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

501–510 of 701 posts

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

#501

Post by troupo »

xp84 wrote: post #377
ddtaylor wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mis…

> In a China/Taiwan conflict, China's not getting TSMC output either

China has enough domestic electronics production to not care. Also, in the event of a war they would probably stockpile necessary parts.

> we could get older process node stuff. We could still build say, 2015-era chips.

If the factories producing those chips are still operational. Otherwise you end up in the exact same situation as Russia, for example. They have some barely functioning old factories producing extremely outdated chips on foreign equipment.

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

#502

Post by troupo »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #496
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…

Russia could end the war instantly with a few nukes if it wanted to. I don't get it why it hasn't done that yet. Pride?

Yup. As soon as Russia nukes someone, the war instantly ends. Because no one will ever think to retaliate.

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

#503

Post by ExoticPearTree »

troupo wrote: post #502
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia could end the war instantly with a few nukes if it wanted to. I don't get it why it hasn't done that yet. Pride?

Yup. As soon as Russia nukes someone, the war instantly ends. Because no one will ever think to retaliate.

I get the sarcasm, but besides the US that for whatever reason might retaliate with nukes, who else? And would they risk it just because?

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

#504

Post by roenxi »

andrewflnr wrote: post #443
_trampeltier wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It can't be, because if that was the goal they'd just stop attacking. The strait was open until they sneak attacked Iran. Everyone seems to be in agreement that as part of a ceasefire the strait will open. Iran has shown no particular interest in closing the strait except as a war tactic. The US clearly does not have the power to control or open the strait militarily, its been months now. They appear to be outclassed.

If the goal was opening the strait, then Trump would direct the US military to stop attacking and then the strait would open up. Peace is the only path they have to open the strait and there is every reason to think negotiation would succeed in having the strait open in a matter of days.

By process of elimination, the war goal either seems to be some sort of relatively indirect attack on China's energy security or simple support of Israel in Lebanon by keeping the Iranians out of it. Or maybe Trump has also reached the tipping point into senility; a scenario which seems increasingly likely.

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

#505

Post by pheaded_while9 »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #475
silvestrov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most interesting innovations in the Ukraine war is their internal market place for drones, letting each drone group decide which drones they want to procure and use in battle. It is not a top-down decision, production and supply as other armies use for their weapons logistics.

Units can also collect e-points to purchase more equipment: > The allocation changes regularly, but as of June 2025, Business Insider reported that destroying a tank was worth eight points. A multiple launch rocket system counted for 10. Killing a regular Russian soldier earned 12 points. Wounding a drone pilot was valued at 15 and eliminating him netted 25. In the final step, the payoff, units use the points they’ve…

Gameification of war is the literal worst thing I ever heard. Lords of War, eat your heart out.

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

#506

Post by pards »

txoria wrote: post #430

Presumably, the article is intended for military officers. Do military officers have nothing better to do than strain their eyes, reading a light gray text on a white background? And the article gives advice on strain-proof logistics, no less. Seems like Modern War Institute is more concerned with looking posh, than getting their message across - the message of endurance. That's ironic.

> a light grey text on a white background

This makes the page SO hard to read. Why are "designers" still doing this? Have they no respect for their readers?

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

#507

Post by wahern »

pheaded_while9 wrote: post #505
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Units can also collect e-points to purchase more equipment: > The allocation changes regularly, but as of June 2025, Business Insider reported that destroying a tank was worth eight points. A multiple launch rocket system counted for 10. Killing a regular Russian soldier earned 12 points. Wounding a drone pilot was valued at 15 and eliminating him netted 25. In the final step, the payoff, units use the points they’ve…

Gameification of war is the literal worst thing I ever heard. Lords of War, eat your heart out.

There's nothing new about earning "points" for kills. Warriors have always tallied their kills and displayed their numbers, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_marking or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping, though the rewards were typically accolades, and only indirectly access to more materiel.

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

#509

Post by nswango »

xp84 wrote: post #375
zemvpferreira wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Offshoring into China was literally invented by Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese companies.

We see high quality tech products coming out of the countries and assume that they're very good at building things. In fact they are extremely good at managing complex supply chains going in and out of PRC, while keeping certain high value add parts of the business within their own countries.

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

#510

Post by bluGill »

RealityVoid wrote: post #491
CamperBob2 wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder about the feasibility of an IFF-like mechanism at the level of individual soldiers. The drone could be designed not to attack when a nearby transmitter is broadcasting a prearranged encrypted code that's dependent on elapsed mission time or some other hard-to-spoof factor. Any humans caught out in the open without the IFF signal present are fair game.

I think you can do this relatively simply with infrared led lights. Imagine "Please don't kill me" remote controls. You are a bit more visible when broadcasting, but presumably you can be selective when turning it on.

You need some thing that the enemy cannot spoof. That means two way communication and a shared secret (public private key may count).

Then we need to ask what happens if communication itself fails? An enemy that knows you are doing this has incentive to jam Communications. Either you do nothing in that case because there might be something you can't communicate with, or you kill your own people

Post reply on HN