The dangerous delusion of modern warfare

https://economist.com/interactive/essay/2026/05/28/the-dangerous-delusion-of-modern-warfare

by runeks • 2 months ago

38 76 2 months ago

runeks• 2 months ago

https://archive.ph/2026.05.29-114338/https://www.economist.c...

Ever since I consciously read and listened to people talking on tv and radio, so somewhere in the nineties, I heard countless military strategists explain why the war mongers in the USA were stupid to even think about subduing Iran by attacking them. Geography alone makes it impossible.

The current situation is not a consequence of modern warfare. It’s a consequence of the many layers of hubris, stupidity and arrogance uttered by incompetent people who put up a show for a shrinking audience.

The stupidity of the leadership in the USA is perfectly broadcasted in full view, for everyone to see, during Trump cabinet meetings, where he is undeservedly praised by weaker men and women. It shows all the weaknesses of the USA in just 5 minutes of watching that cringefest. You don’t even need spies.

pingou3• 2 months ago

I suspect the plan was (and still is) to weaken authorities in Iran so that the people take over. Or have the Iranian government reach a deal that would be less favorable to them.

A plan with quite long odds you could rightly say, but not as stupid as subduing them by invading them I suppose.

rrr_oh_man• 2 months ago

Who is the people, as opposed to who is in charge now?

jim334428• 2 months ago

US govt would've been propping someone else to take over if they were serious about that plan

fontain• 2 months ago

Trump explicitly stated that was his aim, for the people to rise up after Trump did a little long distance assassination. The plan is far more stupid than subduing Iran by invasion.

"At 2:30 a.m. EST on 28 February, Donald Trump released an eight-minute video statement on Truth Social, saying that the purpose of the US strikes in Iran was effectively[vague] regime change."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war#Hostilities

watwut• 2 months ago

It still sounds like a dumb plan, especially since part of it was the plan to put a hereditary king as new ruler in place - a king that lived outside of Iran the whole time.

And per analysis I heard in French media from Iranian opposition understood the war as a war of destruction, not as a war of liberation. As they continued to be executed daily by the regime.

Meanwhile one of multiple explicit day 1 plans was a plan to negotiate with successor within the regime - recreate the Venezuela situation where you keep the regime, keep its tortures, but put head more willing to give up oil on its head.

spiderfarmer5• 2 months ago

After all this, you still believe there’s a plan? At what age did you give up on Santa Claus?

notaigenerated5• 2 months ago

It would help if the US didn't ignore the actual protests in Iran and haven't let the Iranian regime slaughter the protesters in hundreds or even thousands.

LAC-Tech2• 2 months ago

I put this down to incompetence too. I know this is HN which mostly stakes it's claim on one side of the "culture war", but that is not where I am coming from - incompetence is incompetence, and we see that through the 2024 administration. (And I would argue - probably without much support here - a lot more incompetent than the 2016 administration which was unique in not actually starting new wars).

jim334428• 2 months ago

It's not even a partisan issue because mainstream Democrats support the war too, even though some of them are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They approved the emergency military aid to Israel right before.

jim334428• 2 months ago

I don't think they're this dumb, just bought by Israel. Same with the Iraq war that was obviously bogus.

_bohm4• 2 months ago

Sure, Israel played a hand here, but it’s hard to believe they’re getting exactly what they wanted out of all of this either. Regime change does not seem like it’s coming any time soon. Unless that happens, any reductions in Iran’s capacity will be temporary.

As for the Iraq war, Israel was supportive, but it would be incorrect to say the war was at their behest.

warumdarum2• 2 months ago

Iraq was an attempt to create a democracy on the middle east and it disproved the whole leftist worldview. Not all cultures are compatibel and capable of democracy

accidentallfact3• 2 months ago

From what I've read, Franz Ferdinand was the only one with any say in the matter, who could foresee the result of the war. So there is really nothing new about this.

decimalenough2• 2 months ago

The archduke, the band, or some other soothsayer who shares the name?

rramadass• 2 months ago

If you want to understand this, start with the classic Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47346164

beloch• 2 months ago

"There are other similarities between Ukraine and Iran. Both are wars instigated by the leaders of great powers in the apparent belief of easy victory. Both have developed in ways those leaders did not anticipate into something like a stalemate—stalemates in which, for Russia and America alike, a lack of victory looks increasingly like defeat. Are technological changes making the role of the defender easier? Or systematically encouraging big powers to start wars they cannot win? Or is this merely a case of business as usual—great powers blundering into ill-advised wars that reflect the prevailing technologies of the day?"

------------------

Putin was advised that Russian disinfo had worked and Ukrainians would welcome Russian troops as liberators while Zelensky's government would fold immediately. His generals feared to offer a less rosy assessment because doing so would have been immediately fatal. Trump was advised that invading Iran was a very bad idea[1]. Putin's brutality led to him being misinformed, but Trump ignored good information and made a bad decision.

