Hacker News

You also have to ponder how it looks when you remove the Chinese supply chain for all those commodity parts. Which will almost certainly be the case if we decide to punch that dance card.

Having a boundless cornucopia of servos and radios will affect the shape of your logistics/maintenance/fabrication complex.

That's not just a "Ukraine Problem" either.

this strategy worked to keep Ukraine alive, by enabling them to throw literally anything and everything they could obtain into the fight. And the system enabled rapid experimentation and evolution of what works. Also they didn't have enough of anything to equip all units equally or fully, so a market-like system of was also a way to triage short supply.

However the logistics costs of fragmentation are very real (relevant to the supply chain theme of this story). And now that Ukraine is producing the better part of 10 millions(!) of drones per year, they are shifting towards more standardized drone models to simplify logistics, achieve more economies of scale and also now to have the capacity to keep units equipped more evenly and reliably.

Procurement innovation wins the war.

I hadn't heard this before. Do you have a good article on it? I'd be curious to learn more

Tooth to tail is crappy PC/corporate-approved rename. The concept used to have a bunch of arrow and spear related names and a bunch of informal phallic counterparts all of which are better suited to the fundamental workflow of mechanized offensive operations.

Or maybe "dentures"?

Do you have any more information about this?

They argue for both no? Increased armour for logistics, but also the notion that yes, if one good hit destroys your whole stockpile then you would need a 100% success rate defense mechanism which is impossible when you can be overwhelmed by the number of drones/missiles seen in modern warfare.

Knowing logistics is important =/= able to adapt logistics to modern environment. Last 40-50 years US adversaries couldn't really contest/degrade US logistics at scale. Article is suggesting with new tech, they probably could, and hence may have to redo the entire system for distributed survivability / operate under chaos. Aka 60/70% of the force (the tail) is going to have to change the way they do things. It's hard to make 60/70% of org change, especially the boring bureaucratic/logistics part built around predictability, who are going to want to stay predictable and insist everything is fine with these minor changes, until its not.

Ukraine is deploying AI enabled drones that require no fiber optic wires and no electronic tethering. They patrol autonomously and identify targets; a human authorizes the strike and they take out targets by themselves. This is the holy grail of modern warfare; destroy the enemy’s rear staging and logistics. If they don’t have fuel or ammo, they are a defenseless sitting target.

>who is this written for, and what do they want to see happen

It's at wespoint.edu. The US military has a long and proud history of really good thinkers writing insightful and important pieces the government then ignores. My outsider impression has always been there was a freedom of ideas there. Don't get used to it though as Pete Hesgeth is fixing it fast as he can.

It was written by a major trying to convince both those in charge of military doctrine (army leadership) and military budget (civilian leadership). Both of which can be obstinate and counterproductive. Army brass sometimes prioritize their careers over everything else. Civilian leadership sometimes prioritize their careers over everything else.

Foreign military budget numbers are largely fake and can't be attempted to be believed. China's government spending isn't publicly released and can't be independently verified. A lot of what the US considers to be military spending falls into separate categories in China. At least on a purchasing power parity basis their actual spending is probably close to ours now, maybe even higher.

> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

To make certain people money by shorting the oil market. There is a reason why these "peace" deals are always announced on Fridays.

That’s exactly why it could continue indefinitely. A war with no goal can’t be won. Nor can it be abandoned without bruising powerful egos.

Once you've lost something (I think sooner or later, Iran will succeed in sinking a big US ship) then even if you cant win, you also cant leave else its an admission of defeat - so it drags on and on and on.

> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

kneecaping china by cutting off a huge source of its oil imports. Russia will not be able to make up the difference.

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...

There hasn't been a clear goal for an American war since the first Gulf War.

Well at this point the goal is for Iran to stop randomly blowing up innocent cargo ships. Or firing missiles at airports and cities in retaliation.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-war-live-us-says-iranian-...

> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

Distract from the Epstein files. If you think anything else you:

    1 - Haven't been paying attention since 2008.

