this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
257 points (97.1% liked)

World News

38234 readers
2683 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you shoot a missile costing millions to hundreds of millions at everything, your country will be bankrupt very quickly.

Long range missiles roughly do work the way you described, but if you press the "erase this spot" button and then the tank or soldier moves, you just wasted a missile. You also first need to find the tank, and your missile can be shot down.

Of course there are missiles that are able to track moving targets, but that gets even more expensive, less reliable, etc.

Missiles also have a hard time dealing with heavily reinforced/underground targets, and missiles can't occupy territory.

Who will win: a country that has 100 long range missiles, or a country that has 10000 soldiers spread out in more than 100 groups, with rifles and a couple hundred short range missiles (think Javelin) for good measure?

[–] scarabic 1 points 1 year ago

I’ve learned a lot by these replies so thank you. I really can’t answer that scenario you laid out though. We’d need to define “win” and “lose.” The side with only a conventional army is going to take a lot of casualties, while the side with missles only spends money. Really I don’t think missles only was ever in my head but just having them in the mix.