nonsense that idiot asked NATO peers to spend, probably on american mil. tech) has nothing to do with how european countries would/are able to defend themselves.
> European security that is mostly guaranteed by U.S. strength.
That time is gone. At this point the US is likely the biggest threat to EU.
In a metaphorical sense, Ukraine is the scrappy 'startup' aka highly maneuverable speed boat that can turn on a dime, and the US Department of Defence is a cargo ship that takes years to execute a single turn. The drone playbook is out there, plain for all to see but there are too many entrenched stakeholder interests and incentives for the US to emulate the Ukraine drone playbook. You think the US would establish underground 3D printing drone factories? That would be an insult to its military industrial complex, and a tarnish on its sterling prestige, n'est ce pas?
It's disappointing how often the public gives a silent thumbs up on military spend. Okay I'll grant most US citizens would have preferred Trump hadn't gotten into this war.
But most talk is about the $$ cost of this war, how little Trump has to show for it, and price of gasoline & groceries.
Instead (for US citizens), the talk should be about what else could have benefitted from those $$, and now isn't because it'll be used to re-stock weaponry. Think healthcare, infrastructure, education, research, etc etc.
That's the real cost of wars like this.
that's still comes up far short of the total bill. the US never talks about the destruction to civilian infrastructure, the number of innocents killed, the loss of any ability to claim to be on the 'right side'.
these are seeds that will ensure that the US is treated like Russia, or WWII Germany, or Iran. A rabid aggressor that will need to be isolated and eventually contained.
Drones are only one piece of the puzzle. Once again ars is on the wrong side.
I imagine it's cheaper not to support Israeli aggression or to fuck with Iran over oil. Lessons we should have learned in 1973 and 1953.
Anduril will fix it
Our country is a joke