The Opportunity Costs of Offensive War

They Used To Be High

One of the best ways to think about decision-making is by calculating the costs and opportunity costs. It helps you sort through strategy. It forces a bit of discipline into your thinking because you have to put numbers into ideas and feelings. It’s a basic piece of economics. It works if you use positive economics but doesn’t if you use normative economics. Most people don’t look at opportunity costs the correct way because they use normative economics. That’s how you get decisions not to clear brush because of global warming in California.

I listened to Marc Andreessen’s interview with the Hoover Institution. It’s worth your time. One subject they talk about is drones. Drones started out as a game. Fun to fly. Businesses have adopted them for different projects. But, as we have seen in Ukraine, drones can be a highly effective offensive weapon on the battlefield.

I think running down the rabbit hole of drones, robots, autonomous vehicles, and war is worth your time. I seriously doubt if Senator Virtue Signal (Hard lefty Tammy Duckworth) has seriously considered it. She’s worried about breastfeeding on the battlefield.

But, a war for humans gets hyper-scary when you think about those things. All of a sudden, the sci-fi movies of the 90s become real. Watch The Terminator, Minority Report, and other 90s sci-fi flicks for a taste and to lubricate your imagination.

Andreessen asks the question, what does a battleship do when 1000 armed drones attack at sea?

What happens when POW camps are all run using robots, AI, cameras, and algorithms?

Imagine being in a foxhole and autonomous tanks, autonomous drones, and armed robot infantry attack you. How do you stop it when there are thousands of them? Imagine if the Nazis had that at a place like Bastogne.

More importantly, several pieces of the puzzle stop countries from attacking other countries. China is rumored to be planning an attack on Taiwan. What’s stopping them today? Amphibious landing for sure. They are difficult to pull off. But what if you did it with self-driving boats, robots, and drones? No people.

World opinion, banks, and financial markets offer some deterrence. The threat of another country retaliating is a deterrent.

But, the largest deterrent and the highest opportunity cost is human life. Even butchers like Putin have a breaking point when it comes to losing human lives. Internal opinions can topple him if it gets too bad.

What happens to the costs/opportunity costs when you minimize the potential human losses on your side to almost nil?

This is why it is job number one to win the tech race on both Earth and in space. The next war is going to be fought in outer space as well as on Earth. The US cannot finish in second place when it comes to this arms race. Finishing second means losing.

I didn’t hear one question from any Senator about that when the presumptive Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth testified.

California politicians were ignorant and thought they could defy nature. Are Washington politicians any different when it comes to defense and thinking about the future?

What’s worse to lose, your home in a fire that could have been prevented or your freedom in a war that could have been prevented?