> they have to keep the aircraft carriers hundreds of miles off shore

Drones + cheap antidrones + aircraft carriers + stealth aircraft looks like a solid high/low optimum. Anyone pitching an only-high or only-low strategy is leaving chips on the table.

▲

ohnei 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not familiar with a stealth meant for even when you have to park it sometimes. If anyone has a great drone dominance then all your anti drone should go into drone related infrastructure. If someone has the corresponding high dominance then you can wait until nature runs out of resources for maintaining the absurd.

The US is a strategy of failure since Vietnam because it is profitable to war hawk supporters to lose every war in the economics and funnel the money back into more strategic losers.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> If anyone has a great drone dominance then all your anti drone should go into drone related infrastructure If your opponent has drone dominance, you neutralize that advantage with anti-drone kit and then build your own advantage. Part of that will be drones. But part will be heavier, more sophisticated platforms. (Which will eventually pilot themselves, but aren’t drones since they aren’t cheap.) You can’t win a war only playing defense. > someone has the corresponding high dominance then you can wait until nature runs out of resources for maintaining the absurd Their high technology destroys your industry while you wait. This is strategy as old as the Bronze Age.