Is mass drone and rocket spam the future of warfare?

Is mass drone and rocket spam the future of warfare? When you can inflict nearly 1.3 billion in costs to your opponent with a few cheap shasneeds and poorly made MRBMs I feel like this is about to get a lot more doctrinally advanced

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, I feel this will only shorten the amount of leeway an attacker gets before launch sites and factories are leveled. These kind of calculations legitimize flat out handicapping an opponent right off the bat.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This, but at the same time, how the frick do you hit launch sites deep in the Iranian heartland? They were able to hack and frick up Iran's nuclear program with Stuxnet, but shitty launch sites and factories like that are lower tech, not to mention Iran will have hardened everything to prevent a repeat. I don't think Israel can afford an all-out war with Iran, but without one, kind of hard to actually strike back effectively.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Israeli's happen to have bought a bunch of stealth strike fighters for some unknown purpose.....

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why are you assuming that Israel would only go for the launch sites and factories producing those drones and not industrial objects and administration buildings that generate money for them?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why do you assume they'll escalate to all-out war?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because the brown hands that made this thread implied that spamming shaheds is a legitimate tactic to bleed Israel dry for its further destruction. It would be, by all means, a form of an all-out war initiated by Iran.
            Of course Israel could also start off relatively small and keep increasing the intensity of their air strikes until Iran counts its losses and stops while pretending that there was no all-out war to begin with. At which point Israel will also stop.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, Israel went for the pre-emptive crippling strike to kick off the six-day war and it worked out pretty well for them. I wouldn't really be surprised if they go for some variation of the same thing again if they feel that further conflict is inevitable.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They could simply retaliate in kind with cheap drones, something tells me iranian air defenses are not as good as israeli ones

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >They were able to hack and frick up Iran's nuclear program with Stuxnet,
        they were not, if you look at uranium production it did not even make a dent on the graph

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You can't really, Iran has moved its MIC underground in remote locations. They know their opponents have an absolutely superior air force and have prepared accordingly.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Oh God, they might be forced to try diplomacy.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What do you guys think the f35 is for? Its for bombing Iran

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Never underestimate Isreal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this

      This, but at the same time, how the frick do you hit launch sites deep in the Iranian heartland? They were able to hack and frick up Iran's nuclear program with Stuxnet, but shitty launch sites and factories like that are lower tech, not to mention Iran will have hardened everything to prevent a repeat. I don't think Israel can afford an all-out war with Iran, but without one, kind of hard to actually strike back effectively.

      in the highly unlikely event there are absolutely zero counterforce targets, countervalue targets come next

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's not like the Israelis didn't come to that very conclusion before in prior conflicts. See: the numerous raids they undertook to handicap the Syrian and Iraqi governments since the 80's. Preemption is back on the menu.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the same people that had to rely on 5 or 6 other nations to defend itself are capable of doing a mass in depth attack thousands of kilometers away from their bases
      Yeah nah. The lesson learned by everyone last night except for NAFO shills is that Israel is a lot weaker than it pretends to be.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, I would expect that's what the cope would be.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Cool. So you can't argue on the facts. That just shows how weak of a person you are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you cant argue the facts
            You haven't presented any

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You mean Iran ? Iran didn’t kill anyone with their cuck barrage after their embassy got blown up. Now they are gonna bombed again. Frickin shitskin morons in Iran and right here on the 4chinners. Seriously hope you brown skin cheerleaders get frickin killed irl and then burn in hel forever! It would not be enough for you poop skin aberrations of people.

              Iran was shown to be buck broken.

              Completely unhinged and delusional. The point of the Iranian response wasn't to kill everything. The Iranians even said as much. It was literally to send a message without escalating everything.
              But now the Israelis are doing their typical crying out in pain while they strike people. Same old story as always.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >actually we did a lot of damage
                >actually the damage isn't visible
                >actually we were just sending a message
                (you are here)
                >actually we're well prepared for any retaliation
                >actually we shot down all the Israeli attacks
                >actually we took very little damage
                >actually only a few of our civilians died
                >WAHHH WAHHH WAHHH WE LOST THOUSANDS OF BABIES
                >YOU WILL PAY FOR THIS PERFIDIOUS AND TOTALLY UNPROVOKED ATTACK!! TWO MORE WEEKS!!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Interesting tactic of purposefully being non lethal. Let’s see how that works out for the Persian shitskins after this next israelite shitskin retaliation.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I can assure you the israelites will be sending some greasy pig fricking Mohammedans to a burning lake forever in the coming days.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You mean Iran ? Iran didn’t kill anyone with their cuck barrage after their embassy got blown up. Now they are gonna bombed again. Frickin shitskin morons in Iran and right here on the 4chinners. Seriously hope you brown skin cheerleaders get frickin killed irl and then burn in hel forever! It would not be enough for you poop skin aberrations of people.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Iran was shown to be buck broken.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The real lesson is that we should destroy the military capacity of barbarian states and stop pussy footing around.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      European MIC ran on decentralised arms manufacture, they also use huge deep bunkers and hardened structures for explosive manufacture.
      If the country has prepared well enough, no amount of first strike potential will matter.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Israel should just nuke Iran. That ought to cripple them.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don't worry American taxpayers will donate another 17 billions to Israel soon.

    Nevermind that Israel has free healthcare and the US does not.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Israel has free healthcare and the US does not.
      hello saars fid you know us no healthcare!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >even Indians have free healthcare
        damn, we really are third world

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hate to break it to you, but even shitholes like Libya and Egypt have universal healthcare

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            and I'm sure Libyan and Egyptian healthcare is totally on a par with, say, Spanish.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hate to break it to you, but even shitholes like Libya and Egypt have universal healthcare

          Nobody has free healthcare.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            heckin based! No such thing as free lunch, kekistani /b/ro! Shadillay!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Unhinged post.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Israel doesn't have free healthcare. Just because there isn't a universal healthcare doesn't mean there isn't programs tp offer shit free. Even though America doesn't have q universal system, it does have many programs that offers free or low cost healthcare. They are usually paid by county/state governments rather than the federal government. You have no idea to how American health care works.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Doesn't make it any better considering how much it is focused on the ultra poor or elderly. The only reason why healthcare is so ungodly expensive in the US is due to a stranglehold the insurance oligopoly holds.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not really, some programs are case to case depending on circumstances. However, if you make above 40k per year, you will have enough to afford private/job based health insurance. Some hospital programs also expand on their programs to people that have insurance already and reduce whatever payment they have and maybe negotiate with insurance providers in regards to treatments. Overall, America have many resources in regards to healthcare regardless of having insurance or no insurance. Universal healthcare can also backfire too if implemented incorrectly.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are absolutely coping my friend. The US has statistically the highest per-capita healthcare costs in the world, more than double that of Luxembourg (a country with the highest rate of millionaires in the world) while ranking 17th in healthcare outcomes among developed countries. Healthcare-related expenses are the most common cause of personal bankruptcy in the US and it is also the least efficient healthcare system in the world with the highest administrative costs in the world due to the multi-payer nature of insurance. Duke University hospital has double as many billing clerks as it does patient beds. We have no ability to limit or control drug prices because Medicare part D is underpowered, meaning that drug companies can set whatever prices they want and also cannot be mandated to produce needed medications, meaning that we also have the highest rate of critical drug shortages among developed countries, and medications cost anywhere from 5-20 times as much as they do in Europe. Not only have I seen Internal Medicine docs shopping for drugs on GoodRx.com to find antibiotics that the patient's insurance would cover despite them being third or forth line medications for their deep tissue infection, I've seen free samples from drug reps being used as a primary treatment modality for critically ill people. This one time on the Behavioral Health Unity there was this girl who remained stuporously catatonic for days because we had a weeks-long Ativan shortage, and only broke her out because we resorted to using pediatic intranasal midazolam off-label. The relative R&D advantage has been declining for years, much more sharply recently.

            I'm fricking sick and tired of you dickheads making excuses for our shitty healthcare system. You know nothing.

