Cheaper to attack or defend in war...

[5fish]

It is cheaper to attack or defend in war...

Defense vs Offense

The Losing 2:1 Ratio (or Worse)

defenseacquisition.substack.com

This 2:1 ratio of defense to offense played out again over the weekend as Iran unleashed a combination of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles at Israeli territory. Thankfully, the attack was mostly thwarted through the combined efforts of multiple countries and multiple defensive systems.

The best defense is a good offense - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Generally, the idea is that proactivity (a strong offensive action) instead of a passive attitude will preoccupy the opposition and ultimately hinder its ability to mount an opposing counterattack, leading to a strategic advantage.

 

[5fish]

• The Philippine-American War (1899-1902) cost the U.S. government approximately $400 million.
• Total U.S. war expenditures up to the end of 1943 were approximately $296 billion (current dollars at the time).

The Civil War's estimated total cost was approximately $6.64 billion, with the Union spending about $3.36 billion and the Confederacy about $3.28 billion. Another estimate places the Union's direct cost at over $3 billion, with the U.S. government's debt rising to $2.6 billion by 1865.

The United States' direct cost for World War I was around $22.6 billion to $32 billion, depending on the source and calculation method. Some sources provide a figure of $32 billion, which equates to about 52% of the U.S. gross national product at the time, while others state a figure closer to $22.6 billion for war spending

• $22.6 billion: This figure specifically accounts for the cost of the U.S. war effort between 1914 and 1918, as cited by sources like Spartacus Educational and historyandheritage.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au.
• $32 billion: This figure is often cited as the total cost of the war to the United States, representing a larger portion of the national economy, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
• $334 billion: When adjusted for inflation, the cost rises significantly to approximately $334 billion, as calculated by Norwich University

 

[5fish]

- YouTube

Bekijk je favoriete video's, luister naar de muziek die je leuk vindt, upload originele content en deel alles met vrienden, familie en anderen op YouTube.

m.youtube.com

 

[TomEvans]

It depends on the circumstances. The South had an effective policy of aggressive defense by raiding Union forces across enemy lines, and capturing supplies; but Lee's blunder of saying "secession is revolution," along with the overconfidence of his home-field offensives, drove him to economic suicide like in Washington or at Gettysburg, completely bungling the national defense by claiming it was REBELLION (which he had no means to win).

 

[5fish]

Lee's blunder of saying "secession is revolution,"

The truth is blunder...

drove him to economic suicide

Lee had little to do with the war's economics, but all he needed to do was to fight to a stalemate because the North was tired of the war and, in time, would have sued for peace. He fought to destroy the Union army, squandering valuable resources...

 

[5fish]

The Cost!

The Butcher’s Bill: Was Grant or Lee Responsible for More Deaths in the Civil War?

Ulysses S. Grant is often referred to as a ‘butcher,’ but does Robert E. Lee actually deserve that title?

www.historynet.com

Lee’s strategic offensive into Maryland in 1862 resulted in a strategic defeat, irreplaceable losses in manpower and leadership, Lincoln’s issuing his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, and the end of hopes for European intervention on behalf of the South. Likewise, his 1863 strategic offensive into Pennsylvania resulted in 28,000 casualties, a major demoralizing defeat and the virtual end of economic support from abroad. In summary, Lee’s overly aggressive strategy and tactics in 1862 and 1863 seriously weakened his army and, together with his undermining of Confederate efforts in other theaters, doomed the Confederacy.

Given the scope of his achievements in three theaters, Grant’s overall casualty numbers are amazingly low. Given the finality of his defeat in his single theater, Lee’s casualty figures are surprisingly high, and they show how he drained the entire Confederacy of its limited manpower. If Grant had fought less aggressively, the Union would not have won. If Lee had fought less aggressively, the Confederacy’s prospects for success would have been enhanced.

Why Grant Won and Lee Lost – The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable

www.clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com

Finally, the respective casualty figures of these two generals contradict the myth about who, if either, was a butcher. For the entire war, Grant’s soldiers incurred about 154,000 casualties (killed, wounded, missing, captured) while imposing about 191,000 casualties on their foes. In all their battles, Lee’s troops incurred about 209,000 casualties while imposing about 240,000 casualties on their opponents. Thus, both generals armies imposed about 40,000 more casualties than they incurred. However, Lee, who should have been fighting defensively and preserving his precious manpower, instead exceeded Grant’s understandable aggressiveness and incurred 55,000 more casualties than Grant.