New technology didn't cause either of these bad decisions. It was old-fashioned arrogance, thuggishness, and stupidity.

As for drone warfare... A real X factor is going to be production capacity.

Ukraine has managed to capture manned Russian positions with only drones. Drone tech evolves so quickly that one side's technological edge can be blunted or even reversed in just a few weeks or months. Stockpiles are not to be relied upon. Being able to out-evolve the enemy is critical, but being able to turn lessons learned into new hardware immediately will likely be a deciding factor in future conflicts.

[1]https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0zrwzr519o

nkrisc2• 2 months ago

It will be interesting (and scary) to see weapons technology developed in near real time for the conflict that is actually happening, as opposed to the one you thought would happen 15 years ago.

nfkhd67• 2 months ago

The universe already created microbes. Check out how fast they can evolve.

The chimp troupe is full of itself. Its intelligence and "innovations" are highly overated. Covid brought the whole world to its knees. No intelligence or drones required.

As Lynn Margulis famously said - we are not the main show.

like_any_other3• 2 months ago

Trump attacked Iran because Israel was going to attack Iran: Rubio says US struck Iran fearing it would retaliate for Israeli attack - https://abcnews.com/Politics/rubio-us-struck-iran-fearing-re...

Part of a long trend: Israeli Operatives Who Aided Harvey Weinstein Collected Information on Former Obama Administration Officials to undermine the Iran Nuclear Deal - https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/israeli-operatives-...

To help make the case on Iran, Graham traveled several times to Israel in recent weeks, meeting with members of the country’s intelligence agency. “They’ll tell me things our own government won’t tell me,” he said. He spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, coaching him on how to lobby the president for action. - https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/lindsey-graham-trump-ira... (https://archive.is/G1Dt0)

Netanyahu started this war by attacking Iran. He assassinated Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, deliberately sabotaging US-Iran nuclear negotiations. - https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1934659864610918435 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Shamkhani#Assassination_at...)

orwin2• 2 months ago

Trump attacked Iran because Israel was going to attack Iran

When Israel attacked Iran in 2025, Iran was very, very clear that they did not consider it an attack from the US and did not retaliate against US assets. The US choose to support israel with intel and weapons, and Iran still didn't strike at US interests. Then the US joined forces with israel to push for bigger concessions from Iran just before the ceasefire (that the US broke 8 month later, once again during peace talks).

So do not act as if Israel pushed the US into this war. This was a political and strategical choice the US made, and you should own it. People who were silent on the 2025 bombardment and are now saying "we shouldn't fight Israel war" are to me hypocrites.

emerongi• 2 months ago

I have it on good authority that Putin woke up, took a big fart (the housemaid was surprised), thought the smell was an Ukrainian attack and decided to retaliate. That's how the war started.

Your claims about Putin are just as good as mine.

risyachka• 2 months ago

Both are wars instigated by the leaders of great powers

having nukes and a lot of empty land does not make russia "great power", and their war results match this.

notaigenerated5• 2 months ago

By your definition, there are no great military powers in the world right now.

lukan4• 2 months ago

"Putin was advised that Russian disinfo had worked and Ukrainians would welcome Russian troops as liberators"

And where does your inside info from the Kremlin and Putin's head is coming from?

Putin was raised in the KGB, I think he knows a bit how to get intel. And with secret war style he was very successful in 2014 seizing the Krim and some areas.

It was likely just overconfidence in the ability of the russian army in a conventional war and underestimating the will of the ukrainians to hold their ground in the beginning of the war.

If that battle in the beginning would have turned out different, Kiew would likely have fallen and then the war would have been largely over in a few days

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport

Not many believed, myself included, that Ukraine was strong enough to hold of the russian army - but they did. And now both sides use Drones heavily.

jemmyw• 2 months ago

Sergei Beseda chief of the FSB "fifth service" was arrested after the start of the war. https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/06/20/no-infighting-here is a story I found around it. I guess we can't be definite, but that journalist in Russia was citing sources saying that the service had essentially embezzled money and made up the data about their resources on the ground in Ukraine, and misrepresented polling data they had that Russia would be welcomed by the general population.

notaigenerated5• 2 months ago

And where does your inside info from the Kremlin and Putin's head is coming from?

It's coming from the fact that troops approaching Kyiv were supplied with 3 day rations and full dress uniforms, ready to hold a parade in Kyiv. It's also coming from US intelligence (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/russia...). And on top of that, russian propaganda literally repeated times and times again that this war will last for 3-4 days.

Putin was raised in the KGB, I think he knows a bit how to get intel

Are you saying he planned for 5 years of war and russian economy being destroyed and also planned for over a million casualties for his army?

underestimating the will of the ukrainians to hold their ground in the beginning of the war

There you go, you just said it yourself. That's the "insight".

sofixa4• 2 months ago

Nope. Even if you don't trust the reporting and information coming out of Russia, it's pretty self-evident that Russia thought they won't have much of a war to fight. Half of the attack on Kyiv was done by Rosgvardia (riot police), with parade gear and musical instruments in their logistics.