            T. American doctor

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You're free to leave anytime, Lisa.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >t.doctor
              Doesn’t mean shit unless you work specifically in their billing or financial programs offices. If you got a good insurance from your job, you will get cheaper shit medical wise. You can also apply to hospital networks programs that is funded by the county or state governments to get cheap or low cost shit. Or you can apply to state Medicaid programs, which is dependent whether your state actually expanded on Medicaid and doesn’t misuse federal government funds to not expand on their shit(which is common than you think, Texas is an example of a state that doesn’t adequately utilize their fundings from CMS). The issue with American healthcare is the lack of knowledge about financial programs from networks that can act as their insurance or an issue with the state government itself not doing anything for their Medicaid programs which should ideally cover for people that don’t make enough to have good insurances. Along with hospitals overpricing against insurance, but that’s another issue. But there are many programs and resources that can reduce the cost of medical expenses even when you’re not that poor.
              >t.gets free shit from my hospital network without paying a dime

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >he thinks Medicare is the only program available
              Anon, hospital themselves offer free healthcare to patients that apply with their network financial aid programs that acts as a quasi insurance. Along with Medicaid also providing aid whether you actually qualify for it depending on your state. There is also community health centers that offer shit for free or low cost regardless of insurance status. For a doctor, you clearly have zero clue about the resources that are available. It makes me question whether you actually qualify being a doctor because you made no effort in researching resources that can HELP your patient’s financials

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              As someone who has lived both in the us and in other anglophone nations you’re spot on and it’s funny watching people cope in the replies. I think the NHS will be worse inside of ten years though, they’re really going for a worst of both worlds outcome. Some things are better in the states though, there are better non government low cost/free resources and mental healthcare is better in the states than in any country im familiar with and it’s really not even close. Americans might read that and doubt but seriously, the cost of therapists, psychiatrists and specialists is much higher with absolutely insane wait times and very little choice, and getting on any specific programs or diagnosis or medications takes a lot of time and an insane amount of money, easily in the thousands.
              That being said, the outcomes and support for those with the most severe mental health issues and especially mental incapacities is usually better in the rest of the anglosphere

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >healthcare is so ungodly expensive in the US
          in large part that is a meme
          but also the US leads the world in healthcare R&D, which has to be funded

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Almost all of that is done in universities, not corporate settings.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You are stupid

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Nevermind that Israel has free healthcare and the US does not.
      What the frick is this facebook tier own? Did you knownthat the US public spending on healthcare is almost 1# per caita in the world?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Until laser interception becomes the gold standard, maybe

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >keeps Black person spamming
    >gets glassed
    yeah

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You're like less than 5 years out from every major western military base and civilian center that can power it having a laser capable of melting smaller drones as well as electronic systems of these shitstack specials.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >inb4 lasers overheat
      >inb4 drone cost < laser cooling

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Every time I try to talk about lasers and DE and microwaves someone tells me it’s not real and fake bullshit. Usually followed by them bringing up AI drone swarms. It’s very funny. One day the world will wake up and america will just have total dominance over directed energy systems that most people wave off as scifi

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        USSR built a giant laser tank. China has laser rifles. Israel has various things.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That laser rifle is fake news, and curiously hasn’t been mentioned in almost 6 years. Man portable lasers are moronic anyway for self evident reasons
          The USSR also did not build a giant laser tank
          Israel is indeed the only other party who is investing actively into DE.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The USSR also did not build a giant laser tank
            Why do you speak from the top of Mount Authority like you have a fricking clue what you're talking about? Don't even bother replying if you're just going to try and wiggle out of your moronation with semantics.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Didn’t work, was abandoned, couldn’t have worked, only two prototypes built. Here’s an african aeroplane

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Did I say it was a mass produced vehicle? No. I said they built one. They built one. It worked. It was just stupidly impractical. You made a statement, that statement was they didn't build one. You were incorrect. Now you're moving the goal post so quickly I'm surprised you've put put your back out.

                Don't bother replying, we're done here.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I didn’t work. You didn’t address my other points

                > laser rifle is fake news
                I'm using a tinyass laser pen to shoo pigeons from unreachable places. I'd happily kill the frickers if I could. The only limiting factor is battery, and just for last years the progress in that area is significant - in cell phones and electric cars, to mention a few. We're almost there.

                Lasers and microwaves have a decent use case for managing flying animals. I doubt it’s economical but it is fun to imagine a remote laser system watching over crops or something, powered by a solar panel and autonomously giving birds mild burns to keep them away

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Cargo cults aren't African you fricking moron, they're Pacific Islanders, particularly New Guinean. Not only were you wrong about the laser tank, you got this wrong too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The USSR also did not build a giant laser tank
            nta but
            >The 1K17 Szhatie (Russian: 1К17 Cжaтиe — "Compression") is a self-propelled laser vehicle of Soviet origin. The platform uses a Msta-S chassis with a battery of laser projectors mounted in the turret. It was developed by the Soviet Union in order to disable the optical-electronic equipment of enemy missiles, ground and aerial vehicles.
            ?????? seems like they built a giant laser tank and you're wrong.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I can glue a laser pointer at a T in my local museum and that won't make it a Slovak laser tank. Having a useless prototype that never did anything and was immediately scrapped before entering production means that you failed to make a thing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Stop coping already, you were wrong , just give it up.
                nta

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > laser rifle is fake news
            I'm using a tinyass laser pen to shoo pigeons from unreachable places. I'd happily kill the frickers if I could. The only limiting factor is battery, and just for last years the progress in that area is significant - in cell phones and electric cars, to mention a few. We're almost there.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can saturate the laser defences too and it’ll be very expensive to cover everything with it. And if the bomb has inertial guidance you can make it immune to electronic system cheaply.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        INS alone is doable but more inaccurate the further you travel. You can also spoof GPS signals and send the drone on a wild goose chase. Even a slight deviation, which can then be combined with jamming, means INS becomes useless.
        Saturating laser defenses is a concern but is mitigated with the use of microwaves for large drone swarms and/or just buying more systems. If all the money spent on missiles today would get spent on lasers tomorrow, countries would be flooded with laser defense.
        DE is going to be the gamechanger people think it is. The browns will need to reserve their entire high-trajectory stockpiles for cloudy days. Thankfully, most of them live in deserts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw we’re going to be in the black ops 3 timeline where airspace is solely a battle between high end AA systems and drones, and cyborg boots on the ground soldiers will be the main components of warfare since any serious air power not nearing the top of the stratosphere will just get shot down or vaporized by lasers

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    looking at these numbers lost any meaning a long time ago, but sometimes i still think that even 1mil would be enough for me for life and countries casually throwing around billions out there.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      that's because you're thinking in socialist terms, 1.3 bil divided by say, slovenia's tiny population of 2 mil comes out around 650$ per person

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Now divide it by fathers with children.
        nta

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          no what number that might be, but I just removed a 0 and used 200k. it comes out at about 6500 per dad, again, for slovenia tiny's population

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            no idea what that number might be*

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Amazing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A million dollars would last you about 13 years, assuming zero other income and only spending money on necessary expenses.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i'm thirdwolder living on less than 500 bucks a month, 1mil would've lasted me more than a lifetime, or one lifetime of 'rich' life.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It depends on where you live and how much money you're used to blowing on stuff you don't really need. I'm retired and live on <$15K of savings a year; but, I'm debt-free and already own everything I need. It would be impossible to do if I lived in a city, rented, ate out all the time, had entertainment aside from /k/, etc. Of course, with inflation as it is, that cost is going up rather dramatically these days, and there are only so many corners you can cut on your expenses...

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I remember these posts when Russia started its campaign of impotent drone and cruise missile attacks against Ukraine then they went quiet when it was worked out that under sanctions and with smuggling costs, the drones and missiles cost about as much to replace as the missiles that western countries used to defend from them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Interestingly, no shill has bothered responding to this post.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that's because the shills are sitting back and laughing now because trolls do most of their work for them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > The discourse surrounding materiel designed by sanctioned countries to be cheaply manufactured under sanctions stopped when people began to consider the cost of sanctions

      t. moron

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Even if we assume that Iran's corrupt government is producing them cheaply enough to be able to do enough economic damage before running out of money themselves (which is already a cope of all copes), then Israel will perform a proportionally strong retaliation way before their goy gold reserves suffer any reasonable damage.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What started this trend of measuring every combat engagement in dollars?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      moronic socialists prolly

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Shahedenning back in '22.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It is a 3rd world cope that is embedded in Marxian dialectic. The Marxists have never understood the real economy, they have never understood history. Other than Gramsci, which is why he sought to subvert via the long march rather than to confront directly as he knew command economic always misattributed value.

      This cost mismatch has always existed throughout history - outside of near peer conflicts, primarily in European city states era.

      A broadside to display Imperial dominance cost more in gunpowder than the entire wealth of the tribal kingdom the gunboat had been sent to conquer.

      The cost of the flintlocks and light metal armour cost more than the poison darts of the Aztec warriors etc.

      It's a fundamental misreading of the purchasing power differentials capitalism gifts on the nations that follow it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Marxian
        an actual marxist would look at production capacity
        valuing things in monitary terms is highly liberal

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not unique to liberalism. The thing is that in Marxism the monetary "value" would be a extension or a abstract view of the real, material value. The "understanding" (if you can use this about the brain of a Marxist) of it would be that the monetary value would be a extension or somewhat of a equivalence of the material and production value.

          You saw shit like this with commie central planning in places like the USSR and today to a lesser extent China and the parts of the RU state that are still managed through central planning by the RU Ministry of Defense.

          https://i.imgur.com/LKzMxpN.jpg

          >It is a 3rd world cope that is embedded in Marxian dialectic. The Marxists have never understood the real economy, they have never understood history.
          [...]
          >an actual marxist would look at production capacity ... valuing things in monitary terms is highly liberal
          I think that's right. Marx's views of money are very complex and confusing to me but he seemed to think of money as a universal commodity in which the value that labor puts into things is "alienated" or made to feel split off from what actually went into the thing. Money is kind of an illusion or creates illusions so we lose an eye for the thing itself. His critique of capitalism is that people begin to evaluate themselves and others in terms of the amount of money we can make, and become less able to value the intrinsic qualities of anything, including ourselves.

