[marcus_holmes]

> So far nobody has built a tank, plane, or ship that can run on batteries and while drone technology has continued to advance in many critical ways they don't bring the big bombs quite yet.

Ukraine is proving that the "big bombs" are useless - fpv drones can and do take out tanks, planes and ships. They don't survive long enough to deliver the "big bombs".

Russia is currently reduced to sending in unmechanised light infantry to try and take ground because everything larger doesn't survive (and the light infantry apparently survive for only 20 minutes on average). Russia's Black Sea fleet cowers in port under its anti-air defences and even then takes losses. Their long-range bombers are not being used in the long-range bombing of Ukraine's civilians, that's all down to cruise missiles, because they're too valuable to lose (and a lot of them have been destroyed on the runway by drones).

The age of WW2-era mechanised warfare is gone. It's as obsolete as the cavalry that came before it.

[ericmay]

> Ukraine is proving that the "big bombs" are useless

Depends on the application. The drones have to be manufactured somewhere. You need electricity. Running water. Industrial facilities. The big bomb still matters there.

> The age of WW2-era mechanised warfare is gone. It's as obsolete as the cavalry that came before it.

Well the primary issue is that drones can’t hold or take land, only deny. I think mechanized infantry will continue to have a place, they’ll just be augmented by drones. But who knows you could be right depending on how things develop.

[marcus_holmes]

> Well the primary issue is that drones can’t hold or take land, only deny.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-russia-position-take...

That's changing

[ericmay]

I agree and upvoted you for a good comment with a good source.

In my mind I was thinking about how humans have to actually go back to the land. In Ukraine we’ve seen what amount to drone enforced no-man’s lands where no human can really seize or make use of the land. There of course can be the case where the drones clear the land of enemy troops and drones and then your own people or soldiers move and then occupy the land.

[Epa095]

There is a very very large ocean between China and the USA, you cant just assume the lessons from the Ukraine-Russian war will transfer. It would be a completely different beast, and as OP said, missiles might play an important role for both sides. In such a scenario we might see both powers having most of their industrial base destroyed before any of their soldiers (or drones) come into reach of each other.

[wildzzz]

Sure but neither side has a B-2 or F-35. Drones are great for blowing up a few conscripts or a parked plane but a stealth bomber carrying 80 JDAMs can level 5km^2.

[troupo]

As Ukraine has shown, a truckload of drones takes out any number of planes, and large chunks of the airfields where those planes are parked.

Oh, and planes need fuel. And large production plants for parts, and huge maintenance hangars.

[wildzzz]

Right but that works well for a war against your neighbor. Ukraine isn't launching these drones to fly over to the Central African Republic.

[troupo]

Planes also don't fly that far

[marcus_holmes]

Which is working so well against Iran, right?

Oh wait, no, the other thing.

[budsniffer952]

Hilarious. You realize the US could nuke and flatten Iran tomorrow, right? Do you imagine that Trump was trying to conquer Iran and just couldn't do it with all the American military power? There is no scenario that Iran wins a war with the USA.

They were trying to overthrow the regime, for the second time in a year, and failed.

[ExoticPearTree]

> There is no scenario that Iran wins a war with the USA.

It actually depends on what the you the outcome of the war to be: total conquest or regime change.

The US can probably achieve total conquest, but not regime change. They spent 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan and left there without winning anything, especially in Afghanistan. If they wanted to erase Iraq and Afghanistan, that would have a been a totally different thing.

[n4r9]

As with many modern wars, it's hard to say whether the Iraq war was won or lost, because the goals are difficult to discern.

[ExoticPearTree]

The internet never forgets: you go and find the first speech about why the war was started and look at the outcome. You can then judge for yourself if the war was won or lost. Obviously with all its nuances.

[jandrese]

> There is no scenario that Iran wins a war with the USA.

My god man, Vietnam vets are still alive. You can talk with them today. There is no reason to forget all of the lessons of the past.

[wvh]

If the US would truly try to raze Iran, they would do so at immense cost, both financially and reputationally.

I have to wonder what your definition of "winning" is.

