A former Army Ranger who fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine said the fighting in the Eastern European country was much worse than that in those other countries. David Bramlette told The Daily Beast that he had air support, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance when he was in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The worst day in Afghanistan and Iraq is a great day in Ukraine," he said.

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Because there were no wars with extensive trench warfare after WW2. It was always insurgents vs regular military, or insurgents vs other insurgents. Now there is regular military on both sides, and they had 1.5 years to dig fortifications and cover every flat piece of land with mines and tripwires.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'd put the Korean war into the regular military vs regular military category.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

True. If any side tries to cross established battle lines, they'll get similarly huge losses.

On the other hand it's Koreans, they'll send an army of robot dogs named Zerg.

[+] [email protected] -9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I wonder if we could use data from satellites and develop an AI program to extrapolate where possible mines might be placed based on previously found mine locations using video and geo-spatial data along with real-time verification to improve modeling.

Or would that be too practical and not make enough money?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Aaah, the occasional AI bro.

The problem isn't knowing roughly where mines could be, people are good at that and you don't need an AI for this. The problem is knowing precisely where mines are, which is something AIs won't help with.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

Imagine being the grad student who has to go out and collect real training data because your advisor thought it might be interesting

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

This.

Even if some AI or algorithm could tell you that a certain area was less likely to be heavily mined, then what would prevent the opposing force from using similar tools to also identify the weak points?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago

It's easy, there are mines everywhere. No need for an AI.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago

They have the best defense except when a mercenary is performing a coup.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

Alt source:

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is why I’m so surprised they didn’t pull a left hook through Russian territory and envelop their flank.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Good idea, but Ukraine isn’t “allowed” to use western weapons on Russian soil. Pure bullshit, Russia will escalate regardless.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes because if Ukraine threatens to gain territory within Russia's historic (pre-2014) border they will absolutely use nuclear weapons. They've made this clear, and honestly, they didn't have to.

No nuclear power has ceded any significant territory through open conflict since the advent of nuclear weapons. China won't, France won't, Russia won't, Pakistan won't, North Korea won't, the U.S. won't. It doesn't even have to be spoken out loud to be a known factor. If the deterrent of nuclear strikes won't protect your border, then you have absolutely nothing to lose by using them if you are even slightly concerned that you couldn't move the border back conventionally.