Those costs are very relevant in war. If it’s cheaper to attack than to defend, then an attacker can just keep attacking until the defender is no longer able to defend.
If you value human life to the point that nothing but the best will do, you’d have tanks helping every child cross the street. Valuing human life means efficiently using resources to defend it.
Even if defense costs more, if you are a larger economy you can still outlast the attacker and win. And economy isn’t even the right measure as being attacked tends to create a willingness to defend at higher costs than an attacker is willing to spend even if their economy is on paper bigger.
Which is to say the most important question for the defender is the value of what you defend, followed by the likeliness of an attack. Only after knowing those numbers can you ask how much you are willing to spend on defense and if it isn’t worth it.
Even if defense costs more, if you are a larger economy you can still outlast the attacker and win.
Wow!
You realize that behind these drones, you have the Chinese economy? Is the Polish economy larger?!?
The point I’m making is exactly the reason why Ukraine was able to survive until now. They have been investing heavily in cheap, large scale technologies, while Russia started a war “old school”.
Now this is changing, with Russia relying more and more on drones.
You realize that behind these drones, you have the Chinese economy? Is the Polish economy larger?!?
In this case, the Polish and Netherlands armies - so probably closer to be the EU or NATO.
The point I’m making is exactly the reason why Ukraine was able to survive until now. They have been investing heavily in cheap, large scale technologies, while Russia started a war “old school”.
I’m sure Ukraine would have had lost much more by now, if they didn’t get a lot of help from the outside. However, I don’t know how much they have spent compared to how much the help they have been given.
Those costs are very relevant in war. If it’s cheaper to attack than to defend, then an attacker can just keep attacking until the defender is no longer able to defend.
If you value human life to the point that nothing but the best will do, you’d have tanks helping every child cross the street. Valuing human life means efficiently using resources to defend it.
Even if defense costs more, if you are a larger economy you can still outlast the attacker and win. And economy isn’t even the right measure as being attacked tends to create a willingness to defend at higher costs than an attacker is willing to spend even if their economy is on paper bigger.
Which is to say the most important question for the defender is the value of what you defend, followed by the likeliness of an attack. Only after knowing those numbers can you ask how much you are willing to spend on defense and if it isn’t worth it.
You make assumptions that are pretty wild…
Wow!
You realize that behind these drones, you have the Chinese economy? Is the Polish economy larger?!?
The point I’m making is exactly the reason why Ukraine was able to survive until now. They have been investing heavily in cheap, large scale technologies, while Russia started a war “old school”.
Now this is changing, with Russia relying more and more on drones.
In this case, the Polish and Netherlands armies - so probably closer to be the EU or NATO.
I’m sure Ukraine would have had lost much more by now, if they didn’t get a lot of help from the outside. However, I don’t know how much they have spent compared to how much the help they have been given.