I looked into becoming a care aid myself as I'm tired of office culture in Japan and have some experience in that field. I was shocked to see that they start at less than 10USD, and working your way up takes years, decades even.
Continuing to kick this can down the road is going to be an absolute disaster.
Your immediate neighbor is going on an imperialist streak right now, and Xi says he wants the fireworks to start in his lifetime. I don't know if F35s are the right answer for Japan, but Xi isn't that young. Get ready however you can.
If you want a better understanding of which world events China is not happy about, tuning in there to see what they cover unfavorably has been useful for me.
They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity.
There's indeed a neighbor (albeit with a large ocean in between) that have imperialist streak of abducting a head of state with its military and starting a war that is actively causing global economic damage. You never know what this one is planning to drag you in to, maybe provoke another big neighbor and get yourself dragged in to the lose-lose quagmire
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=kamikaze+&ia=images&iax=ima...
Democracy is important and it isn't free.
Japan is looking to increase defence spending to a whopping… 3.5% of GDP:
* https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/09/15/japan/japan-def...
Meanwhile social security spending is currently about a third of its budget (and debt servicing a quarter):
If that happens, the majority of Japanese people will be retired, and the cost to provide medical care for them will be astronomical compared to the number of people that can provide that care. It's easy to say "Japan is a rich country, they can afford it." However, medical care for old people is very labor intensive. Even if the old people have "savings", this is just a claim against the labor of young people. If the young people are too worn out from caring for their parents to have their own kids, the country dies out.
The only solution I can think of is to provide massive incentives to have kids. Massive meaning something like "you get $40k per year for every kid in your house under 18", or "you get a free house when you have your first kid, and a bigger one when you have your second."
Maybe this sounds extreme, but the alternative is that young people are taxed at punitive rates in order to provide care for older people. As the situation progresses, younger people will have even less kids because they can't afford them, and eventually they won't even be able to pay for a reasonable living standard for themselves. Older people won't care and will vote themselves excellent benefits, since they would have a good majority in voting. The only option younger people would have would be to leave the country, which only forces the tax rates higher. Eventually something breaks. It's difficult to predict exactly how it would go but it's not pretty.
If Japan is to be saved though, it has to happen in the next 5-10 years or so, and the sooner the better. Once the population pyramid slides up another decade, you'd need the average couple to have 4 kids or so, and the incentives required to make that happen are not affordable, and wouldn't be agreed to democratically when the majority of the population is retired and wants the money for the remainder of their lives rather than paying for kids that would be too young to provide labor to care for them while they're alive.
Or we set a max age of the population where you off yourself. It’s the plot of Half a Life in Star Trek TNG
As I said in another comment, the population of Japan is projected to be 64 million in 2100. A hundred years ago, the population was 64 million, and that was at the peak of their colonial expansion.
Yes I get it that the demographics pyramid would not be the same as it was in 1930, but this whole narrative that "Japan is dying" is at the very least spread to pull on heartstrings in order to fuel this lines must go UP ALL THE TIME hypercapitalist nonsense.
Why can't a people wax and wane according to the needs of their culture and not the needs of bigwig bank accounts? Does Japan need a convenience store on every block? If every single convenience store disappeared tomorrow, you'd suddenly have a massive workforce able to go to school or care for the elderly, so here I am just yelling at clouds while the average Japanese person is more in line with your way of thinking that being able to buy a sandwich instead of making your own is the "Japan" they want to save.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_progr...
This is fact known for a very long time....
The reason Japan won't have nuke is more so it's politically impossible. Even if USA and LDP wanted to, more than 80%+ of Japan (last survey I read) is strongly against it, and there's no way a reimpretation of the peace constitution can in anyway justify nuke, so a referendum is required
Japan also have advanced space programs so the method of delivery, is also not something that is something they can develop quickly. (and more recently, also chips etc required)
I'm torn on this issue. I think the elderly and people in general should get a decent life, but on the opposite side we have Europe that's investing massively more in making its boomers richer and more comfortable than anyone in human history has ever been(average pension in France is now higher than the average salary), rather than investing that money in ensuring opportunities and prosperity of future generations, who are facing economic stagnation/degrowth and are forced to foot the bill for this elderly spending, with the guarantee the pyramid scheme they're funding will fail them when their turn comes to benefit from it.
