[crazygringo]

> In the near future, war might be about who can build faster/better and hit the other economy more effectively, and those who can't produce any more drones, lose.

This has always been the case.

It's very common for a war to be lost by the side that runs out of resources first -- whether soldiers, oil, missiles, or whatever the limiting factor is. Right now a major question in the Iran war is how many drones and missiles Iran has left.

What you describe as "playing strategy video game and call it day" is essentially democracy, and why democracies generally don't declare war on each other. Mostly, they trade goods and play football (soccer) against each other instead.

[aogaili]

You are missing the point again. That has not always been case.

Read my other comments why it's the same. But basically with AI/Drones + Global Interconnected Economy + Multilateral world order + Global Information = new system.

We never had anything like that, and the argument that this has always been the case is missing my point entirely. But if you don't get, well, you won't get it.

[crazygringo]

"Again"? When did I miss the "point" the first time?

I don't get it because you haven't explained what is different now. Writing out some equation isn't an explanation. If you don't explain something clearly, and then try to blame people for not understanding, you're not going to have a good time.

You're proposing that wars being decided based on who runs out of resources first is something new. I'm telling you, this has been a major factor in warfare for millenia.