- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- hackernews@derp.foo
So make a $200 tank and defeat that $400 drone.
The tank would have to cost $0.08 to have the same effect.
If my math is right.
400÷2,000,000x100= 0.02%
0.02% of 400= 0.08
Yep, your math is correct!
As an American, fucking good.
I know this is a horrendously unpopular belief in the selfish, sociopathic civilization we’ve made, where we’re comfortable starving our own citizens for not being good enough capital batteries, but I don’t equate amassing the most capital as making you the most right or most good in a conflict.
I in fact feel less safe that the biggest guns against humanity’s heads are controlled by the wealthiest, most sociopathic human nations.
Capitalists are very clear about how little human life means to them in the face of new profit opportunities.
It’s a small blessing that throwing endless money at war doesn’t necessarily decide every battle.
The United States was already designing military systems designed to prevent drone attacks. We expected those types of attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria but it did not occur.
Let’s be honest here, what was the tank wearing? /s
Not enough ERA, apparently.
Good one.
Is wasn’t wearing the right hat!
Fedoras are better than derby’s, any Redditor will tell you.
Good for Ukraine. Of course, most of those $2M tanks have been rusting away for years. Russia’s army was in mothballs before this.