Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-26

[Sheilbh]

Mainstream parties still mostly have a commitment to objective factual truth in describing the world and to policy solutions that actually could work.  That puts them at a big disadvantage as against the "analysis and theory" of the extremes, which have no such pesky constraints.

I don't think that's at all true. I mean whether it's FDR, or Reagan, or Thatcher, or for that matter Blair or Clinton - they had an analysis and a theory. I don't think it's adequate for the moment the US is in but I think the closest to that within the mainstream at the minute is probably the Abundance guys which is, I think, at least a start.

I think we are in one of those points, like the 30s and the 70s, were things are shifting.

How would someone in the 1930s have imagined drone warfare taking out economic infrastructure targets hundreds of miles behind enemy lines.

"The bomber will always get through"?

[The Minsky Moment]

How would someone in the 1930s have imagined drone warfare taking out economic infrastructure targets hundreds of miles behind enemy lines.

"The drone will always get through"   (?)

[Valmy]

I was about to say...people in the 30s suspected something like that. They just thought it would be bombers.

[crazy canuck]

How would someone in the 1930s have imagined drone warfare taking out economic infrastructure targets hundreds of miles behind enemy lines.

"The drone will always get through"   (?)

No, to damage the enemy at range required costly investment in the manufacture and development of bombers.  The opposite of what is occurring now.

[crazy canuck]

I was about to say...people in the 30s suspected something like that. They just thought it would be bombers.

They just thought it would require something completely different.  Yeah, sort of the point.

[Valmy]

I was about to say...people in the 30s suspected something like that. They just thought it would be bombers.

They just thought it would require something completely different.  Yeah, sort of the point.

Something different sure.

Though the idea of remote controlled flying bombs was certainly a concept back then. The Germans experimented with them during the war. So not exactly a huge stretch. The basic concept of winning via bombing while the front line is static is similar.

[Tamas]

How would someone in the 1930s have imagined drone warfare taking out economic infrastructure targets hundreds of miles behind enemy lines.

"The drone will always get through"   (?)

No, to damage the enemy at range required costly investment in the manufacture and development of bombers.  The opposite of what is occurring now.

You are ignoring the main point (which has merit as an interesting trivia) and instead get hung up on minor details and semantics.

On this forum of all places.

[Sheilbh]

I looked that line up. I knew it was Baldwin - but I didn't realise it was from 1932 and in context is far more interesting and sort of extraordinary than I'd expected:

I think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through. The only defence is in offence, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves... If the conscience of the young men should ever come to feel, with regard to this one instrument [bombing] that it is evil and should go, the thing will be done; but if they do not feel like that – well, as I say, the future is in their hands. But when the next war comes, and European civilisation is wiped out, as it will be, and by no force more than that force, then do not let them lay blame on the old men. Let them remember that they, principally, or they alone, are responsible for the terrors that have fallen upon the earth.

I hadn't realised it was basically a bit like the argument against nukes.

[crazy canuck]

I was about to say...people in the 30s suspected something like that. They just thought it would be bombers.

They just thought it would require something completely different.  Yeah, sort of the point.

Something different sure.

Though the idea of remote controlled flying bombs was certainly a concept back then. The Germans experimented with them during the war. So not exactly a huge stretch. The basic concept of winning via bombing while the front line is static is similar.

"During the war" not the claim Jos was making

[crazy canuck]

How would someone in the 1930s have imagined drone warfare taking out economic infrastructure targets hundreds of miles behind enemy lines.

"The drone will always get through"   (?)

No, to damage the enemy at range required costly investment in the manufacture and development of bombers.  The opposite of what is occurring now.

You are ignoring the main point (which has merit as an interesting trivia) and instead get hung up on minor details and semantics.

On this forum of all places.

I am addressing the main point, and you are handwaving away the criticism.

[Josquius]

Obviously it wouldn't be an exact comparison. It should go without saying that they were imagining manned flying machines rather than drones.
But the end result does seem quite similar.
The main difference I see is not being pedantic over drones but that even Russia is tiptoing away somewhat from a full "the bomber will always get through approach." Not quite levelling cities completely but doing it in a more limited way, seeking optimal terror and despair rather than death itself.

[The Minsky Moment]

No, to damage the enemy at range required costly investment in the manufacture and development of bombers.  The opposite of what is occurring now.

Sort of?

Germany had over 1500 bombers when the war started. By '42 Britain was producing about 5000 bombers a year.  US produced about 50,000 heavy and medium bombers during the war.

The airframes weren't that hard to build.  Finding good pilots and crew is another story; drones have an advantage there.

[Josquius]

One thing where I see parallels with pre war thinking about bombers and drones is that so much of this Sci fi didn't think of bombers as these fragile things going on sortees with high casualty rates.
There was a lot more this idea of air battleships that just hovered over cities and destroyed at will (going back before the 30s there, I'm thinking of jules verne in particular maybe). Pilots as these untouchable uber men in the air above.

Which you might say ah but that's even more the complete opposite of drones....

But is it?
Conceptually in the tools it may be.
But the end result whether it's a big air battleship you can't shoot down or a constant never ending swarm of drones... Same same.

[viper37]

How would someone in the 1930s have imagined drone warfare taking out economic infrastructure targets hundreds of miles behind enemy lines.

"The drone will always get through"  (?)

No, to damage the enemy at range required costly investment in the manufacture and development of bombers.  The opposite of what is occurring now.

That's still 30-40 million US$ per unit, plus the payload and the support infrastructure.

But they don't have the same purpose anymore.  Drones are more like dive bombers of WWII.

[Valmy]

But the end result whether it's a big air battleship you can't shoot down or a constant never ending swarm of drones... Same same.

Heh. Kind of reminds me of the Incan Torpedo Boat thread.