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

441–450 of 701 posts

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

#441

Post by Animats »

decimalenough wrote: post #429
Animats wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine and Taiwan quietly cooperate in weapons development and production, especially drones.[1] They both have big, aggressive neighbors. Ukraine knows how to fight them, and Taiwan can make electronics in quantity. Ukraine is starting to get cooperation from Japan, too, but that's in an earlier stage.[2] With Taiwan, it's serious. The paper doesn't mention Ukraine at all, yet it's all about the kind of war that Uk…

The paper has a lengthy section entitled "The Crucible of Ukraine: The Transparent Battlefield".

Right. Sorry.

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

#442

Post by usiran1286628 »

27183 wrote: post #84
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.

Initially it's unclear what the goal was. But now the goal must be opening the strait of Hormuz ASAP. There's going to be serious economic fallout if that doesn't happen[0]. It remains to be seen how realistic that goal actually is. Iran has big advantages in their favor. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/08/business/iran-oil-trump-strai...

Trump has clearly stated many times the goal is to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. Many times. Repeatedly, again and again, and all negotiations are directed towards that first and foremost.

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

#443

Post by andrewflnr »

_trampeltier wrote: post #152
27183 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Initially it's unclear what the goal was. But now the goal must be opening the strait of Hormuz ASAP. There's going to be serious economic fallout if that doesn't happen[0]. It remains to be seen how realistic that goal actually is. Iran has big advantages in their favor. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/08/business/iran-oil-trump-strai...

Can we agree on "the strait was open before the war" so it can't be a goal for the war.

It wasn't a goal for starting the war, but it sure is one now.

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

#444

Post by zhdc1 »

eimrine wrote: post #434
zhdc1 wrote: post #432

Good article but, like a lot of stategic studies pieces, grossly underestimates what the American industrial base is capable of. 1. The US is second in the world, behind Ukraine, in military drone production. 2. The US is a close second to China in logistics + last mile drone production. 3. The US is still the only country with the proven ability to move mass anywhere in the world. None of this means that the US will…

Are there any vessels proved to move mass anywhere, which are still alive from the latest moving mass happened? AFAIK, all those ships are not in service, and all American males got somewhat femalified.

Yes, well over a hundred iirc that the US can requisition on day one of a conflict. America still leads here.

Worth noting that, outside of WW2, the US has never really had a large merchant fleet.

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

#445

Post by orthoxerox »

Animats wrote: post #435
orthoxerox wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The draft in Russia now covers all males from 18 to 30. In that age range, men can no longer leave Russia. This is incorrect.

Well, at least not via major airports.[1] [1] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/07/23/russia-tightens-bo...

It says, "Officials are checking whether travelers have received draft notifications".

Which means not everyone in this age bracket is prevented from leaving, only literal draft dodgers.

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

#446

Post by light_hue_1 »

xp84 wrote: post #359
Someone wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyway, the US and Israel can keep degrading Iran’s military and “government” by dropping bombs (or better, drones) on them every week for a decade and it won’t really be a big deal for the former. Can they? https://www.csis.org/analysis/last-rounds-status-key-munitio... says “In the 39 days of the air and missile campaign before the ceasefire, U.S. forces heavily used the seven munitions in Table 1. For four of th…

Perhaps. If we need more, we can make more though, and at a faster rate than Iran can. I really doubt Iran has the capability to significantly threaten the factories where we make those munitions. The same can't be said the other way around. I also suspect the US military is actively pursuing more cost-effective ways to blow things up, as Ukraine (and indeed Iran) has been doing. We don't have to use Patriots and Tom…

> Perhaps. If we need more, we can make more though, and at a faster rate than Iran can.

We can't. We built a system that creates a very small number of very expensive munitions and that can't be scaled up. We've been trying to scale up munitions production for years now with the Ukraine war. And it just isn't possible.

Not only does it take years to make any missile now. Our total capacity to make missiles is incredibly low. Like, we can make 600 Patriot missiles per year. We've expended twice that so far with Iran alone. We can make 100 THADD per year. We've expended 300 so far.

The US will run out of missiles way before Iran does. Iran could easily produce 2000 missiles per year and if it pushed it could make closer to 8000.

Iran will recover its missile stocks from the current war in a year. It will take the US until 2031 to do the same.

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

#447

Post by contubernio »

LinuxAmbulance wrote: post #127
thrownawaysz wrote: post #68

>the difficulty of transporting extremely heavy 155-millimeter artillery shells and guided multiple-launch rocket system pods across contested oceans and degraded theater road networks I found it interesting that not even this article thinks about it that the US mainland ever can be attacked

> I found it interesting that not even this article thinks about it that the US mainland ever can be attacked It can be, but it would be very, very difficult for anything short of lobbing ICBMs around. You'd have to have a fleet of ships that would be detected as soon as they set sail, and then protect that fleet for the entire voyage, which would also be extremely difficult for any adversary. Getting boots on US soi…

It could be attacked easily via an alliance with Mexico or Canada. The premise that such a thing could never happen is not a good one for military planning.

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

#448

Post by tsimionescu »

a34729t wrote: post #182

China has missed their window of opportunity, sadly. For the next big war, the US will simply not even need to air or sea to deliver weapons or supplies (see SpaceX's StarFall, of which 60x4 should fit into Starship). Per my calculations, the JDAM version of this will be cheaper than flying planes (and pilots) to drop bombs or cruise missiles. For small(er) wars, cheap drones break everything as they can destroy your…

I'd bet China would like nothing more than the USA basing its future war strategy on Starship, with its long history of fictional timelines and capacities.

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

#449

Post by tsimionescu »

ceejayoz wrote: post #275
manvillej wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't see how the fuel costs of getting things up to space winning out unless production is located up there. especially since rocket launches tend to be extremely static. More dangerously, I think that would inevitably lead to space being the battlefield. Since that area doesn't need any more shrapnel orbiting at 17,500 mph; it seems an idea best left to the drawing board. The cleanup required will make clear…

> I just don't see how the fuel costs of getting things up to space winning out unless production is located up there. Starship's in theory targeting something like a million bucks in fuel for a launch. For a military that spends more than that on individual missiles , that's peanuts.

Starship is also in theory targetting to reach Mars in 2022.

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

#450

Post by marcus_holmes »

ericmay wrote: post #407
marcus_holmes wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So far nobody has built a tank, plane, or ship that can run on batteries and while drone technology has continued to advance in many critical ways they don't bring the big bombs quite yet. Ukraine is proving that the "big bombs" are useless - fpv drones can and do take out tanks, planes and ships. They don't survive long enough to deliver the "big bombs". Russia is currently reduced to sending in unmechanised light…

> Ukraine is proving that the "big bombs" are useless Depends on the application. The drones have to be manufactured somewhere. You need electricity. Running water. Industrial facilities. The big bomb still matters there. > The age of WW2-era mechanised warfare is gone. It's as obsolete as the cavalry that came before it. Well the primary issue is that drones can’t hold or take land, only deny. I think mechanized inf…

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

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

That's changing

Post reply on HN