          It's kind of funny that Slavoj Zizek has been railing at left-wing parties in Europe btw for not wanting to fund Ukraine because "we can't afford it." Like, this is just pure egotism. Let Ukraine perish so that we don't have to pay higher prices for electricity or whatever.

          Marxism isn't what Marx said or wrote, just like Christian theology isn't just literal biblical text. And in Marxism the practice of it can and will define the theory not the other way around.

          >It's kind of funny that Slavoj Zizek has been railing at left-wing parties in Europe btw for not wanting to fund Ukraine because "we can't afford it." Like, this is just pure egotism. Let Ukraine perish so that we don't have to pay higher prices for electricity or whatever.

          He only does this because Zizek is quite inspired by Marcuse and co. and he HAS to criticize the socialists no matter what. If they supported Ukraine he'd be criticizing it, its part of the negative dialectics of critical theory.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It is a 3rd world cope that is embedded in Marxian dialectic. The Marxists have never understood the real economy, they have never understood history.

        >Marxian
        an actual marxist would look at production capacity
        valuing things in monitary terms is highly liberal

        >an actual marxist would look at production capacity ... valuing things in monitary terms is highly liberal
        I think that's right. Marx's views of money are very complex and confusing to me but he seemed to think of money as a universal commodity in which the value that labor puts into things is "alienated" or made to feel split off from what actually went into the thing. Money is kind of an illusion or creates illusions so we lose an eye for the thing itself. His critique of capitalism is that people begin to evaluate themselves and others in terms of the amount of money we can make, and become less able to value the intrinsic qualities of anything, including ourselves.

        It's kind of funny that Slavoj Zizek has been railing at left-wing parties in Europe btw for not wanting to fund Ukraine because "we can't afford it." Like, this is just pure egotism. Let Ukraine perish so that we don't have to pay higher prices for electricity or whatever.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Let Ukraine perish so that we don't have to pay higher prices for electricity
          Sounds perfectly reasonable tbh.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ukraine will be free and Russia will bleed, Ivan.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Ukraine will be free of Ukrainians
              That's certainly the way they're heading, so....yay?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Free... of what?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                russians and russian influence

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Marx and Engels were failed lawyer and accountant respectively, they fundamentally did not understand what they were talking about (or pretended not to?)
          if they had understood the basic mechanics of
          >how do governments work?
          >why are doctors and engineers paid more than ditch diggers?
          then the world might well have been spared hundreds of millions of destroyed lives and the utterly moronic delusion of Marxism

          t. accountant

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >how do governments work?
            I mean in their own day they supported republican movements which led to, well, every modern European government while advocating for a European-wide war on Russia.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I mean that the idiots didn't understand (or pretended not to) the simplest fundamentals of how laws are enacted, passed and enforced, and came up with their own kooky idea that purported to be revolutionary but in reality regressed the state of governance over two thousand years to an ancient Greek oligarchy in essence, dressed up as something else

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Grug here.
          Its simple, money's value comes from sex. If money doesn't get me sex, I don't care about money.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's Neo-libralism in a globalist sense. A sneaky way for those types to refer back to their earlier anti-state positions. Not some pro Republican position either, both Dems and Reps are part of liberalism.

        Good question though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because the attack did jack shit so it's $ coping time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      people being flabbergasted about the concept of purchasing power. so basically

      moronic socialists prolly

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      when the shasneeds started getting intercepted

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's common to be interested in operational costs when you're the one paying for it.
      Letting the drones fly through would probably have caused less damages

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yo Ranej or Ahmad or whatever Ivan u r
        Tell me how you gonna resurrect civs with those $? Dam
        n thurdies r moronic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ron Paul, unironically

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      When we started fighting wars in a manner is downright economically unsustainable.

      *see Vietnam and the collapse of the Gold Standard

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        McNamara looked so clean

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      War games have probably always incorporated it in their game theory
      My most recent encounter was in the competitive Advance Wars community.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's both socialist homosexualry like the other better anons said but also liberalism homosexualry in regards to for example applying obtuse liberal concepts to things that don't match them like "game theory" to wars and "rational actor" theory to unrational actors and in general treating war like its all a question of economic equations. Treating all of life as just economic equations is one of the most moronic memes caused by Liberal economists and authors in general.

      You can blame pseudo-intellectuals like MacNamara for introducing this bullshit to war.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        MacNamara is a very good example, but the scene was set for technocrats like him to exert their influence generations before.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah because it at its most deep level goes back to liberalism itself in the 18th century.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I would say at it's deepest you have Loyola founding the Jesuits because this abstract "measurement" of not really measurable things that don't give real indications of anything goes back to them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Admittedly, there was some value to quantitative analysis during WWII, when everything was on the line and finding tiny ways of improving performance on obscure metrics could often spell the difference between victory and defeat. The problem was when this analysis was abused for scorekeeping purposes in cases where it didn't really matter; for example, the whole "signaling" thing that came out of the Crisis was built on smoke and mirrors and self-delusion, as the Soviets never read any of the signals in the ways that they were intended.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >liberalism
        >liberal
        >Liberal
        holy frick are you moronic

        ask literally any NATO nation that isn't the USA, the cost of weapons and the cost-effectiveness of any employment in any battle is absolutely a major fricking concern. it is for the USA as well, but you utter homosexuals are unable to understand big numbers so your burger-addled brains are stuck in
        >lulz we have infinite missiles
        la la land

        Admittedly, there was some value to quantitative analysis during WWII, when everything was on the line and finding tiny ways of improving performance on obscure metrics could often spell the difference between victory and defeat. The problem was when this analysis was abused for scorekeeping purposes in cases where it didn't really matter; for example, the whole "signaling" thing that came out of the Crisis was built on smoke and mirrors and self-delusion, as the Soviets never read any of the signals in the ways that they were intended.

        quantitative analysis was mainly developed and applied post-WW2, specially in the 50s and 60s. psychometrics is the very bedrock of opinion polling, and techniques such as throughput analysis are responsible for some of the great innovations in logistics management.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >um um um ok I'll post a gif haha sure showed him

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re both arguing about politics in the specific no politics war only section of a pedophile Nepalese action figure image board. Try expeditious suicide.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, but it really began in WWII, and then broke out into larger usage during the '50s and '60s. The terminology and theories hadn't been well-established, but there was definitely a lot of effort into the field nonetheless.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing in particular. It's a midwit reddit thing. Sorry for using those compressed memes but it's true. "Logistics lol" is a simplification appealing to non-warriors, so in a relatively peaceful society, translating the complexity of war where solving problems requires human creativity, competence, and a large box of tools suitable for different problems into "hurrr add more monetary units" is inherently appealing; doubly so if the relevant shills can scale it upwards into an abstract jerkoff completion between GDPs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      its not completely irrelevant in the case of drones.

      it continues to underscore the narrative that drones are cost-effective.

      if one of the greatest selling points of a weapon is its cheapness, then, of course, part of the observations on that weapon's effectiveness will include examining financial cost on both sides.

      how much value such cost differentials contributes to victory in an actual military conflicts, especially between super-powers, is a different question. but, even then, the relevance of the cost-effectiveness of operations is never zero.

      but certainly, in this context, there is an element of coping -- 'even if we didn't do x structural damage to evil israel, we did x financial damage'

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It is related to the relevant metric, which is your ability to sustain such engagements.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There are too many assumptions that would need to be baked in for a comparison that simple to work for it to be of any use.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The simplicity is the whole point. "Working" is an unnecessary complication.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      its a morons understand of finances win wars, they see costs and think the side with the cheaper solution will win, while not taking into account said side using cheap shits financial abilities

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're strongly arguing in favor of the West leveling them with their own cheaply produced drones.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It started back when the only thing the USSR had going for them was "look, our people have low standards of living and we pay them only what we deem fit if anything at all".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Desperate cope from /misc/ cross posters who thought this was going to be some incredible shock and awe operation against Israel

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That is part of the calculus. Always has been.
      Germany could shell Paris itself during WW1, but couldn't afford to keep the attacks up, so it didn't help them.
      You can't stop a missile if you can't afford the interception tech or to constantly replace it.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    considering the cost in damages of doing nothing to counter such an attack, its not such a high price. factoring in that while a single shasneed is cheap, mass producing them isnt that cheap and those MRBMs sure as shit aint cheap, no matter how you spin it.
    the only cheap war is the one you lose

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >defending from a surprise strike becomes more expensive
    >launching a suprise strike first becomes more appealing
    I still can't believe muslims are as stupid as they are, Iran just fricked itself into oblivion.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Israel taught their neighbors that during the 7 day war, this is just the bomb laden chickens coming home to roost

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I remember these threads from 2022.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I remember these threads from 2022.

