Chanting, “We don’t care, we don’t care, let the world war ignite”

Decades are going to happen soon.

  • Forester@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Ah yes, because when we invent a slap chop missile to minimize collateral damage, that’s a bad thing. Obviously it’s less efficient. Obviously it cost 200 times as much as an artillery shell. Clearly the logistically superior tactic is to fire a 120 mm artillery shell into a civilian crowded area and obliterate the entire wedding instead of just one car. Oh right, that’s what you don’t like…

    • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      Obviously it’s less efficient. Obviously it cost 200 times as much as an artillery shell.

      And that’s why it’s prioritized over artillery shell production, this way the MIC gets to launder more money. You’re almost self-aware.

      • Forester@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It’s almost like I realize that I live in a for-profit driven country. But again, at the same time is almost like our specialized hyper expensive tools actually get the job done versus praying that the artillery round connects with the right target over the horizon.

        If it cost 200 times more for a single missile but you need to fire 200 artillery shells to accomplish the same result. Well, what’s cheaper?. The missile can be fired by one dude. Several thousand miles away sitting on his ass in a cargo container. The towed artillery will require minimum five guns and 10 men per gun.

        You need to understand we live in a disposable razor society. We don’t care about straight razor economics.

        • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          If it cost 200 times more for a single missile but you need to fire 200 artillery shells to accomplish the same result. Well, what’s cheaper?

          Shells are way easier to produce than guided missiles, this comparison is asinine. Why are you comparing just the “price” of the two options? Have you also considered that artillery is not just for destroying things but also to deny control of an area or send support fire to a position? Good luck doing that with one fucking missile, I’ll take the 200 shells.

          Liberals shouldn’t speak about things they don’t know at all, they shouldn’t speak ever

          • Forester@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I love how you think I’m a liberal. I’m not a conservative either. If field artillery was as useful as you claim, then Russia wouldn’t be doing so poorly. There is a reason that we don’t use carpet bombing anymore and moved to precision guided munitions.

            It wasn’t the price. It was the effectivity rate.

            • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              10 months ago

              If field artillery was as useful as you claim, then Russia wouldn’t be doing so poorly.

              Russia is only doing poorly in your cope fantasies, Russia won the war.

              The vast majority of casualties in this war (just like in WW1) have been due to artillery.

              There is a reason that we don’t use carpet bombing anymore

              But you literally do.

              moved to precision guided munitions

              This never happened, it’s just propaganda to pretend that America’s wars are “more humane”.