You don't do that if you think you'll have a quick victory, you do that if you're certain there will barely be any war.

Forgeties793• 2 months ago

and Ukrainians would welcome Russian troops as liberators while Zelensky's government would fold immediately.

It is wild how many conflicts involve this blunder. I can’t think of a single major example where the advisors were right. It’s such a great example of believing your own propaganda and/or being too afraid to actually look under the hood of your claims to your leader.

Autocracy tends to breed lying yes men near the top I suppose.

matusp• 2 months ago

There are many ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine that really welcomed the Russian army. The problem is that the rest of the country is not that happy about this.

notaigenerated5• 2 months ago

Learning from the failures and being able to turn lessons into hardware/weapons modifications has *always* been a deciding factor in any conflict.

What's changed is this ability is now easily accessible.

Arodex2• 2 months ago

Their use accounts for a significant fraction of the 1.1m-1.4m Russian soldiers whom The Economist estimates to have been killed or wounded in the war: one in 25 of the country’s men under 50. Ukraine’s losses are lower, in part because it is costlier to attack than to defend, in part because Ukraine has gone further in substituting robots for humans. Ukraine’s losses equate to one in 16 of its pre-war 18- to 49-year-olds.

... Isn't 1 out of 16 higher than 1 out of 25? (May be still lower in absolute numbers due to the population size difference, but the original text is unclear)

Forgeties793• 2 months ago

They have ~1/5th the population of Russia. They shouldn’t use per capita in this context it’s a bit confusing.

echoangle• 2 months ago

The loss rate is higher but the losses are lower, because Ukraine has about 1/4 of the people Russia has.

Arodex2• 2 months ago

William Owen, the editor of Military Strategy Magazine and an adviser to the British army, says that better trained and equipped armies would not be tied down in the first place. If first-rate Israeli kit and training were used against an opponent of the standard of Russia or Ukraine, he argues, $3,000 FPVs would be “mostly, if not completely, irrelevant”.

Oh how much I wish Mr Owen would be sent to the front lines to see for himself how irrelevant he can make 3000$ drones.

KaiserPro2• 2 months ago

So hes partly right.

The reason why drones are _so_ devastating in ukraine is that there is no air superiority.

that standard "modern" way is bomb the living shit out of anything armoured, and then push forward with your own armour. Hence why ukraine needed so many javelins to stop armour and helicopters.

Its also why despite the sheer amount of stuff that Iran et al threw at Isreal, it hardly got through. unlike Oman or UAE. (However thats not actually apples to apples.)

What isn't said is guerilla warefare with drones is devastating.

notaigenerated5• 2 months ago

"Air superiority" wouldn't do anything in 2026 unless you're fighting an African tribe with ak47s in a fullscale war and even then your enemies would probably supply the tribe with some air defense systems that would cause trouble for the pilots.

rainworld• 2 months ago

the standard "modern" war

For the US and friends is terrorizing the enemy, his forces, his civilian population into giving up. Is feeding a civil war until he crumbles.

bomb the living shit out of anything armoured

That’s absolutely not what’s missing in Ukraine.

and then push forward with your own armour.

And then, as soon as you assemble let alone move in the open, you get wrecked. No one has an easy answer for this. The answer is what we’re already seeing: attrition.

Iran

Iran prevailed in an highly asymmetric conflict by successfully attriting US/Israeli air defenses and surviving their attacks, depleting their arsenals. Which was their goal, not “levelling Tel Aviv”—however much they would have liked to.

Finally, what Israel is facing in Lebanon right now is but a pale imitation of what’s going on in Ukraine. But bad enough. One can imagine what just a couple days of Ukraine-level losses would do to them, militarily and politically. No matter their air superiority.

iammjm• 2 months ago

What "kit and training" is he even referring to? What let's you detect and destroy multiple small moving targets coming at you at various and unpredictable angles and speeds?? Oh and it also needs to be cheap and light-weight enough so you can equip infantry with it. AFAIK, currently there are no such systems. Unless he means shotguns and single-use net launchers, which are a last-resort thing you don't really want to rely on. And it's not for the lack of trying; it's just a very difficult problem to solve. And the problem will only get worse as drones are becoming quicker and gain more range. Already there are quadcopter drones reaching speeds of 500km/h; quadcopters with ranges of 50km+; quadcopters deployed from balloons at heights of 5km; remotely-deployed quadcopters from naval and ground drones ... and that's just one category of drones, not to mention wing-type mid-range drones now wrecking havoc at russian rear logistics at 100km+ ranges and long-range drone destroying infrastructure at 500km+ ranges. That's why the only ways of survival are concealment, digging deep underground, and turning anything that moves above ground into mad-max type porcupine monstrosities meant to absorb those fpv-drones, with varying success.

The dangerous delusion of modern warfare

Related Stories