      And the threads from 2022 have proved largely correct. Ukraine is now desperately begging the U.S to pass the latest spending package (which half of its governmental chambers and population don't want to do because of the cost) and missiles are now regularly penetrating its AD network

      It looks like drone and rocket spam works.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >and other fantasies hairy overweight 38 year old unwilling virgins tell themselves

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >cheap shasneeds
    They're 600k a pop according to Iran's own data. Also in Ukraine German made Gepard anti-air guns are shooting them down with 40 dollars worth of anti-air bullets.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Gepard anti-air guns are shooting them down with 40 dollars worth of anti-air bullets.
      somehow i doubt that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Here's a video of them shooting down multiple drones.

        %3D

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's probably more like 400 or 4000 worth of bullets
        I've seen how many those things can put out for a single target, and it's worth every penny

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >triple the cost of the sneedheed
      >cut the price of a shell in half
      >then imply the gepard only fires one of these shells
      You're dumb or trolling.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      $600,000 is what they charge Russia for them. They don't have to price gouge themselves.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >1 billion is the price of a hundred hospitals

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I know it's thirdie world thinking that got to that number and labeling it as a "win", but for Israel getting a casus belli on your enemy and reinvigorating a populace which got tired after 6 months of war for 1.3 billion is a fricking bargain.

    Russia wish they could buy such a casus belli instead of using billions on pahjeets and tiktokers to try every possible angle to justify their attack on Ukraine.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Drones are the future until AI takes over, imagine soldiers made of metal with IRL aimbots that no not require any living accommodations other than an outlet/solar and an oil change. AI is the future until someone figures out how to cost efficiently scramble electronics.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You dont understand how energy efficient a human body is

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >no not require any living accommodations other than an outlet/solar and an oil change
      you've never owned a machine in your life

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Mississippi
    >Fly over
    Who's flying over that shit hole. Keep the coping Jerome.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >1 billion is the cost of 100 hospitals
    >"The average US construction cost for a 500,000-square-foot modern tertiary hospital, for example, is about $325 million. A similar hospital built in San Diego or Los Angeles would cost more than $700 million to complete."
    Gee, I think your numbers might be a little off there buddy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He is thinking of his shitskin hospitals using mud huts and witch doctors.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Actually you might be right because when I googled "how much does a new hospital cost" one of the results was figures for India which was about $6m - $23m

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Source: Cost to build a hospital in USA for 2022 from HowMuches and Statista. The national average to build a hospital costs between $60 million and $187.5 million on average.
          nta
          I wonder how much the cost of building is from permits and other forms of regulations. Imo, hospitals probably cost a lot because of all the expensive equipment you need to shove in there.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      and you should also add to that the cost of training and employing staff, which is expensive as frick.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      chatgpt says :

      >The cost of building a hospital in the USA can vary significantly depending on various factors such as location, size, facilities, technology, and regulatory requirements. However, to give you a rough estimate, building a small hospital can cost anywhere from $10 million to $50 million or more.

      not even counting the economy of scale because building the same thing many times gets cheaper

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >chatgpt says
        ChatGPT is not trustworthy. It's a language model which often makes shit up.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >chat GPT says
        Are you literally incapable of thinking for yourself, or of evaluating external information for accuracy or sources of external information for reliability?

        Like, what the frick? Are you actually clinically moronic?
        >economies of scale
        >FOR BUILDING HOSPITALS
        holy shit you’re moronic

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >thinking building a shit $10 million, 10-bed hospital that can basically just do the most basic of basic surgery like setting *some* fractures in Flyover, MO
        >is the same as a hospital that can do trauma (Level 1, 2, or 3), thrombectomy, obstetrics, pediatrics, urology, toxicology
        >not even talking about speciality centers like hands, eyes or burns
        also
        >chatgp shit
        $10 million is a very, very basic """hospital""" that will basically be able to prescribe drugs and do basic surgery 101 and send all of its serious cases to other neighboring hospitals. That's it.
        It is probably a hospital for the poorest of the poor and/or the most geographically isolated low-population rural area. If the latter, enjoy your 3 hour ambulance ride.
        >air evac?
        hahahahahahaha
        In red states we're talking $40k for a helicopter ride, hope you got insurance homie

        $10 million is a shit hospital that stretches the definition of 'hospital', since it is in effect an urgent care clinic with a pharmacy. New hospitals regularly open with $1 billion price tags.
        >t. former EMT and hospital capability knower extraordinaire
        Ask me the ED door codes to any hospital in the DMV (:

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yeah but are you an AI? i'm pretty sure computers with software kneecappd by israelites that scrape the top few pages of search results (many of which are also bot written) are smarter than people who actually have a clue what they're talking about.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why do pajeets love cGPT so fricking much? Ask it to perform basic log operations and watch it completely frick those up, it’s only purpose is writing short emails or blog posts for SEO, anything else is moronic.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because it's a tool that takes incoherent ESL babble and spits out formal/internet English. Go take a look at twitter sometime and you'll see a bunch of John from Ohio Oblast accounts with AI generated profile pictures doing obvious engagement farming. Do you really think they aren't Indians?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If I could wipe one race off the face of the earth it would be pajeets.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I'm pleased that I've turned my wife racist against pajeets. I'm making progress in convincing her about the 13% issue too

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              There are several that are much worse

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >economy of scale because building the same thing many times gets cheaper
        For most modern construction, economy of scale is severely nerfed because of labor costs and location
        You don't produce the houses in one location with the same set of workers and then ship them to their resting place, you only get the scale from the materials.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I have a question, nta.
          Why aren't factories built within the city? Like a car factory, or a tank factory, some vehicle factory. Why isn't it built within the city and not 10-20km away from the city? Wouldn't it be cheaper for the people working there and directly boost the industry within the factory's area?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Noise and pollution, and aesthetics if you're a 1st world country

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why aren't factories built within the city
            Small factories, that can be built inside a pre-existing building, commonly are. Large factories tend to take large amounts of land, and land is expensive, though that can be mitigated by having the city condemn the houses of the people who live there and force them to sell it all to you at bargain-basement prices, though you still have to destroy the houses in order to build your shiny factory there, so it's still fairly expensive unless you can get the city to force the former homeowners to destroy their own houses and cart off the rubble for you as part of the deal of having their homes and land stolen from them. So there really isn't any real *reason* factories aren't built in the city, it just turns out that in non-totalitarian regimes, it is somewhat simpler to build them somewhere outside the city and let people commute to them.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    MRBM aren't cheap...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      MRBM: $3 mil

      Cruise missile: $2 mil

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >MRBM: $3 mil
        kek
        The kinzhal/iskander are 3 million dollars (3 to 10 million) and are far smaller...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pershing II was $10M in the 80s (R&D + procurement), that's $30M in today's money

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the perishing could actually hit targets unlike Iranian missiles

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Need lasers.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >1 billion is the price of a hundred hospitals

    More like 20.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >No, we didn’t hit any major targets or population centers
    >No, we didn’t kill anyone, we injured 1 girl
    >but they spent loads of money defending against us!!
    >yes, we will defeat the country that controls the world’s currencies by making them spend money

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>yes, we will defeat the country that controls the world’s currencies by making them spend money
      You know how many powerful people would spend huge amounts of money employing you if you told them this?

      Like, no bullshit, "we will defeat them by making them spend money" is what American politicians, Chinese communists, Russian politicians, EU bureocrats etc actually think. They get told this bullshit is true and correct and intelligent in university. And they think the fall of the USSR proves its true, the fricking idiots.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Absolutely. Don't get me wrong, money and material resources matter in war, but in my eyes that only matters once you get near to, or at, the state of 'total war', where it becomes necessary to squeeze as much possible efficiency out of your economy as possible to survive long enough to win. However, one must also consider that wars are about winning, not about spending the least money - the allies cumulatively spent more money than germany during WW2 by a factor of god knows how much, but they won and rebuilt the world so that money would never be a problem for them (at least not for a few decades). You can also look at russia; ukraine is crucifying the russians in their tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, to the tune of trillions in material and economic losses for russia, and yet russia persists in their war effort (some fricking how). The bottom line is there's more to war than money and these feckless bureaucratic cowards don't get it.

        True war is a struggle for a knife in the mud, and it doesn't matter how much you've got left in your wallet when you're throat's been slit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >resources aren't real guys

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          money isn't usually the thing that's exhausted during the terminal stage of a war though, it's generally capable men, at that very moment

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            at ANY stage of the war, resources of all kinds from men to materiel are important

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              but men can fall back and reposition if they have to, it's when they know it's futile that things usually unravel. that's why russia's potent lying to its own citizenry is so effective

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          See

          https://i.imgur.com/1Q7N3gq.jpg

          Absolutely. Don't get me wrong, money and material resources matter in war, but in my eyes that only matters once you get near to, or at, the state of 'total war', where it becomes necessary to squeeze as much possible efficiency out of your economy as possible to survive long enough to win. However, one must also consider that wars are about winning, not about spending the least money - the allies cumulatively spent more money than germany during WW2 by a factor of god knows how much, but they won and rebuilt the world so that money would never be a problem for them (at least not for a few decades). You can also look at russia; ukraine is crucifying the russians in their tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, to the tune of trillions in material and economic losses for russia, and yet russia persists in their war effort (some fricking how). The bottom line is there's more to war than money and these feckless bureaucratic cowards don't get it.