In summary, Grant’s aggressiveness in three theaters was consistent with the Union need for victory and resulted in success at a militarily reasonable cost while Lee’s aggressiveness in a single theater was inconsistent with the strategic and tactical defensiveness the Confederates needed to preserve their limited manpower and force the stalemate that was sufficient for Southern victory.

 

[TomEvans]

The truth is blunder...



Lee had little to do with the war's economics, but all he needed to do was to fight to a stalemate because the North was tired of the war and, in time, would have sued for peace. He fought to destroy the Union army, squandering valuable resources...

As I've been saying all along; he fought a revolution, which he lacked the means to win; rather than a NATIONAL DEFENSE, which was difficult to LOSE.

Trying to invade Washington and fight uphill battles at Gettysburg, simply won the "Jubilation T. Cornpone" award for military stupidity and desperation-campaigns.

So it came down to a simple fact of every battle being over before it begins: and Lee BEGAN it in January of 1861, by claiming that "secession is nothing but revolution," without checking his facts first... particularly in response to South Carolina's original proclamation that the states were individually sovereign, on December 20 of 1860.

 

[5fish]

South Carolina's original proclamation

Read them...

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.

www.battlefields.org

 

[TomEvans]

Read them...

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.

www.battlefields.org

Try reading the 1783 Treaty of Paris... and you CAN'T factually say that "the Constitution changed it," since the US government IGNORES it entirely.

 

[5fish]

The Cost of war has shifted onto the defender... advantage to the Attacker...


Yes, recent incidents involving Dutch forces intercepting drones have highlighted a significant cost asymmetry, leading to the widely discussed military analysis that the economic burden of modern warfare is shifting to the defender. The attacker can achieve strategic effects by forcing the defender to expend highly expensive interceptors on cheap, expendable drones.

Dutch Interceptions and the Cost Asymmetry

• F-35 Fighter Jets: In September 2025, Royal Netherlands Air Force F-35s, operating within Polish airspace under a NATO air policing mission, shot down several Russian drones. This marked the first air-to-air kill for a European F-35 operator.
• The Cost Paradox: While a tactical success, the engagement exposed an economic vulnerability. The Russian drones (likely Shahed-136/Geran-2 variants) are estimated to cost as little as $10,000 to $50,000 each, whereas the AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles used by the F-35s can cost anywhere from $400,000 to $2.8 million per shot.
• Naval Engagements: Separately, during a January 2026 exercise, a Dutch Navy warship, the Evertsen, successfully destroyed five aerial targets and two surface drone vessels, demonstrating readiness against swarm attacks.

The Shifting Cost of War
The primary takeaway from these and other similar engagements (such as in the Red Sea and Ukraine) is that the cost-exchange ratio heavily favors the attacker.

• Attacker's Advantage: Attackers can launch mass-produced, low-cost drones in swarms to overwhelm or simply exhaust a defender's supply of expensive, sophisticated interceptors. The low cost of entry for these systems allows for a high volume of attacks.
• Defender's Dilemma: Defenders face an "unsustainable economics" problem if they rely solely on multi-million dollar assets and missiles to counter every low-cost threat. Even if every drone is intercepted, the defender is spending vastly more money on each engagement.
• Strategic Implications: The goal of the attacker is not necessarily a successful strike every time, but to impose disproportionate economic costs and strain the defender's production lines and budget over the long term.

Military analysts emphasize the need for NATO and other forces to innovate and develop more cost-effective counter-drone solutions, such as cheaper kinetic interceptors or directed energy weapons, to restore a sustainable cost-exchange ratio.

A video that looks at the cost...

 

[5fish]

Air Defense tested....

Russia's war in Ukraine has made its formidable air defenses an even tougher challenge for NATO, airpower analyst warns

Russia still has many air defenses, and experience it gained against Ukraine actually makes them a bigger threat to NATO aircraft than before 2022.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[5fish]

Battlefield wounded evacs may become a thing of the past with drones prowling around...

Drone warfare requires new age of battlefield medicine

Opinion: "We should not wait for American soldiers to be engaged in a drone war to modernize how we train, equip and support those tasked with saving them."

www.militarytimes.com