[marcus_holmes]

Iran has already won the war. There is no scenario that the USA comes out of this situation in a better place than it was before the war started.

[ericmay]

By that logic Iran has lost the war too, because they can't possibly come out of this situation in a better place than before the war started, which really was back in October 2022.

Since then Iran's economy has been crushed, government was decapitated (and could be again at a time and place of our choosing), they face a naval blockade that prevents them from selling oil, their military was drastically reduced in size and capability by American bombing, they've made their fellow Arabs in the region very, very angry, and they've come to see that both China and Russia (don't forget, Iran sells drones to Russia to kill Ukrainians) were powerless to come to its aid. Their nuclear program is at best on pause.

Now we can sprinkle in that they've depleted a lot of their munitions, and both Hamas and Hezbollah were nearly destroyed and have become shells of their former selves, resorting to hiding behind children and attacking UN aid convoys.

Just in case you thought Iran was somehow coming out of this situation better than before, the above shows that is unequivocally false.

But hey, yea the US "lost the war".

[marcus_holmes]

The war did not start in 2022, it started in February 2026.

There were no clear objectives when the war started, but the Trump administration has waffled since about:

Regime change - hasn't happened. The current regime is still running the country.

The end of the assumed nuclear program - hasn't happened.

Destruction of Iran's military - hasn't happened. Iran is still sending drone strikes against US bases in neighbouring countries.

and more recently, opening the Hormuz Strait to commercial shipping - hasn't happened.

Not a single identified US objective in the war has been achieved, and the USA has lost massive respect from the rest of the world because it has been unable to achieve any of its objectives against a third-rate country. It has also drained its interceptor reserves in a way that might have material effect on future conflicts (e.g. Taiwan)

As for Iran, it didn't start the war so it doesn't get a checklist of objectives. However:

Iran is selling oil that it was previously unable to because of sanctions. The on-again-off-again US blockade of the strait isn't really affecting this.

The regime has a much tighter grip on power than it had pre-war, there are no mass demonstrations and it is not shooting its own civilians any more

It has confirmed control over the Hormuz strait and looks likely to be able to charge tolls in the future.

It has seen the Middle East pull away from the USA and pull together, a strategic benefit for it.

There is no reading of this war that makes the USA look good here. It was a mistake in the first place and it's been a colossal cock-up ever since.

[budsniffer952]

You realize Russia has drones too, right? And also artillery shell manufacturing capacity 2x the west? And they continue to bombard Ukraine?

[marcus_holmes]

Russia is not using their drones in the same way that Ukraine is.

Russia cannot get conventional artillery close enough to use it properly, and Ukraine is keeping personnel away from the front line so they're hard to spot and harder to hit.

Russia is bombarding Ukraine's population centres with long-range cruise missiles. This is the failed Blitz strategy that Britain goaded Germany into during WW2 - get the enemy mad enough to bomb population centres, and not military or economic assets (Germany had almost achieved air superiority by bombing British airfields). Ukraine is leaving the population centres alone and focusing on economic and military production facilities.

Russia is losing this war. And has been for over a year.

[ExoticPearTree]

Russia could end the war instantly with a few nukes if it wanted to. I don't get it why it hasn't done that yet. Pride?

[skolos]

There was lots of discussion within Russian and Ukrainian war analytics that nukes (at least tactical) are useless in this war for the following reasons:

- they would not change much on battlefield - there is no large concentrations that you can nuke - everything is dispersed

- nuking urban centers again won't change much on battlefield but would alienate China

- Russia's equipment is known to be not most reliable/maintained and worst that can happen to Russia is them trying to nuke and nukes not working

[ExoticPearTree]

Nuking all the major population centers would pretty much destroy the ability of Ukraine to manufacture weapons in any meaningful number and it would also deprive its army of any new soldiers, no reinforcements, no food supplies and so on. I think it will change the course of the war pretty fast and pretty drastically.

[squidbeak]

You're mistaken. A significant portion of Ukraine's manufacturing now happens abroad, out of Russia's reach. Meanwhile, a large part of its domestic production is decentralized and widely distributed. (You can easily find snobbish and pejorative comments by Rheinmetall's CEO about this.)