    2 - Are giving the administration way too much undeserved credit.

This is not a very charitable explanation, it takes politicians at their word during a war. (One should not do that, and you can refer to Putin’s language at 2022 as a parallel example to Trump’s)

The initial US goals clearly were: 1. Regime change 2. Denial is of nuclear weapons

It’s also clear these goals were not achieved. So the US changed tactics and goals. (Same as Russia no longer plans on capturing Kiev it seems)

Most likely the US is stalling for time due to oil markets and has the same intentions as before, limited only by current capability.

> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

It varies. Which is the problem.

I can think of a few:

1) Severely kneecap the Iranians' nuclear ambitions. This one might actually be working to an extent.

2) Severely kneecap the Iranians' military ambitions in the Middle East as a whole, particularly with respect to Israel. This remains unknown. Their neighbors seem content to give them a pass for launching missiles into their infrastructure, possibly on the grounds of shared religion. Maybe they'll get tired of it.

3) Cause regime change in Iran. Not happening now. Might not happen in the foreseeable future.

> What's the goal of the US/Iran war?

What's the goal?! The US/Iran war has a ton of goals! Every day a new goal, each as improbable as the last.

The Trump administration forgot all of the lessons of Vietnam.

The goal is a very simple one: make Trump look good. It wouldn't be the first war in history to be driven by pure vanity of an absolute ruler.

It’s an odd declaration and maybe based on Rus/Ukraine. But Ukraine is doing better now than in the first week of the “Special Military Operation” due to having a lot of rich allies who have (in fits and starts) given them a lot of money and gear, and due to a Russia which has stretched its military and economy to the breaking point.

By contrast, Iran’s only allies are its terrorist affiliates in Lebanon, Gaza, and the Houthis. Those guys can’t do much to help. China and Russia (see above though) are willing to do business with them but don’t really give a crap about Iran surviving.

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. Iran though will not be better off for it, I’m pretty confident. (Other than their surviving religious fanatics will be even more suicidally devout.)

They'll be getting the Hormuz toll money.

> History reveals that every war is won by the nation with superior industrial capacity.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–2021)

You’d be pretty hard pressed to refer the victor of any of these wars as having “superior industrial capacity” compared to their opponents.

Is this some kind of subtle gag?

He learnt the hard way (as did all those who followed him into Russia)

It would be decentralized if the same things were being built in different places. The way US government manufacturing is set up is more like taking all your organs out, sticking each of them in a separate room, and piping the blood back and forth. Every item has a mile-long supply chain and attacking any part of it shuts the whole thing down.

sorry, but the European defence is more decentralised.

They are largely congressional jobs programs, not traditional business investments

People were starting to think that way at the "end of history" period between the Cold War and 9/11. At that time the major powers were not involved in wars, and it was believed that regional ones could be "solved" like Yugoslavia.

9/11 was a huge success for Bin Laden's goal of restarting a forever war, though.

Yes, I am. That requires a total reassesment of who the real enemy is, though (hint: psychopaths at power).

There’s nothing peculiar about the US, every country or even tribe has fought many wars.

My point is that war is the worst thing that humans can engage in, and that the prevailing sentiment is that constant war is an immutable status-quo, and hence it's okay, there's nothing we can do except downvoting those fucking negativists.

There is no "maybe", it is at least largely AI-generated though I'm sure there's a human involved in building the perspective. Run it through any checker you can find, the outcome is without doubt.

I don't think I've made a similar comment elsewhere on Hacker News, reddit, etc., (nor do I plan to make a habit of it) but this one stuck out to me. I know this because I did read it just as I've read previous posts such as these on West Point through the years. This just isn't how things used to be written. It's a little more ambiguous out in the wild on any given site/blog/etc.

> The only things we increase are mistrust and frustration

Mistrust of what? The human voice behind this thought? Yes, I think that mistrust is valid and earned. Nevertheless, I admit the topic seems pertinent and the argument has merit.