Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

mwi.westpoint.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 701 posts

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#371

Post by fragmede »

RealityVoid wrote: post #307
rawgabbit wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine is deploying AI enabled drones that require no fiber optic wires and no electronic tethering. They patrol autonomously and identify targets; a human authorizes the strike and they take out targets by themselves. This is the holy grail of modern warfare; destroy the enemy’s rear staging and logistics. If they don’t have fuel or ammo, they are a defenseless sitting target.

These kinds of systems are rare or super rare.

Not for long. Software copies easily. Hardware's more difficult.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#372

Post by xp84 »

ptmcc wrote: post #120
xp84 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are defense contractors not better investments, then? https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs

They are largely congressional jobs programs, not traditional business investments

In that, I agree with you. Tbh it sounds almost socialist: The government pays a lot of money to employ lots of workers in really good jobs, with only a pretty modest amount of overhead (money earned by the investors of the contractors).

And then that stimulates the economy further as those people all spend that money, and the government gets a bunch of bombs and fighter jets out of the deal.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#373

Post by Georgelemental »

bad_haircut72 wrote: post #58
malfist wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iran war will also probably still be going on in 5 years The Russia/Ukraine war has a goal, to make Ukraine either part of Russia or a client state. What's the goal of the US/Iran war? So far it seems like the goal is to mostly return to the status quo prior to the war. I can't imagine that could continue 5 years because there's just not an objective. Of course, I could easily be mistaken.

Once you've lost something (I think sooner or later, Iran will succeed in sinking a big US ship) then even if you cant win, you also cant leave else its an admission of defeat - so it drags on and on and on.

I think the current leadership in Tehran is pragmatic enough to want to avoid that. Of course, the longer this drags on, the more likely they are to be replaced by hard-liners

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#375

Post by xp84 »

zemvpferreira wrote: post #356
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that, when PRC cuts off the parts, there are backstops for alternate sourcing most of them even if it means reopening mines to get the materials and subsidizing production.

I don't mean to belittle the American war machine but as someone involved in overseas manufacturing for a while, I just don't see how it's possible to source 90% of items now made in China without a solid decade or two of investment. There are no factories, no supply chains, no skilled workers. It seems like fantasy.

I would bet Japan, Korea, Taiwan all produce some of the needed things in an emergency scenario (obv Taiwan may be under artillery attack, but then again, does China want a destroyed Taiwan or do they want to own it, with its priceless industries intact, as a crown jewel? They may avoid such destruction).

But honestly, I don't think China wants Taiwan "reunification" quite as much as they want to have their economy be prosperous and, just as importantly, not to have millions of people die on both sides. If massively provoked, e.g. Taiwan declares independence and joins NATO, sure. But I expect non-war outcomes somewhat more than I expect war.

I recognize this is a big bet on the ethics of perhaps a small group of important CPC decision makers, but I do bet on that. Xi Jinping is no Hitler, no Stalin.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#376

Post by caycep »

Animats wrote: post #288
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if we're talking Ukraine, we have to talk Poland as it has been facilitating 90% of all Western military equipment, humanitarian aid, and crucial trade deliveries into the country. Poland is, of course, geopolitically positioned in a way that requires at least regional power status to survive if not thrive. A power vacuum in Poland is bad news for the security of Europe and Poland's immediate neighbors and region…

Poland and the Baltics know they're next on Putin's list. So they're glad to help Ukraine. Better than fighting the Russians on home territory. Taiwan and Japan, though, aren't in Russia's line of fire. The cooperation with Ukraine is because Ukraine figured out how to stop Russia. Taiwan has a real threat, and if they can build defenses that mean China faces a years-long war, there probably won't be one.

I think they already have that, they want to make sure it stays that way

alternatively, there's a Dennis Ross piece out pointing out that China's procurement patterns over the years suggests they are not seriously thinking of invading Taiwan, they just want everyone to think that way...

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#377

Post by xp84 »

ddtaylor wrote: post #363
cyberax wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US can produce these chips. South Korea can also do that.

The US cannot produce most of what that TSMC can can. And those US factories aren't rolling yet either.

TSMC is absolutely critical for 'frontier' silicon but:

1. In a China/Taiwan conflict, China's not getting TSMC output either - Bear in mind that I doubt China would ever want to destroy TSMC though, so I'm talking about a naval blockade rather than artillery destroying the fabs.

2. Although SOTA chips are off the table, we could get older process node stuff. We could still build say, 2015-era chips. We had great missiles in 2015.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#378

Post by dmsayer »

bix6 wrote: post #151
elictronic wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a 2024 article pointing out China doing exactly this and Ukraine making many of the blocked items at home. You might be 2 years to late with this comment. https://kyivindependent.com/as-china-weaponizes-the-drone-su... China controls much of the integration and many of the low level components for super low cost electronics and motors. They aren't the ones controlling all the fabs for the circuits and integra…

Thanks for linking this is interesting. It sounds like they are still unable to produce many of the base components though? > most manufacturers of everything within Ukraine remain dependent on imported machining tools — traditionally Chinese, but increasingly Indian and, for those who can afford it, European. But for the cheapest components, simple base-line products like transistors, circuit boards, wiring, or sola…

Taiwan?

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#379

Post by xp84 »

ericmay wrote: post #351
giantg2 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US manufacturing capacity was a huge factor in winning WW2. I wonder who holds that advantage now...

There are a lot of differences. One of the chief differences was that during World War II the United States continental homeland was pretty much untouchable, which allowed the United States and the allies access to a secure and resource rich supply chain that helped lead to victory over the Axis powers. In an engagement with China it is likely that both sides would be able to strike each other's defense industrial ba…

Good analysis. I agree that China could consider targeting the US mainland, but in every scenario other than "crazed madman" I think they'll know that kind of thing inevitably ends up with symmetrical (or worse for them) destruction. It would be easy to get public support for massive retaliation if Americans see proof that China has no qualms about blowing up their home, workplace, etc. The fringe will say "Nuke China - it worked in 1945!" and the mainstream will say "Blow up every power plant and dam we can."

When the dust settles, China's killed a bunch of Americans, America has killed even more Chinese, and we're in the same place we were before. I don't think China's that dumb, and they're not that evil, either.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#380

Post by eszed »

nradov wrote: post #237
asdff wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the question becomes then why did putin start the war without sufficient buildup of missile reserves to flatten Kyiv in the first few days? And why not contract with israeli defense companies for precision missile technology? It doesn't seem like their relations are really that severed even with the whole Iran issue. One would also think China might also appreciate a client willing to battle test their precis…

You'll have to ask Putin that question. But the usual intelligence analysis of that decision is based on several factors. 1. Putin thinks the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 was a historic disaster and wants to reassemble much of it as some sort of new "Russian Empire" in order to control more resources and establish defensive space to protect the motherland against a future foreign invasion. He sees Ukraine as a…

Add to all of that: this started as a war of conquest. Putin seems to have believed that Russian forces would quickly take Kiev, depose the government, and install a client regime in its place. You don't want to destroy property you think you'll shortly own, so there would have been no point stocking up enough munitions to do so.

The airport raid by SF on the first day of the war arguably came close to success.

Post reply on HN