Nuclear weapon use would lead to no meaningful military success, but it would immediately alienate the superpower Russia depends on in almost every way. China will not tolerate any nation using nuclear weapons. With its extremely dense population, it can't afford a modern wartime precedent to be set for their use.

[throwaway85825]

Nuclear war is inherently global. The fallout would poison the world for decades. It's a red line for everyone else that has an at sea deterrent.

[ExoticPearTree]

Maybe I'm dumb, but what good are they then if you cannot use them to annihilate your enemy?

[skolos]

deterrent - no one starts war with a country that has nukes

[lopsotronic]

Yeah, I was going to point out there's a few "big bombs" out there that aren't useless at all . .

Someone will break the First Use taboo, but I wouldn't put money on it being Russia, at the moment, not for Ukraine, as odd as it sounds to say that.

There are more important concerns keeping Putin from breaking First Use, but one interesting one is a genuine anxiety that the stupid thing just wouldn't work. Just lay an egg of fissionable material in Zelensky's bedroom.

[troupo]

Yup. As soon as Russia nukes someone, the war instantly ends. Because no one will ever think to retaliate.

[ExoticPearTree]

I get the sarcasm, but besides the US that for whatever reason might retaliate with nukes, who else? And would they risk it just because?

[__turbobrew__]

I think if there is no retaliation to a nuclear strike on Ukraine, every nuclear capable country will rush towards nuclear weapons as fast as possible.

The reason being, Europe has a long term understanding they are under the nuclear umbrella of the USA which means that Europe does not need to maintain their own atomic weapons. If that long term agreement does not hold, the only way to deter Russia is to have nuclear weapons of your own since you cannot rely on deterrence from other countries.

Once everyone has nukes, Russia can no longer bully countries around because they will glass Moscow. This is a worse state than today where Russia can invade countries using conventional weapons without much consequence.

[n4r9]

UK and France are possibly more likely to retaliate, given the proximity.

[ExoticPearTree]

Retaliate for what? They wouldn't be attacked.

That's the thing I don't understand: why would they try to nuke Moscow if they weren't the ones attacked? And would they risk their own demise (considering the imbalance in warheads between them and Russia)?

[troupo]

Yup. Because a country attacking another with nuclear weapons in its mad genocidal occupational war it started under false pretenses will definitely sit back and do nothing once it showed it can and will use nuclear weapons for any cause.

[skhr0680]

> And would they risk it just because?

Look up the reasons for both blocs in the Cold War withdrawing all of their (numerous) tactical nuclear weapons systems by the 1980s.

TL;DR: MAD and “escalation”

[troupo]

Yup. A country that starts nuking other countries in a genocidal war of conquest will not ever be seen as a threat by any other countries and will not suffer any consequences ever.

Russia has already entered this war on the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody and nobody was going to bomb them.

[ExoticPearTree]

I maybe missing something, but it feels bonkers to me of why with all the MIRVs they have on hundreds of nukes they do not feel the need to carpet bomb Ukraine with them.

[troupo]

What you're missing is a simple bext step in your thought process: why are you so entirely sure that Russia will not suffer any single consequence for doing so?

(also this assumes that russia actuall has hundreds of working nukes)

(this also assumes that carpet bombing a country of 40 million people with nukes will find love and support inside Russia despite all the propaganda)

Edit: you have now replied many times with "I don't understand why Russia doesn't nuke Ukraine". Perhaps you should take the time to try and understand?

[marcus_holmes]

Because the point of the war was part of the plan to reform the Soviet Union under Russia/Putin.

The idea was to spend a few days, a couple weeks at most, taking Kyiv and the major cities, and then absorb Ukraine into a greater Russian state.

If they have to nuke Ukraine to make them do that, then that's not going to work. Absorbing a radioactive hellhole, with all the problems that will bring, isn't the plan.

Of course, the plan has gone badly wrong, and pretty much everything has gone the opposite to the way Putin wanted it do, so he could still nuke Ukraine just out of petty spite.