          True war is a struggle for a knife in the mud, and it doesn't matter how much you've got left in your wallet when you're throat's been slit.

          Tl dr money and materials matter but winning the war and reshaping the paradigm take precedent

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They're connected. Resource management is important to winning the war at all phases.

            https://i.imgur.com/1Q7N3gq.jpg

            Absolutely. Don't get me wrong, money and material resources matter in war, but in my eyes that only matters once you get near to, or at, the state of 'total war', where it becomes necessary to squeeze as much possible efficiency out of your economy as possible to survive long enough to win. However, one must also consider that wars are about winning, not about spending the least money - the allies cumulatively spent more money than germany during WW2 by a factor of god knows how much, but they won and rebuilt the world so that money would never be a problem for them (at least not for a few decades). You can also look at russia; ukraine is crucifying the russians in their tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, to the tune of trillions in material and economic losses for russia, and yet russia persists in their war effort (some fricking how). The bottom line is there's more to war than money and these feckless bureaucratic cowards don't get it.

            True war is a struggle for a knife in the mud, and it doesn't matter how much you've got left in your wallet when you're throat's been slit.

            >in my eyes that only matters once you get near to, or at, the state of 'total war', where it becomes necessary to squeeze as much possible efficiency out of your economy
            so you can be wasteful at the start of the war with no impact whatsoever?
            >the allies cumulatively spent more money than germany during WW2 by a factor of god knows how much, but they won and rebuilt the world so that money would never be a problem for them
            a typically American-centric view. every other nation was beggared by WW2.
            >to the tune of trillions in material and economic losses for russia
            hardly "trillions".
            Russia's entire GDP at the start of the war was only 1.7 trillion USD.
            >these feckless bureaucratic cowards don't get it
            They get it way better than you do.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >so you can be wasteful at the start of the war with no impact whatsoever?
              No anon, that is not what I said; but yes, believe it or not a country can absolutely afford to be wasteful when the spending still represents a small proportion of its' economy.
              However, if you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I'd completely agree that MATERIALS MATTER. moron.
              >a typically American-centric view. every other nation was beggared by WW2.
              I'm french, not american. You're probably a thirdie based on that assumption. And again, if you'd actually used your brain, you'd see I specifically state that the allies rebuilt the world so that money wouldn't be an issue - i.e., even if they impoverished themselves, the US set up a world economic order via the UN, IMF and WB that ensured they and their allies would retain economic dominance. So although they were 'impoverished' in a literal on-paper sense, in practise the US and its' western allies make thirdie nations seethe with envy to this day with their material wealth.
              >hardly "trillions". Russia's entire GDP at the start of the war was only 1.7 trillion USD.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
              >"According to most estimates, every day of the war in Ukraine costs Russia $500 million to $1 billion"
              >300 billion in sovereign wealth seized
              >not to mention the harder to quantify, but still significant, economic consequence of everyone smart leaving the country and everyone else slowly being fed into an irrational war machine
              "Trillions" is completely reasonable, moron.
              >they get it way better than you do
              The thirdie resorts to an ad-hominem? Sounds like you would die pretty quickly in the mud. Get some fricking reading comprehension, cretin.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm french, not american
                which makes you all the more moronic for not being able to comprehend just how much the occupation and rebuilding cost your country
                >According to most estimates, every day of the war in Ukraine costs Russia $500 million to $1 billion
                >"Trillions" is completely reasonable
                présente la petite fille déficiente mentale! how many days has it been? do the math if you can

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                how many fricking times do I have to explain this to you
                >how much the occupation and rebuilding cost your country
                I'm well aware. I'm well aware we were impoverished and indebted and yada yada yada. I am not trying to downplay or deny that; What I am trying to say, once again, is that DESPITE becoming impoverished in WW2, we are (in the present day) one of the richest nations in the world, sitting on the UN security council - as are the US and UK/. The point I'm making, and keep trying to make, is that DESPITE material spending and impoverishment in the short term, victory enabled the western allies to reshape the paradigm in their favour. This is the THIRD time I've had to repeat this point. English is my second language and I seem to get it better than you, are you sure you aren't a third worlder?
                >do the math if you can
                A l'enculé veut que je lui fasse ses tables de multiplication? On y va.
                >783 x 0.5 or 1 billion = somewhere between 340 and 782 billion
                >300 billion in seized assets abroad
                >loss of 900,000 civilians who fled abroad since the start of the war, tending to be primarily young, well educated specialists
                Trillions in wealth lost moron.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it doesn't matter how much we spend, if we win we can recoup it
                your theory is so stupid I'm not sure it's even worth my time to write this

                >Trillions in wealth lost
                you're double-counting a summary figure, frickwit
                if you literally HALVE the TOTAL economic output of Russia in a single year you still wouldn't reach 1 trillion lost
                you could literally thanos-snap-kill half the total population of Russia and it wouldn't reach 1 trillion lost
                given all the assets seized PLUS the loss of at least 400,000 able bodied men PLUS the sanctions PLUS say 15,000 armoured vehicles, artillery pieces and combat jets, is that ONE trillion dollars? I'd say yes
                is that fully TWO trillion? I don't think so

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >>it doesn't matter how much we spend, if we win we can recoup it
                >your theory is so stupid I'm not sure it's even worth my time to write this
                My theory is that if your victory is total enough, you can 'recoup' your losses by simply shaping the world to your liking. This has absolutely happened multiple times in history. You are a fricking cretin for having me repeat this for the FOURTH time

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >an overwhelming victory is pretty good yknow
                and you're a fricking cretin for imagining that this is some kind of mindblowing new military strategy
                go publish your findings anon. I'm sure nobody ever thought of it before.
                the question here was never about the economic benefits of total victory, the question was about HOW to achieve that victory when the odds aren't that great, mongoloid.
                >if i have a 10" dick and a 10 figure bank account I can frick many pretty girls
                NO SHIT
                BUT HOW DO YOU GET THERE?!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, you're a cretin for making me repeat a simple point. Don't just turn around and go "Oh well now that I get it your point's actually soooo simple and obvious", you had to have it spoonfed to you.
                >but how do you get there
                a whole different can of worms and not the topic we were discussing. Grow up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >not the topic we were discussing
                it absolutely was, moron

                >No, we didn’t hit any major targets or population centers
                >No, we didn’t kill anyone, we injured 1 girl
                >but they spent loads of money defending against us!!
                >yes, we will defeat the country that controls the world’s currencies by making them spend money

                >Is mass drone and rocket spam the future of warfare?

                >No, we didn’t hit any major targets or population centers
                >No, we didn’t kill anyone, we injured 1 girl
                >but they spent loads of money defending against us!!
                >yes, we will defeat the country that controls the world’s currencies by making them spend money

                >No, we didn’t hit any major targets or population centers
                >No, we didn’t kill anyone, we injured 1 girl
                these are operational and tactical level concerns
                you responded to a tactical discussion with a pointless rant about

                https://i.imgur.com/1Q7N3gq.jpg

                Absolutely. Don't get me wrong, money and material resources matter in war, but in my eyes that only matters once you get near to, or at, the state of 'total war', where it becomes necessary to squeeze as much possible efficiency out of your economy as possible to survive long enough to win. However, one must also consider that wars are about winning, not about spending the least money - the allies cumulatively spent more money than germany during WW2 by a factor of god knows how much, but they won and rebuilt the world so that money would never be a problem for them (at least not for a few decades). You can also look at russia; ukraine is crucifying the russians in their tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, to the tune of trillions in material and economic losses for russia, and yet russia persists in their war effort (some fricking how). The bottom line is there's more to war than money and these feckless bureaucratic cowards don't get it.

                True war is a struggle for a knife in the mud, and it doesn't matter how much you've got left in your wallet when you're throat's been slit.

                >economy
                >spending
                >feckless bureaucratic cowards
                because you attempted to connect an operational outcome to country-level strategic thinking with only the most banal "evidence" of the observation that
                >in the past, an overwhelming victory was good for the winner's economy

                >for you see Marie-Louise, in the past, rich men can provide the most for their petit chérie filles
                >for this reason it doesn't matter that I blew most of my salary trying to win the France Loto
                >please understand

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You are a schizophrenic moron.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I accept your concession.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No cheap short range AA can wipe the floor with Shasneeds and drones.

