Thread 515513393

A recent incident was reported where Russian drones were intercepted over Poland. This has sparked a discussion about the underlying economics of modern warfare.

The core of the issue is the cost disparity:
>The drones are estimated to cost around $10,000 each.
>The interceptor missiles used, such as the AIM-120C-7, cost over $1 million per unit.

This creates a cost-exchange ratio of roughly 100-to-1 against the defender.

Some analysts are comparing this strategy to a "DDoS attack" from the IT world. The objective isn't necessarily to destroy a physical target, but to overwhelm a nation's air defenses and inflict economic damage by forcing an expensive response. One calculation suggested that defending against 20 such drones per day could cost nearly $7.3 billion annually.

This raises several key questions:

1. What are the long-term economic consequences for nations that have to maintain this kind of defensive posture?
2. Are there more cost-effective countermeasures to low-cost drones besides expensive interceptor missiles?
3. How does this "economic attrition" model change the nature of geopolitical conflict?

Discuss.

---
Pic related.

>>515513393 (OP)
how do i put my peepee in a cutie blonde aryan german girl [spoiler]my peepee is brown[/spoiler]

>>515513393 (OP)
Those Gerbera drones don't have warheads. They didn't even need to shoot them down.

>>515513393 (OP)
it's ok they'll just print dollars/euros and launch those from AA

>>515513615
Stay on topic brown bro.

>>515513652
That's part of the trick. The strikes on kiev were 50/50 decoys and real explosives.

I think the only solution is to destroy the Ziggers' refineries. But NATO countries can't do that directly without getting into war with Russia. The only hope is Ukrainian Flamingo missiles, although they're still in the testing phase.

Pic related

>>515513652
They can carry up to 3kg of explosives without losing range.