So perhaps Japan sees the defense capability those 150 F-35's bring to its future national security more valuable than keeping the elderly alive for a few more years.
Yeah, it sounds harsh when you look at people like that, but taking care of people takes resources(money), and money is finite, so all these decisions are a game theory trolley problem, where you have to choose whose lives a country should prioritize the most: the past generations, or the future generations.
Historically in the history of nations would be willing to sacrifice the elderly to prioritize the survival and growth of its future generations, that was the social contract of the tribe, that is until the western boomers came and decided they deserve to fuck the future of their nation if they can get wealthier and feel good till the end.
I'm not saying there's one correct solution here, because I don't have it. I'm saying tough decisions have to be made from which there will be winners and losers, so a nation should choose the winners carefully, if it wishes to have a future.
This sounded crazy so I looked it up. I don’t think it’s quite true, but after you subtract taxes and living expenses (a lot of old people own their homes) and add investments, seems like retirees do have a higher standard of living than workers in France.
An island nation under the protectorate of the US TOTALLY needs to spend over $300 billion over the needs of their people, okay sure. Makes sense I guess.
Historically those that were greedy were banished from society so the community can continue thrive. How greedy are you willing to be since you're okay with sacrificing other humans for political ploys?
That 10 USD isn't for you , it's for an immigrant from a less affluent country. The Philippines for one. Although Japan also has a significant South Asian population.
The tradition is you work a horrible job, but your kids get to grow up in a rich country with much better opportunities.
Japan doesn't want immigrants though. They can fix there demographic crisis in a single year by opening immigration up.
As for defense spending. The only issue is its not homegrown tech. Looks like Mitsubishi is actually working on a 6th gen fighter though.
'fixing' one issue by swapping it out for another
Something I keep in mind when reading these kinds of opinions is that when war breaks out and moves through a region (think Ukraine), the elderly are common among those who cannot flee.
they don't "need" extra care, and at 100 years old, should be pretty content with concepts of dying without intervention.
What is with the obsession in the world today about those on deaths door taking precedent over those who live today?
https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/26/11 "In Japan 234,354 people registered before 1910 remained on the family registers in 2010, without being crossed out. They would have been 100 years old at least and represent 0.5% of the births recorded between 1872 and 1910. The impact of this group on life expectancy statistics, however, is effectively nil. "
Now we're naturally reducing population growth, and people warn of disaster.
Gradually decreasing populations means that overall, fewer workers have to support more non-workers. We've had decades of productivity growth, with more to come if we're not stupid, making that extremely feasible.
Tier-3 and tier-4 cities supposedly saw 30-50% property value declines, setting them back more than two decades. If real estate was really holding back families, as is often stipulated, this might reverse that.
Otoh, rural Japan has lots of cheap or even free real estate but it doesn't seem to support fertility rates at all.
It doesn't matter how much the property is valued if your work is somewhere else.
I wonder how many of these centenarians aren't actually alive and their just deaths haven't been reported so that the family can avoid paying that.
centenarians per 10,000
Japan 8.8
France 6.3
Italy 3.6
Canada 3.2
US 3.0
UK 2.4
Germany 2.2
Russia 0.9
China 0.3
India 0.2
I think the question misunderstands the data.
Or more specifically, a big part of the answer is "not having kids." Think about the denominator.
First, France already had negative demographic trends during the Napoleonic era. That might help explain why Macron’s call for a “demographic rearmament” is not necessarily taboo today. France started experiencing smaller family sizes quite a long time ago, so the current demographic numbers are partly a reflection of past trends rather than the situation today. In a few years, Italy will probably face an even worse situation.
Second, in some countries, the very high number of elderly people may partly be the result of inaccurate population records. Some countries have a combination of incentives for elderly people and demographic records that were badly damaged during WWII. This may have made it relatively easy for someone to claim that they were, for example, their grandmother and receive benefits. Decades later, some of these people are supposedly over 100 years old.
There is even an Ig Nobel Prize associated with research into this phenomenon.