    Fun fact APKWS or Martlet laser guided rockets have been able to shoot down drones for ~$30,000 per shot. Even short range missiles like RAM are only $900,000 which is a pretty good deal against $600,000 drones launched by a sanctioned shithole.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >$600,000 drones

      shasneeds dont cost 600k

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Other anon is right. Sneedheeds don’t cost 600k, they just cost Russians 600k to buy

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Just sitting idly and absorbing missiles is not a good strategy
    Wow holy shit who would've fricking guessed? I have Netanyahu on the phone right now and I'm advising him to be more proactive

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, because such combat assumes that the guy you're doing it at is going to just sit there and take it. At some point they will start hitting your places that make that stuff, store that stuff, keep the materials that produce that stuff, command and control centres and so on. Once upon a time this would have worked because money was backed by something. The Americans won the Revoluntary War because they were financed by three superpowers who backed them up militarily in the tens of thousands and because the British didn't want to pay the cost any more. Because money was a real thing backed by gold and shit. Now, money is just whatever is on a screen, there is no chance of a loan resulting in an invasion or a sale of land (much like the French did for bankrupting themselves helping USA), it's just fiddled until it works.

    tl;dr drone strikes and missile strikes are tantrums, there is no actual military or political goal achieved by doing it.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    AAA is making a comeback. Why fire a missile at a shitty drone when you can fire a burst of bullets.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      namely because the boolets aren't effective until the threat is already uncomfortably close to you.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Put the AAA in the fields surrounding the city.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >What is momentum?
          >What is a falling trajectory?
          You don't understand enough about physics to opine on this, let alone weapons.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            so put them in fields further out, duh

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you had played warthunder you wouldnt have posted such a moronic post.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >warthunder
              Opinion discarded.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Doesn't most SPAAGs have an operational range of well over 6 kilometers? That's a respectable range for slow as shit propeller driven suicide drones that flies slower than a normal civilian airplane.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Now you need to factor in the potential damage that would have been caused without interception.
    Then you need to factor in the cost of Iran producing these weapons.
    Then you need to factor in how much stronger the Israeli economy is than Iran's.
    I wouldn't be surprised if Israel comes out economically ahead, proportionally speaking.
    Actually retaking the cost calculus back in an absolute sense requires laser weaponry. Israel has Iron Beam which is around 100kw, UK has Dragonfire at 50kw, US is experimenting with 300kw. It's just a question of scale and time. We'll see them fielded before the end of the decade, first CRAM, then ABM.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry Anon but you can't put the abstract value of a person's life in a excel spreadsheet so "We made them spend more money than us so we won" it is.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Always has been. WW3 simulations are based on rocket spam. Even if only 5% of the warheads make it trough, that's guaranteed scorched earth.
    With normal explosives it's cost of drones+rockets vs cost of damage+AA munitions.
    1,3 billions ain't that much, considering that's a first attack from Iran for 70 years. Now if there's a second attack, that'll change the numbers considerably.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why don’t they just level the rest of their navy and finish what that pussy Reagan left undone? Seems like an appropriate response.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Kharg Island would be an even better target.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It's insane how bad you thirdie homosexuals are at hiding your identity. Building 100 more hospitals doesn't make people healthier in a country where 99% of the population already has one nearby, a.k.a. any western country.

    You're better off asking that question to Russia and Iran, already poor countries that choose to spend billions on senseless wars while their people shit in the holes in the ground and wipe with sand.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >inflict nearly 1.3 billion in costs to your opponent's paypig
    ftfy

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Missiles are the future, and anti-missile missiles, and anti-anti-missile missiles, and

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You have no concept of how much a hospital costs. Typical of turdies

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >hospitals
    Lmao maybe in your mud hut village Ranjeesh. Operating costs for even moderate sized hospitals in the US + hiring + pay + building the fricking thing is going to cost over a billion in the first year or two. Perfect give away of the thirdie >muh cost poster. Incapable of understanding the vast scale of Western economies. Just because you're paid $1 per day to shit post about how inefficient our militaries are doesn't mean the rest of the world's economies operate on a similar scale. Fricking DISNEY WORLD made $32 billion in 2022. Just the theme parks and nothing else. The wealth disparity between us and you is astounding.

    $1.5 billion dollars is worth it to preserve the lives of citizens, property, infrastructure, and military hardware and fighting capabilities of your nation. It is also worth it to dab on the barbarian islamic hordes who delude themselves into thinking they have some sort of parity with the West.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this thread isnt about if the 1.3 billion is worth it. its about what the economic situation would look like in a protracted conflict of cheap spam vs high tech and expensive and if thats a viable strategy

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Israel isn't going to fight a protracted conflict though, holy frick. Stop listening to morons on /misc/ talk about "modern war" and actually pick up a book about Israel's history.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if thats a viable strategy
        You're welcome to try it Yasmine. The last time a nation credibly threatened the US with that sort of thing, it resulted in a few nukes to remind them of what "high tech" is actually capable of.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          no one has said anything about attacking the u.s

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            MOTHERFRICKER ITS COMING. ISRAEL WILL KICK THEIR ASSSES EVERYONE WILL WANT TO ATTACK INDIA AND AMERICA GET USED TO IT
            IRAN DRONES WILL COST WAY MORE FOR RUSSIANS AND CHINESE OIL PRICES WILL SKYROCKET

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >EVERYONE WILL WANT TO ATTACK INDIA AND AMERICA
              Why India?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >haha we're attacking israel no the us
            >israel doesn't have nukes
            >oh fug

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >threatened the
          US

          >No, we didn’t hit any major targets or population centers
          >No, we didn’t kill anyone, we injured 1 girl
          >but they spent loads of money defending against us!!
          >yes, we will defeat the country that controls the world’s currencies by making them spend money

          >the country that controls the world’s currencies

          https://i.imgur.com/x6GiLbm.png

          You seriously think you're going to spend us to death? Good luck.

          >us

          https://i.imgur.com/XvJxp6j.jpg

          Please yes prove it to us that we don't have enough planes/missiles/industrial capacity/money. That always ends well historically speaking

          >we
          Israel is not the 51st state, JIDF.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It MIGHT work if your enemy sat there and let you shoot rockets at him indefinitely.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well. Anon. The Israelis are in the middle of butt fricking Iran.
    When you release drones you give away everything about them right back to the manufacturing site.
    And Iran just gave the Israelis their wet dream to blow up huge chunks of Iran with f 35s which Iranians despite all the propaganda they spend billions in can't stop..

    I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR FRICKING WHINING WHEN IT GETS BAD
    WHATEVER GOOD WIILL IRAN AND PALESTINE HAD IN AMERICA IS FRICKING GONE
    I DONT EVEN LIKE ISRAEL

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >And Iran just gave the Israelis their wet dream to blow up huge chunks of Iran with f 35s

      not going to happen. election year for biden and he cant afford a war. israel will sit back and take it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't know how to tell you this American, but the world does not move in accordance to the US president's wishes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Israel does.

          You moronic Black folk refuse to understand that the point is not about spending a lot of money to destroy something that cost little, it's about spending a lot of money to DEFEND something else that costs even more money.

          You aren't being clever and you aren't dealing with the question at hand over the sustainability of doing so.
          The Germans would have loved to 'spend' fighter planes to hold back the American Airforce in WW2, but eventually couldn't afford to because of attrition of men, money, and material.
          It doesn't matter if that was still cheaper than the damage done to Hamburg or Dresden, the cost was already too high.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      MOTHERFRICKER ITS COMING. ISRAEL WILL KICK THEIR ASSSES EVERYONE WILL WANT TO ATTACK INDIA AND AMERICA GET USED TO IT
      IRAN DRONES WILL COST WAY MORE FOR RUSSIANS AND CHINESE OIL PRICES WILL SKYROCKET

      Screaming raging israelite. Did they make you work through your lunch break and make you cranky because you missed out on your matzo ball soup?

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >are saturation attacks the future of warfare?
    and the past
    and the present

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Not him, but you’re welcome for the tanks and cars homosexual
    >t. Michigan

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >thirdies making the formal argument why their countries should be razed to the ground and never allowed to develop past the 19th century again

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just two more deployments!

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just ten posts in and someone tries to pivot this towards muh roosia, lmfao

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You moronic Black folk refuse to understand that the point is not about spending a lot of money to destroy something that cost little, it's about spending a lot of money to DEFEND something else that costs even more money.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Even if you're lowballing it, Iran also wasted nearly $500 million dollar for this failed attack.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This
      The whole point of air defense and missile defense is to, you know, defend. They're not blasting drones and missiles out of the sky for shits and giggles.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're trying to teach a lesson to "people" for whom the concept is completely inconceivable.
      Thirdies do not understand far-order thinking, so the idea that the strike ordnance and defensive ordnance aren't the entire picture of the "fight" is too complicated for most of them, and for the few that do understand it, all it means is that they understand they still lose, even with (attempted) Macross Missile Massacres and shashneed spam.
      The entire premise of this thread is a thirdie cope. The thirdies know it, but they need something to wave around and "big" sums of money (again, if you're a thirdie money itself is impressive) always get attention.

      These copes used to irk me, but now they're genuinely entertaining windows into the minds of the third world, and serve as pretty good examples for why they remain behind.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Take a shot every time this anon mentions thirdies. Where did their drones touch you?

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The idea with the cheap drones was that they would overwhelm and confuse AA defenses which would allow missiles to hit their targets.
    Last night proved that theory wrong, anything else is pure cope.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    so whats stopping bibi from nuking Iran alread?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Israel can't handle thr political fallout of nuking a country.
      Israel would become a pariah state the moment it nukes someone.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I dunno man, this whole gaza business didnt seem to make much of a dent

        besides tiktok kids making a fuzz the US still seems overwhelmingly pro-israel

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Look at polls by age. American boomers (actual boomers not the buzzword) are 80% pro-Isreali 20% anti, and it drops about 15% every generation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I mean it's not like people keep their politics their entire life. Were the same boomers who are pro Israel now also pro Israel when they were 18? Genuine question.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Precisely.

