Seems like technological advancements of the past few decades are making US tech obsolete.
this post was submitted on 18 May 2025
264 points (96.8% liked)
World News
35964 readers
923 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
One of the pathways to failure is overcomplication - it makes things far harder to keep working and far more likely to have failures, severely reduces how many units you can actually produce and also reduces the flexibility to tackle novel counters.
The Germans made that exact mistake in WWII with things like the Tiger Panzer.
Meanwhile the Ukranians are showing just how much you can do with little if you're not pinned-down by your own military technology choices and have competent people around to whom you just throw "solve this" problems and leave them free to do it their way.
Overcomplication is a feature of privatized military production because it's far more efficient at creating profits. Making a few expensive items in artisanal fashion and then charging huge maintenance fees is how defense contractors make money. They don't want to build large factories and hire lots of workers to produce low margin items like artillery shells. They want to build a handful of F35s and milk each one as much as they can.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are entirely reliant on western weapons to fight, and are massively outgunned by Russia lacking production capacity of their own. If the US stops sending weapons to Ukraine then the war ends in a month.
Overcomplication is a feature of privatized military production because it’s far more efficient at creating profits.
100% this. But my question is that since the US is the largest weapon dealer in the world, both in terms of dollar amount and number of planes etc, who the hell are buying these things and why? Surely when you are purchasing something that costs billions of dollars you have to account for the on-going support costs too? Most countries don't have the luxury of ignoring costs do they?
Answer is that weapons are largely sold to NATO countries as part of a protection racket by the US. Until the war in Ukraine started, nobody was willing to test the idea that US weapons were superior, and it was taken as given that NATO was the strongest fighting force on the planet. This worked as great marketing for US weapons industry. Now the illusion of superiority is starting to crack, and I'm sure weapons sales will take a hit as a result.
More the illusion of being dependable. The deal, at least as I can imagine it, was like this: you buy our stuff, and if shit happens, we come and save the day. Now, with the unpredictability of certain people, this whole deal seems to be up in the air.
Sure, that's how empire work, vassals get protection as long as it's expedient for the empire to do so. It's also important to note that, it's not like Trump just appeared out of thin air. Trump is a product of the declining material conditions and internal contradictions within the imperial core. The reason the US is pulling back from Europe is because the burden of the empire is becoming too much for the US to bear, not simply because an orange bad man was elected.
The Ukranians have been developing their own in-house weapons systems and have had some really big successes with entirelly homegrown weapons systems: it weren't western weapons that made the Black Sea unsafe for the Russian Navy even when docked in home harbours and it weren't western weapons systems that have been blowing up the military and economic infrastructure deep inside Russian territory - Ukranian drones did it.
At the same time, the war on the actual frontline has become drone-heavy and most of the solutions in that domain are made by the Ukranians themselves (not to say that drones alone would win it, not even close).
Ukraine started this war with their pants down and indeed if it weren't for western systems and ammunition they would've lost it long ago, if only because Russia's depth of military resources was 5+ decades worth of Soviet military kit, but at the same time they've been building up their own military production and becoming more and more independent of those, so I wouldn't be so sure that if merelly the US stopped sending weapons and (more importantly) ammo, Ukraine would lose the war, though if the whole West did that would be far more likely.
Last I checked this was a land war, so kind of weird to talk about great successes in Black Sea which are also rather questionable given that Russian navy still has dominance there. Meanwhile, the amount of military infrastructure Ukraine manages to blow up is minuscule, especially compared to the amount of infrastructure Russia blows up in Ukraine on regular basis.
The war on the actual frontline is still primarily conducted by artillery which accounts for 80% of casualties. However, even in drone production, Ukraine is far outmatched by Russia which does it on industrial scale.
The idea that Ukraine has been building up military production is frankly nonsensical because Russia is able to strike anywhere in Ukraine with impunity. This precludes Ukraine from having large military factories, and at this point Ukraine even lacks the energy infrastructure to run them because Russia has systematically dismantled it over the past three years.
Finally, aside from having shortages of literally everything, Ukraine is running out of manpower as its army is being attrited by Russia. Even if Ukraine was able to produce weapons domestically at scale, which it cannot, there aren't people left alive to use them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm not sure why anyone would be "panicking" about the loss of a the latest US boondongle? The US MIC hasn't been building things for fighting performance or efficiency since at least the end of the cold war, and probably before. An f-35 "almost" being shotdown just sound like boeing get's another trillion dollars to build an "f-35+."
All the career generals get to spend the next 10years instructing their minions to write intellectually bankrupt papers about how the US needs to engage our "strategic partners" to match this "new threat". Honestly they could probably just copy the slurry of papers that were written after 9/11 about "low-tech threats" that the next generation of arms needs to deal with. Meanwhile the generals will be taken to the Capital Grill for their weekly lobbyist meetings where they get to drink $40 glasses of wine and eat $100 steaks because they are the most basic, worthless and craven people that our shitty political system has put in charge of trillions of dollars over their careers.
Regardless those people aren't "panicking."
America going in the same "Turns out their Military doesn't quite have the bang to match their flash" direction as Russia, only the reason for that in America is spending ever more insane amounts for ever tinier benefits (though they too have their own version of Corruption, only it's more indirect than Russias and involves 4-star Generals making sure they have "thankful friends" in the Private Sector for when they retire from the Military).
Meanwhile the Houtis, just like the Ukranians, are doing a lot with much, much (MUCH) less.
It's depressing how accurate this probably is.