That is to say, it also mean less and less younger people, as 'modernity' induces fewer marriages and fewer children.
that is insane, having half of population is aging grandma is absolutely mind blowing
I also agree on the stressful work part, but don't quite understand what you mean with "lots of commute on public transit". If you mean the Tokyo-style rush hour traffic where people are literally shoved into the train car, of course that's stressful. But at any other time apart from that, Japan's public transit is enormously soothing and stress-free, both because of culture and transit technology.
there's plenty of great home style food that isn't fried.. nikujaga, gyusuji, nikudofu, etc.
Public transit there is pretty great. If anything the lack of escalators for some stations can be unmotivating to some people but on the other hand walking a lot of flights of stairs is healthy.
Corrected that for you.
Maybe because of Japan's history of horrific war crimes and occupation in China? You know, the actual imperial conquest for which their constitution prohibits them from having a standing air force?
Pretty sure China is unhappy not for history reason, but because of the current situation, which is that China tries to establish military dominance in the region and wants to invade Taiwan.
There was no Kniefall von Warschau for Japan.
It's maybe not part of the public discourse so much, but I regularly hear ordinary people express their concern about this
1. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore does not need to defend itself from this greater threat?
2. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore should not be allowed to defend itself from this greater threat? It should just be conquered as a type of moral punishment (wasn't Japan already nuked, conquered, and occupied? Wasn't that enough? If not, why not?)
3. There is no greater threat. That Japan pissed off countries in the past has no bearing on the level of threat facing Japan today, in which case they should be allowed to spend as much as their neighbors on defense and the past is a non-issue.
4. There is a negative threat -- that Japan pissed off countries in the past means that they are now more secure and therefore less in need of defense?
Which of these are you arguing?
I am a little lost about how Japan committing war crimes in the past means they do need to spend as much on defense today, as this is a very counterintuitive claim, and it appears you are arguing for 4 or, if a dark personality, for 2. In which case, I'd like you to spell it out for the community to hear.
it's not a statement on what should be and shouldn't be, but rather attempting to provide reasons as to why China might not like this move, without resorting to claims of propaganda or the fear being illegitement
I'm sure Uyghurs and Tibetans have an opinion on the pot calling the kettle black.
My wife is from Manchuria and my father is from Singapore. As much as my wife and I like the Japan of today, Japan appeared less favourably in our family history.
Could be a strategy going on here.
Before they invaded Ukraine, Russia criticized Ukrainian military buildup as "destabalising". Probably with full knowledge of their own plans to invade.
Much in the same way the same people are upset about Taiwan, the Phillipines, the USA, etc. are building up their military capacity.
Also much in the same way russia is unhappy about Ukraine building up its war fighting capacity.
The unhappiness could come from multiple things, but given China has themselves built up their own war fighting capacity to a much greater degree, it seems the primary motivation is seeking hegemony.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity_Department_of_the_Ch...
Nations don't make security decisions based on the hatred of other nationals, or whatever hurt feelings they might have, they make spending decisions based on their own security needs.
In the case of Japan, it has serious security needs because the US is much weaker now and cannot provide a defense shield, whereas China is both much stronger and also is making expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. That calls for more defense spending just as a rational response. It also calls for Japan to update its constitution as the postwar arrangement comes to an end, which they will do, and they will also develop nuclear weapons.
Honestly it makes no sense for South Korea to not have a nuke if North Korea does. When you have a conflict between two nations, and one acquires nuclear weapons, the other side is driven to do the same. Look at India and Pakistan. In the past, the US kept a lid on things because it had such overwhelming dominance that it could be a global policeman and in that environment, individual nations didn't need to provide for their own defense, they had a policeman to back them.
But that era is now over, and as much as people complained about the US strutting around like a global cop, they are about to see the consequences of a world without a global cop -- that is, the world as it normally exists. In that world, it makes no sense for Japan to not have a nuke if North Korea and China does, and soon South Korea will, too. My guess is that South Korea will go nuclear first.
Just as it makes no sense for Iran to not have a nuke if Israel does. This is not a matter of hurt feelings, it is a matter of security balancing. It doesn't matter if you don't like Iran, or if you do like it, it's just a question of nations taking care of their own survival.