              Todays staunch Republican, Fox News consuming, boomers were the Summer of Love generation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        might makes right
        israel has been behaving like a rogue state for years and yet nobody gives a shit because the US backs them

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why does it matter since americans are paying for this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We aren't actually. Israel aid is held up with Ukraine aid.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Iran did a kid gloves attack because they are terrified of escalation.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >The Iranians were using kids gloves
    >what chance does Israel have of not taking damage if there are no kids gloves?
    There is no fricking way we looped back to "the gloves are coming off"
    SandBlack folk and browns are clowns

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      While he is cringe as frick, he is correct. The gloves remain on, the eggs unmeasured, the ass was not placed in the ass. All these clowns are (ironically) copying Trump.

      Trumps strike in Syria was done basically because of domestic pressure forcing him. So he did a symbolic strike on an empty airfield.

      They saw this and thought its a neat move. So when we killed their man in Iraq, they did a symbolic strike on us (because of domestic pressure). They literally warned us before the strike. And now, again, after the israelites got their man in Syria they have done another symbolic strike. Again, with forewarning.

      The difference is that Trumps strike was an awesome demonstration of strength, while theirs are not. But as a concept its the same thing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >trump strikes an empty airfield
        >awesome demonstration of strength

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes. Review the effect of the strike.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Great success. Airport infrastructure is just about the worst thing to attack as there are rapid repair techniques developed during the cold war, you're supposed to destroy (airworthy) planes, crews and maintainers instead

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Incorrect. Even during Tomahawk Throwdown Time (Triple T for you nerds) Trump was striking a proxy location in an internationally known unacknowledged zone. Even during his most wild days he would not have issued a strike from US soil direct into another country. Syria being in a quasi collapse/disputed territory allowed this. Iran's actions are similar but an escalation. They directly attacked the Israelis as it sends a message about how "involved" they are. As part of that they also are pushing this as a pressure release matter settled to help legitimize their stance and the notion that since Israel does whatever they want to their neighbors Iran can do the same. This right now is a demonstration of strength, not because it was an effective attack (it wasn't), but for the hoped normalization of policy and Israel's weakened stance not resulting in a direct attack on Iran. Is it the smartest move? Depends on your point of view. Commies will say its a regional power demonstrating the deterioration of US power on the global stage (debatable, but the converse can be argued thanks to the fact that US and Allies intercepted well over 90% of all, to which Commies reply muh money in the belief they can drain the arsenal of democracy). US military and partners wi note the success of systems and immediate need to counter the growing threats these low cost cruise alternatives present. That being said you'll notice that despite the many claims you read online the US and partners demonstrated extremely successful weapons systems and fact to word that they have the ability to meet the current new weapon. So you know, take your pick on what ya think

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don't be ridiculous, before the gloves come off, we have to raise our eyebrows. We still haven't gotten to the eyebrows yet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're alike in many ways, including in that their guided munitions have a tendency to malfunction.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Much obliged brozzer. Follow Intel Ummah ع for all news zionist media tries to bury.

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    everyone talking about lasers but no ones talking about the US's EMP Missiles (CHAMP) granted those are over a decade old now.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    ^ this totally organic HDF shill migrated from

    [...]

    the instant it saged

    watch him abandon thread the instant this one sages too

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Israelis claim to heave shot down ‘99% of incoming UAVs and missiles’ Moreover, at least two of IRGC’s ballistic missiles have failed on launch (one blew up during the launch from al-Momenin Missile Base, another shortly after start over Kermanshah). Another is known to have crashed in Iraq, and one was shot down over Jordan (its wreckage crashed in Amman).
    And, indeed, the IASF defended with everything it’s got: manned interceptors (F-15s, F-16s, F-35s) and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs, like Arrow II, Arrow III, David’s Sling, and MIM-104 Patriot PAC-2 GEM-T). This effort was supported by (at least) MIM-104 Patriot SAM-systems of the US Army deployed in Israel, F-15Es of the US Air Force deployed in Jordan, four interceptors of the Royal Air Force forward deployed on Cyprus (RAF Akrotiri), plus air defences of the Royal Jordanian Air Force.
    However, the majority of Iranian ballistic missiles fired at Israel not only functioned as designed, but also had multiple warheads (‘multiple re-entry vehicles’).
    most were equipped with decoys. Means: instead of ’up to 80’ missiles, the Israelis and allies had to target ’240+’ incoming warheads and decoys. As a consequence, the Israelis seem to have run out of ‘ready to use’ SAMs already during the first wave of Iranian ballistic missile strikes. They couldn’t re-load their launchers before the second and third wave.
    as result, the Israelis are known to have fired only one SAM at the 2nd wave of IRGC’s ballistic missiles, and none at the 3rd wave.
    The IRGC thus scored at least 7 hits on Ramon AB and an unknown number of hits on unknown objects in the Tel Aviv area (probably air defence systems).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Both Ramon and Nevatim are crucial facilities. Between others housing the Israeli F-35-fleet. Nevatim is also the primary training facility. That said, Ramon AB was not only targeted because it’s important and ‘there’ – but because it was the base from which the IASF launched its strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, and its (relatively) close to the Israeli nuclear complex in Dimona (see the ‘message’: ‘if we can hit Ramon, we can hit Dimona, too’).
      There is still no way for fighter jets to engage ballistic missiles. Which in turn means: the IRGC ‘pulled the Israelis by the nose’ (distracted them with UAVs), and then ‘hit them in the guts’ (ballistic missiles).
      the IRGC appears to have used ‘only’ its ‘light’ ballistic missiles in the last-night’s attack. Types like Rezvan and Haj Qasem, perhaps also Khaybar-Shekan.
      None of heavier Ghadrs, Emad, Fattah-1/2s, Sejil-2s, Dezful, Qiam-2s, or Khorramshahr-2s…
      And in the ‘game of numbers’ – the number of ballistic missiles with which the IRGC can reach Israel, compared to the number of Israeli- and US-operated SAMs in Israel and Jordan – well: it’s not looking as good, for Israel.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Israelis claim to heave shot down ‘99% of incoming UAVs and missiles’ Moreover, at least two of IRGC’s ballistic missiles have failed on launch (one blew up during the launch from al-Momenin Missile Base, another shortly after start over Kermanshah). Another is known to have crashed in Iraq, and one was shot down over Jordan (its wreckage crashed in Amman).
        And, indeed, the IASF defended with everything it’s got: manned interceptors (F-15s, F-16s, F-35s) and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs, like Arrow II, Arrow III, David’s Sling, and MIM-104 Patriot PAC-2 GEM-T). This effort was supported by (at least) MIM-104 Patriot SAM-systems of the US Army deployed in Israel, F-15Es of the US Air Force deployed in Jordan, four interceptors of the Royal Air Force forward deployed on Cyprus (RAF Akrotiri), plus air defences of the Royal Jordanian Air Force.
        However, the majority of Iranian ballistic missiles fired at Israel not only functioned as designed, but also had multiple warheads (‘multiple re-entry vehicles’).
        most were equipped with decoys. Means: instead of ’up to 80’ missiles, the Israelis and allies had to target ’240+’ incoming warheads and decoys. As a consequence, the Israelis seem to have run out of ‘ready to use’ SAMs already during the first wave of Iranian ballistic missile strikes. They couldn’t re-load their launchers before the second and third wave.
        as result, the Israelis are known to have fired only one SAM at the 2nd wave of IRGC’s ballistic missiles, and none at the 3rd wave.
        The IRGC thus scored at least 7 hits on Ramon AB and an unknown number of hits on unknown objects in the Tel Aviv area (probably air defence systems).

        Complete nonsense lol

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the IRGC ‘pulled the Israelis by the nose’ (distracted them with UAVs), and then ‘hit them in the guts’ (ballistic missiles)

        Were Arrow II+III, David's Sling, or Patriots used to intercept the Shaheds? Or just Iron dome?

        You're saying Israel's run out of SAMs?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Were Arrow II+III, David's Sling, or Patriots used to intercept the Shaheds? Or just Iron dome?
          most were intercepted by fighter jets.
          https://twitter.com/IAFsite/status/1779525724166082742

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Both Ramon and Nevatim are crucial facilities. Between others housing the Israeli F-35-fleet. Nevatim is also the primary training facility. That said, Ramon AB was not only targeted because it’s important and ‘there’ – but because it was the base from which the IASF launched its strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, and its (relatively) close to the Israeli nuclear complex in Dimona (see the ‘message’: ‘if we can hit Ramon, we can hit Dimona, too’).
      There is still no way for fighter jets to engage ballistic missiles. Which in turn means: the IRGC ‘pulled the Israelis by the nose’ (distracted them with UAVs), and then ‘hit them in the guts’ (ballistic missiles).
      the IRGC appears to have used ‘only’ its ‘light’ ballistic missiles in the last-night’s attack. Types like Rezvan and Haj Qasem, perhaps also Khaybar-Shekan.
      None of heavier Ghadrs, Emad, Fattah-1/2s, Sejil-2s, Dezful, Qiam-2s, or Khorramshahr-2s…
      And in the ‘game of numbers’ – the number of ballistic missiles with which the IRGC can reach Israel, compared to the number of Israeli- and US-operated SAMs in Israel and Jordan – well: it’s not looking as good, for Israel.

