The key point is that torpedoes were deployed from lightweight aircraft, agile and manoeuvrable, unlike the heavier, slower bombers designed for different missions.
This wasn’t about brute force; it was a clear example of asymmetry in action. A mobile strike force was able to destroy expensive, hard-to-replace capital ships. The same dynamic played out with the Prince of Wales and Repulse. state-of-the-art battleships brought down by aircraft. Agility and cost-effectiveness outmatched scale and complexity.
The electric scooter example is amusing and a good example, but it’s not really equivalent. The point isn’t that any low-cost platform is a strategic threat, it’s about how certain cheap, agile systems, when paired with the right weapons and tactics, can outmatch legacy hardware and cause significant about of economic damage.
Today’s drones are not only cheap and effective, they’re also easy to disguise, pre-position, or deploy covertly. Just look at Ukraine’s Operation Spider Web or the recent Mossad attack in Iran: drones hidden in containers or deployed behind enemy lines, striking with precision when the time is right.
It’s a shift in the logic of warfare.
(20min delay)