All of this will happen, and we will look back on the period of non-proliferation as being an artifact of US global dominance, understanding that as US military dominance fades, nations will turn to measures of self-help in a hostile world.
The whole world is changing, and we should face it with clarity and wisdom, not with hurt feelings. There are all sorts of repercussions to global trade, to global security arrangements, that are changing right now, and it helps to have your eyes open and think "well, how would each nation respond to this new threat environment" in a deliberate and realist perspective, rather than whether you like a given country or not.
One example is what is happening right now in Saudi Arabia. The US promised to be Saudi's security guarantor in 1945, and historically the US has done this, but this is a role that the US can no longer play, so Saudi Arabia is now being beaten by Yemen, and is desperately appealing to the US for help, but there is little the US can do. Now Saudi Arabia is in a pickle -- it will also turn to nuclear weapons.
One thing to think about is the moral hazard of these types of security guarantees - they incentivize client states to provoke their enemies, in this case Saudi Arabia invading and occupying Yemen, installing a puppet government, and blockading the nation. When you have the US at your back, you can take these provocative actions. But then comes a moment when you look behind and the Big Brother is no longer there.
Then we can look at Europe, you have this demilitarized continent that is doing things like seizing Russian ships because they are confident that the US will step and fight a war with Russia on their behalf. Well, they are going to learn that reality has changed and the US no longer has the power projection capability it once did. And what will they do? My guess is that at least one European state will nuclearize.
We are going to see major shifts happen as nations regionalize, many nations nuclearize, and new regional trade blocs form that disrupt global capital flows that we have taken for granted, especially if you formed your view of reality in the era when there was a Global Cop that had your back.
These sort of things can work as a deterrent as much as power projection, and they don't have to get into direct violent/physical conflict for there to be diplomatic tension/worsening of relations as a result. I'm not saying this is most effective use of Japan's resources or focus or that China is for sure going to do anything or making any other such claims, just explaining the potential rational for why China would be non-plussed at Japan over F35 purchases even if they don't feel Japan is gunning for them.
Of course, if china has no actual wartime intentions in Japans sphere of influence, then yeah, they probably give much less of a shit. So depends on what their intentions really are as to how they feel about it. The fact that they're publicly broadcasting displeasure is probably not a sign that they're cool with it though.
Also that attack happened on Sept 18, this very day, in 1931.
It was the western colonial powers & most importantly the USA that they attacked & could not have realistically won against.
Except against Taiwan, Korea, Russia (1905), Manchuria.
Now it's certainly possible that AI will eliminate the need for anyone to work. That is a different question though than conventional demographic prediction.
Japan has a population of 300m. a collapse of 60% of the population in 60 year is indeed a crisis.
> fuel this lines must go UP ALL THE TIME hypercapitalist nonsense.
It's less the population and more the numbers. There were probably a good 30-40m working class Japanese in that 1930's metric, and the retired population was probably in the singular millions.
That model inverted. Based on the stats up chain, we have ~20-30m 21-25 year olds, and 100+ retired Japanese citizens. This isn't a scale to be balanced so much as a building crumpling in on itself. because unfortunately, old people will crush the youth in such a collapse.
>Why can't a people wax and wane according to the needs of their culture and not the needs of bigwig bank accounts?
Because the elite need peasants to server them, if you want a frank answer. Guess who most of the richest people in the economy belong to?
Another reason why this is more of a "I'll take the youth with me" collapse. The rich are greedy.
It makes sense to subtract the taxes for a comparison between pension and salary, but by taking investments into account, and probably living expenses too, since they depend upon investments, I think you're doing too much work to support that claim.
Presumably it is fairly standard for the average retiree to have more assets/investments than the average worker. Those assets generate income (or reduce living expenses). I think that is too different from the claim that the pension is higher.
That said, young people have a lot more expenses. They need to buy houses and raise kids and get bigger cars. Retirees largely don’t have to do those things.
So I can imagine the frustration if I was trying my best reach basic life milestones while at the same time being forced to pay for people who already achieved those things.
They don't choose to be born. Have few/no rights to change how they're raised or their parents spend the family funds while they are minors. Often they have no choice over large portions of their education. To say they owe their parents decades of unpaid caregiving is absurd.
Until this most recent generation Japan (and the rest of the world) had no problem starting a "life and family of their own" as you put it.
This isn't binary. And it doesn't appear Japan has ever had rampant individualism. They seem to punish any personal expression and lifestyle outside very narrowly defined norms. Supposedly for "family values", which overwhelmingly benefit old men.
> ...respecting the lives of the elderly until they pass on is one I've never heard before
How is leaving a parent's home before marriage disrespecting the elderly? Are parents owed unpaid caretaking by people who had no say in birth, childhood, and youth?
> Until this most recent generation Japan (and the rest of the world) had no problem starting a "life and family of their own" as you put it.
I don't think the problem is the kids. I think the problem is cultural expectations of parents. When kids become adults they can choose any values they like. Parents don't have to agree, nor do they have to enable entirely selfish behavior. Of course if parents create an economic disaster and a culture of dependence, well, then everyone gets to reap what the parent's (and their generation) have sowed.
It already has. Rural land prices going down in real terms is a decades old thing.
It’s an anti-meritocracy.
Top 5 billionaires ≈ bottom 40% of Americans — roughly 135 million people.
(The bottom quarter of households have essentially zero or negative net worth, so most of that $2.2T sits with people in the 25th–40th percentile range. It's an estimate — the Fed doesn't publish fine-grained slices — but 5 people vs ~135 million is about where it evens out.)
I'm not covering the damn plane in my comment. I was covering the nation's need for self defense which is gonna cost crazy money any way you slice it if your military wants to have latest gen "sci-fi" jets capable of beating Chinese ones.
>An island nation under the protectorate of the US TOTALLY needs to spend over $300 billion over the needs of their people, okay sure. Makes sense I guess.
The security guarantee that nations, like Japan in this case, receive from the US is not free of charge, it never was. It's paid in barter via purchasing US military gear like F-35s that supports the US economy and defense industry jobs. It's the same deal with the gulf states. Saudi Arabia and the others, accepted to trade their oil only in USD, making the USD the world reserve currency and the US the richest country in the world, and in exchange it received defense assurances form the US. That's always been the deal. Are there still people oblivious to this fact?
Most people think the US just goes around bullying people and kicking up dust. There is a genuine widespread belief that if the US didn't exist, the world would be living in harmonious peace, just like how the world was before WWII.
Can you share who here is championing it?
Also, you often don't have a choice, as imperialism is a constant throughout human history. If it's not the US it's gonna be someone else, maybe even worse. Now I'm not American, but if I were, and I'd need to make a choice between my nation being THE imperial power or someone else with different values than mine resulting me being at their mercy, then I'd rather me than them.
But this isn't "championing it", this is choosing the pragmatic least-worst option.
There is a point to be made that fewer and fewer people are ready to die - eventually.
However, it arguably is the natural course of things, and the only thing more certain than taxes. I'm not saying this because I cannot imagine a world in which death was switched off. Instead, I would argue that it is also a GOOD thing that death exists, as it makes one's lifetime more precious knowing your days are counted (it's also good not to know how many of them you have left). There is space made for new generations, and their different (hopefully eventually better) ideas.
The inevitability of death is a philosophical question. I read the GP and maybe the GGP as talking about the more practical question of whether it's moral to let broke old people die from bedsores and starvation or whether we pay for nurses.
I'm looking at a photograph I have with a 1915-2015 and in same frame an immediately adjacent plot for a distinct family which has 1913-2015, both of these deceased almost certainly born in the territory of Hawaii (one site has two 1880s born -- that's probably the immigrants).
Supposing there were bad records and incentives to fudge that persisted into the territory of Hawaii, why would those incentives only exist for Okinawan immigrants in Japan versus immigrants from any other prefecture, including poor ones like those in the south of Honshu or Kyushu!?
As a result, public life itself is more quiet and soothing, because you are not constantly surrounded by cars, even if just sitting outside a café.
As for the family you stayed at, they must eat differently from the Japanese families I know personally. Studies agree: https://www.livescience.com/54133-japanese-diet-longer-life.... https://chns.cpc.unc.edu/resources/publications/bib/2884/
But lots of walking in their less elderly days may partially explain their longevity.
In other words if Japan were in a position where they were willing to use drones to indiscriminately attack soft targets an F-35 would be about a trillion times more effective.
Absolutely incorrect.
- The purpose of these drones is to establish deterrence.
- US is not capable of reaching every inch of Iranian airspace with F-35s unless it is willing to accept a significant casualty rate among pilots.
- Even if they could, the US has not been able to decimate Iran's drone stockpile even in the areas it can ~safely reach.
The age of the fighter jet is over.
the current admin does not care about civilians casualties. remember the tomahawk on school girls? so what are they waiting for if it was that easy?
On the other hand, prospective parents have to believe that the money will keep flowing, or the incentive isn't as strong. In that case, maybe something like giving new parents a house is a better bet because they'd own that regardless of what future governments do.
We are at the same time experiencing all the challenges and consequences of depleting the planet of resources, a warming climate and shortages everywhere. Why can less people in a natural way not be part of the solution?
In your solution you also wouldn't have to kill people off. They would die naturally due to a lack of healthcare.
Because a major superpower dying out doesn't really benefit anyone except potential conquerors.
To have multiple kids you need bigger house, more stuff and more time.
To have 2+ kids you either neglect them or should become stay at home parent. It's only for rich, for families who can comfortably live on one salary.
The other thing is time: people who want many kids want to spend time with them, not at work. But without work they cannot afford kids. Catch-22.
or collectivist societies. We completely forgotten the old adage: "it takes a village to raise a kid". 3rd world countries still increase in population because everyone chips in to care for everyone's kids, not simply staying within their own house raising their own kid by themselves.
>The other thing is time: people who want many kids want to spend time with them, not at work. But without work they cannot afford kids. Catch-22.
This is definitely another piece of the puzzle, one within the levers of government. Shorter work weeks for the same or more pay would alleviate this issue. But that's something the elite will fight tooth and nail to prevent.
But we’d rather tax workers to the hilt to pay for wealthy old people. Isla refreshing to see the op mention that “savings” are just a claim on future work. When there’s 10 billionaires who need care and 2 people who can provide it, how much will those carers charge.
The other solution is high immigration. If you can import 18 year olds it’s win win win. At least for old rich people. Keep wages down, no tax money on new generations.
What’s your solution then. Unless you can convince the average Japanese woman to have 3 kids and then hop in a time machine to do this 20 years ago, then immigration is the only option.
Almost every advanced economy relies on low paid migrant workers to do crappy jobs.
Occasionally you can pull these migrants from within the country like in China
The reality is that Japan (and countries following a similar path) are strangling the younger generation by saddling them with generational debt. They become responsible for taking care of an older population, with no guarantee of their own future as their own ability to retire vanishes and income goes to zero. It should be no surprise that the older block also votes to protect itself, as politicians skew far older than the rest of the citizenry. The result of 'nature taking its course' is a complete collapse of the government. In the long term this is certainly a solution but not a particularly good one.
An argument could be made that a slow gradual decline would help ease these issues but you would need to convince people twice your age to willingly give up their benefits and things they worked for and were promised. What are the odds that you think that will work out?
You can tell because internal displacement can cause issues too.
Realistically this happened due to high confidence with regard to the presence of a high value target. It's awful, but there was assuredly a calculus and the goal is less collateral damage over the long term. There wasn't just an oops missile or multi-year old intelligence.
OTOH attack the drone capacity would require undetermined strikes on logistical networks and downstream suppliers. It wouldn't be hard, but there would be far more civilian casualties and many of the strikes would be non-beneficial.
Sure, we could easily wrap this whole thing up a couple days but the admin is choosing to remain stuck in a quagmire that's dooming GOP in the midterms. Based on a moral red line, of all things. Makes perfect sense.
The casualty rate would not be high at all, though all casualties are significant. There would be some, but again this is why I said in a serious war, pilot casualties would be expected. It also would not be as if they need to hit the whole country at once. There would be fronts and lines and structured approach.
Right now the US is working around internal issues with the IRGC. The US doesn't even want to destroy all of Iran's stockpile or production facilities. They only want to destroy those which are in the possession of the IRGC factions actively engaging in combat. Even more pressing than destroying the drones is eliminating the particular IRGC faction heads that are responsible for attack. The US isn't conducting any sort of sweeping campaign at all, every attack has been precisely targeted to hit certain commanders. Even the ones making headlines for civilian casualties. It's just more palatable to let everyone assume you made a mistake than to come out and say, "We determined there would be less collateral damage over an extended horizon if we conduct this strike now."
And so the cycle is completed. The only real question seems to be if the pilot in the fighter jet will remain a benefit when the drone is increased to that scale.
With the modern tech level, silicon-based systems can react faster, make fewer mistakes and feel less fatigue. So it all circles back to the relative wetware price.
Trump and Hegseth may be bumbling idiots but so far they have been showing restraint. The jets seem to be pretty effective at making big holes in the ground, I wouldn't call their demise just yet.
https://antimaydan.info//opolchenie_novorossii/svodki_ot_opo...
https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/2021-04-06_SMM_Dail...
This specific example was reported by afp. There was no evidence of it being a drone or a shell, and no evidence of who fired.
The fighter jet is not capable of destroying every power plant in Iran without risking pilot casualties, an endeavor for which the US lacks political capital. The drone has no such issue. A rational nation would have shifted primary investment into medium-range drones many yesterdays ago.
I don't think this is true. Sure if you count nuclear weapons, but that's not on the table.
Russia has already used IRBMs. Even Putin tacitly admitted they failed to hit their targets. It's entirely likely that Russian ICBMs simply do not have the accuracy required to strike something as small as a power plant with a conventional payload.
Even China is building stealth jets and aircraft carriers. The people making these decisions know more about their capabilities than you or me.
Shipping through Hormuz is already up to about half prewar levels. I don't think Iran's strategy is working very well for them.
Additionally, Iran had deterrence that you're not giving them credit for. If they destroyed Saudi and UAE's water desalination, it would be a mass casualty event.
Yes, I imagine deterrence is part of that equation.
Nevertheless, it's too early to declare the end of the jet. We will probably get there someday, but that day is not today.
Their economy would implode within days.
Of course, this would be a horrific crime against humanity, comparable in impact on civilians to dropping a nuke on a capital city.
Speaking of which: my partner knows next to nothing about warfare and while watching the news I had to explain that the US Navy submarine mentioned by the presenter isn't just for taking out enemy ships, it is a nuclear-armed "world ending" weapon that could simply... erase... a country. Or two. Probably three. In under an hour.
That's why fascism doesn't work btw. They end up believing their own lies and do the most egregiously idiotic shit.
Economics matter.
Why would Japan mass produce an inferior product when they would easily be able to design and build a far superior one? "Shahed" isn't just another word for drone, it's a specific company's name.
The countries acquiring them are doing so because they are best strike fighters on the planet, and it's not even close. Unless you know something that Norway, Japan, England, the Netherlands, etc don't know?
it is 2026 now, partially de-industrialized US no longer has the best weapons in the world. that is why it is struggling to even beat Iran.
What makes it bad is how hard the cooling is, its range without range extenders (that break stealth) and the maintenance.
As for the why: because historically that has always been a solution to lacking specialized talent or simply not having enough hands to perform a massive task. You don't want to pay domestic labor, so bring in foreign labor. This time it's a general problem.
Obviously, this means less purchasing power for younger people, and they might not like that so much.
What has China done new?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts_(197...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Chinese_military_exercise...
* https://www.channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/philippines-south-...
Also, China does regularly attack other countries' navies around the South China Sea with no legal justification.
Because they ultimately are managing better in the 21st century than any other country. America had its peak from 1945 to 2001. Britain ran the world in the 19th century. China is the new global superpower.
In an ideal world America would have managed to keep a bipolar world going, but it has decided to abandon that in favour of short term boosts.
It does, and I already wrote about western countries being just as guilty of invading, if not more so. None of what you wrote contradicts my point that China is actively expanding and using mainly economic tactics to do it.