      >Giant wall of goatfricker cope because their giant attack got 99% wienerblocked
      >What did land did fricking nothing
      >3 dead Iranian generals avenged by slightly injuring a 7 year old Bedouin girl and shaking a few roof tiles off a single building.
      Multipolar bros...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        don't worry, new cope just dropped

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          LMAOOOO
          truly wonderful the mind of a vatnik is

          Could you use the drones as bait for an air defense trap? Fire your drones and place some anti-aircraft guns and people with MANPADS along the flight path. Launch during the day taking away the advantage the more advanced western forces have. I don't care how stealthy a F-35 is it's still visible during the day and it's still vulnerable to anti-aircraft guns and MADPADS.

          interceptors don't have to be near your AA to intercept your drones
          >anti-aircraft guns and people with MANPADS
          don't work very well on anyone that's not under-maintained Soviet horseshit

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ah yes, fragmentation damage that's historically very effective against...bunkers and tons of sand.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ah yes advance fragmentation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Both Ramon and Nevatim are crucial facilities. Between others housing the Israeli F-35-fleet. Nevatim is also the primary training facility. That said, Ramon AB was not only targeted because it’s important and ‘there’ – but because it was the base from which the IASF launched its strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, and its (relatively) close to the Israeli nuclear complex in Dimona (see the ‘message’: ‘if we can hit Ramon, we can hit Dimona, too’).
      There is still no way for fighter jets to engage ballistic missiles. Which in turn means: the IRGC ‘pulled the Israelis by the nose’ (distracted them with UAVs), and then ‘hit them in the guts’ (ballistic missiles).
      the IRGC appears to have used ‘only’ its ‘light’ ballistic missiles in the last-night’s attack. Types like Rezvan and Haj Qasem, perhaps also Khaybar-Shekan.
      None of heavier Ghadrs, Emad, Fattah-1/2s, Sejil-2s, Dezful, Qiam-2s, or Khorramshahr-2s…
      And in the ‘game of numbers’ – the number of ballistic missiles with which the IRGC can reach Israel, compared to the number of Israeli- and US-operated SAMs in Israel and Jordan – well: it’s not looking as good, for Israel.

      >sauce: it came to me in a dream

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Those MRBMs were not cheap. Probably not what an arrow costs, but not far off.

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Would an air cannon shooting ball bearings be able to counter drone spam?

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Weren’t you guys saying paragliders were the future of warfare last year

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, they were also posting paraglider events from Egypt and Jordan and South West USA as footage of Hamas mass paraglider attack on Israel. And then making shitty AI-Slop images of it.

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    >2 more weeks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >waaaaaagh you made fun of israel you must be a vatnik
      kek go back to you hugbox Black person

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Aww, did hasbara posts get jannied for a change? Don't worry IDF, just buy another janny!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lmao this c**t is such a newbie he doesn't have X or checks archives.

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sure, as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences when the enemy does more than 1.3 billion in damages to you, and your drones can't do anything to their superior equipment 🙂

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The ballistic missiles will fly until Tel Aviv improves (rubble)

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >we made them spend more money than we did so we won
    Gay, homosexual and extremely liberal and/or socialist all at the same time.

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You seriously think you're going to spend us to death? Good luck.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How many rockets/planes are combat ready at any time?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Please yes prove it to us that we don't have enough planes/missiles/industrial capacity/money. That always ends well historically speaking

  57. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its easy to launch $20M missiles when you get the goyim to pay for it.

  58. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Are these weak attacks between israel and iran being done just for show? They always talk big but they never do shit.

  59. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Could you use the drones as bait for an air defense trap? Fire your drones and place some anti-aircraft guns and people with MANPADS along the flight path. Launch during the day taking away the advantage the more advanced western forces have. I don't care how stealthy a F-35 is it's still visible during the day and it's still vulnerable to anti-aircraft guns and MADPADS.

  60. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >WSJ: "Roughly 50% of the ballistic missiles fired by Iran failed to launch or crashed before reaching their target, three U.S. officials said...Iran launched between 115 and 130 ballistic missiles that targeted Israel...only about half of them were intercepted successfully. The rest failed in flight and didn't reach their targets, the officials said."

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >50% dud rate
      Holee shit. That's way, way worse than I thought.
      Iranian ballistic missiles were supposed to be their high point. Turns out they're the same garbage as the rest of their potemkin military.
      If Iran ever tries to nuke Israel, they'll turn Jordan and Iraq into radioactive wastelands by sheer incompetence.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        For an attack I don't want to succeed I'd use the lowest quality stuff.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Goatfrickers already on damage control
          Iran fired off Emads, which were introduced into service in the last decade.
          Turns out the Iranian military, designed principally to shoot its own citizens, isn't very good at anything else. Who knew.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Iranian adaptation
            >of a North Korean adaptation
            >of a fricking Elbrus, aka Scud-B

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  61. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >W-w-we mean-t-t t-to hit only s-s-sand...
    So this is the new cope

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's an old cope, it's just the last time they used it it was overshadowed by them promptly shooting down an airliner full of their own people.

  62. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1 million put into crypto then into a simple defi strat of just holding DAI which a stable US dollar coin you would get 15% a year which is 150k -‘d you would live like a doctor forever. Or you could be a moronic sooner homosexual like that guy above and spend it on McDonald’s and rent in 13 years or something kek. I hate poor people so much. You all missed and good thing

  63. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    IIRC I've seen some suggest before this that Iran sent a bunch of their older BMs, that they were less afraid to lose, that might explain part of the insane failure rate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Right. Like the guy above succinctly pointed out their recent airliner incident they are probably saving their percussion munitions for another self shoot down of a fully lodged civilian airliner. Probably in the advice of the Russian ground to air defense attaches

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Precision weapons*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Israel is going to suffer severe damage
      >Hundreds of hits are confirmed
      >Just wait for morning, it's too early to conclude what happened
      >Israel is hiding their losses
      >The 7 year old Bedouin girl was a tracker in the IDF
      >Iran achieved a great victory since it showed it can hit an airfield
      >Iran never wanted to do any damage to Israel anyway
      >Iran used old missiles <YOU ARE HERE
      What's the next stop on the cope train?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Your story sounds just like the fake 40 beheaded babies story

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        missiles, when intercepted, do not fall to the ground fully intact with a small amount of scorching on one end

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >never even heard of staging

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >What is an MRBM
          When I see 68IQ posts like this, it makes understanding how the Iranians managed to lose half their missiles before they even reached Israel much easier.

  64. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly was it any different in the past?
    Cheap weapons have existed for a while.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No anti missile vs ballistic missile has been a thing since the 80s and theorized about since the later 19th century by sci-fi writers.

  65. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >okay so something happened
    >and we shot several years worth of expensive ballistic/cruise missiles
    >and the israelites shot almost all of them down
    >BUT CHECK OUT THE PRICE TAG

  66. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is mass drone and rocket spam the future of warfare?
    No because real militaries, aka the West, has real air power. Can't launch rockets or drones when enemy air power erases anything that moves.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >No because real militaries, aka the West, has real air power. Can't launch rockets or drones when enemy air power erases anything that moves.
      ^haha, yah, just ask Yemen

  67. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well anon, considering you can set your self on fire for about 10 dollars worth of fuel...

    Well, yeah, Considering the average economic value of the likes of you I don't think your death would cover those 10 bucks so you may have a point.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      billions of dollars and the zionist's can't make propaganda that isn't completely moronic.

  68. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is mass drone and rocket spam the future of warfare?

    Nuking primitives into submission to lend creedence to strategic deterrence is the future of detene. Western Yemen should be a glass field right now; khat addicts aren't worth the trillions their incurring in losses, measurably moroning the advance to the stars.

  69. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Israel will get more billions while Ukraine hasn't gotten anything since last year

  70. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing funnier than seeing fellow Americans so frickin cucked thinking that our Healthcare isn't a massive joke. Same type of dudes who spread their buttholes wide open for corporate interests.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody is saying there is no faults within our healthcare. But saying there isn’t resources that can offer free/reduced price stuff is pretty disingenuous.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Nothing funnier than seeing fellow Americans so frickin cucked thinking that our Healthcare is a massive joke. Same type of dudes who spread their buttholes wide open for communist interests.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Literal cope

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Literal seethe

  71. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one wanted to take satellite photos of the allegedly destroyed infrastructure / planes in Israeli bases? Or maybe the accuracy of Iranian ballistic missiles at that range isn't good enough to cause real damage on a dispersed target like an airfield.

  72. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Didn't Azerbaijan deplete Armenia's SAM supply by just mass ditching An-2s over Nagorno-Karabakh?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *