- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:31 pm to AbuTheMonkey
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:31 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Regardless, the idea that the U.S. doesn't have the production capacity to compete with near peers is ludicrous.
On its surface - yes.
However, US manufacturing is incredibly dependent on items from China, especially those related to rare Earth elements.
In short, if you manufacturing involves virtually ANY smart systems at all, the China is your daddy.
Independent American manufacturing is virtually non-existent.
American manufacturing (at this time) exists because China allows it to. That is a pretty sobering thought.
Unlike Russia (oil and gas), we don’t have the ability to work around China by increasing output or finding other sources.
0
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:32 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
but in some pretend scenario where we fought a conventional war with Russia, we’d have serious issues. They have larger stockpiles of everything, and they have a larger military industrial base than we do.
Dear Lord.
I actually refuse to think you seriously believe this.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:32 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Regardless, the idea that the U.S. doesn't have the production capacity to compete with near peers is ludicrous.
We don’t have the ability to produce new hardware quickly, or in large quantities.
For example Ratheon says it will be years before they can replace the Stingers we’ve given to Ukraine.
LINK
But it’s an across the board issue. Compare the production at our naval yards to the Chinese ones.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:33 pm to Blitzed
quote:
So something that could potentially pull America in WW3? Those things also cost money btw.
oh yea since russia is so capable of that.
look another stupid frick
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:34 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Huh, it's any wonder that Iran wants sanctions removed.
I would imagine drug dealers would like to see decriminalization too.
You can then more money without the current issues. The same applies to Iran.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:35 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
I think deindustrialization has severely hurt us. We would struggle to fight a peer enemy because of the small stocks of munitions and weapons, and our limited production capacity.
We really don't have a limited production capacity. I don't know where you are getting your information.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:36 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
I actually refuse to think you seriously believe this.
Look at how many missiles the Russians are launching daily, and the number of shells they’re going through.
This post was edited on 6/29/22 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:37 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
For example Ratheon says it will be years before they can replace the Stingers we’ve given to Ukraine.
The rare Earth elements needed to produce stingers come from China (pounds of them). The supply chain issue is ensuring that once we run out, we will not have the ability to produce them. It is crazy to think that between what we left behind in Afghanistan, and what we are sending to Ukraine, we are denting our own fighting capability.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:41 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
We really don't have a limited production capacity. I don't know where you are getting your information.
Actually when it comes to the defense industry, we have severely reduced capabilities to produce VOLUME quickly.
I made a whole series of posts a couple of weeks ago about the decline in the American Industrial base and it's ability to replenish war stocks in a rapid matter.
There is one plant in the US that can make Abrams tanks...One. With the sophistication of modern weapon systems, we can't just convert an auto assembly line into producing M1 tanks.
It's a very real strategic problem for the US if it were to get into a real war.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:46 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
quote:
I actually refuse to think you seriously believe this.
Look at how many missiles the Russians are firing daily, and the number of shells they’re firing.
Am I supposed to be impressed that they're firing mounds upon mounds of cheap Cold War-era shite?
In a fight against a real peer, those rounds never even get shot. In fact, those batteries never even get anywhere near peer forces and probably wouldn't get out of Russian territory at all.
Actually, I should re-phrase. Russia's peers in a conventional military sense are more like Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Africa, so maybe that's not necessarily true.
Were they to go up against a real big dog, they'd be run through like shite through a goose.
This post was edited on 6/29/22 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:48 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
We really don't have a limited production capacity.
In aspects of defense, that is true. However, if the weapon has any “smart” aspects, then we are pretty much wholly dependent on China for our national defense (a sobering thought imho).
It is why I thought that the Pentagon should have taken over the Mountain Pass Mine (Molycotp).
We chose poorly
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:51 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
I always hate when people downvote seemingly factual information and don't bother to explain their opposing view. I do understand this thread has lots of DVs just based on who posts what but dammit with this type of post I wanna hear from those that think it is wrong. I might actually learn something today. I don't know much about the O&G industry and most of what I have learned stems from tOT.
Absolutely agree. Learned a lot on O&G in here today alone.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:55 pm to DabosDynasty
Citizen is a great poster.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 1:55 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
Actually when it comes to the defense industry, we have severely reduced capabilities to produce VOLUME quickly.
While true, the defense landscape for the last twenty years hasn't really dictated the need to produce volume of armaments quickly, although I could be wrong. This latest conflict might bring a renaissance for conventional weapons. In that case, there's nothing inherent to our industrial base that we couldn't ramp up production if need be. The Fed's data suggests that we operate at around 75% of our industrial capacity and have operated that way for the last 40 years or so. Is there a reasonable argument to be made that we couldn't ramp up production at all?
Posted on 6/29/22 at 2:01 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
Look at how many missiles the Russians are launching daily, and the number of shells they’re going through.
But we can shoot one missile through an open window in a ladies kitchen and hit the pot of boiling water on the stove; while Russia shoots 10 missiles at an ammo dump and they hit the mall, the railway station, the hospital, the kindergarten, the park, the River and four vacant lots.
This post was edited on 6/29/22 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 6/29/22 at 2:03 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
Now tell me about Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Kherson and Russia's desire to take them over (before Russia changed the goal of the war)
LINK
Yes Easy! A minute in the search engine and you will get results. He took the first that turned up under the arm. It says there are too few check-in points. People are asking for more. queue up at 4 am
LINK
LINK
quote:
mean this is about as weak of response as you could have had
The UK had territorial rights to the island and Argentina invaded because they thought they had rights over the British citizens living there. The Falklands never voted to join Argentina.
It'd be like if Russia just showed up and started trying to take over Ukrainian lands because they thought they had territorial rights to it...oh wait
Yes, yes, the lands located on the other half of the planet, next to Argentina, belong to England. After all, I wrote to you that I thought so that England sailed there only to show respect. With all your fleet. And no one under the threat of the use of weapons did not vote. Yes Yes.
At least sometimes you read the press of countries not in the orbit of the satellite countries. Argentina for example.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 2:07 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
In aspects of defense, that is true. However, if the weapon has any “smart” aspects, then we are pretty much wholly dependent on China for our national defense (a sobering thought imho).
Is there any country that isn't reliant in some respect on another for some raw materials?
Posted on 6/29/22 at 2:08 pm to Lima Whiskey
I am in full agreement with Lima on this topic.
We do not have the necessary industrial base to quickly ramp up production to support a full-blown war.
We do not have the necessary industrial base to quickly ramp up production to support a full-blown war.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 2:09 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
In a fight against a real peer, those rounds never even get shot. In fact, those batteries never even get anywhere near peer forces and probably wouldn't get out of Russian territory at all.
It's funny, I read this exact statement about the United States from all sides of this planet.
For all the decades of wars with rivals like the "banana republics", did the United States have real ones capable of hitting back?
Not weak Satdam Hussein or Qatdafi. With whom the United States can and competed and subsequently won with dignity?
Posted on 6/29/22 at 2:13 pm to Chromdome35
Repeating my post from 6/15
So here's a follow-up (a dated one) on the decline in our Ammunition manufacturing capabilities. This is a DoD study from 1997.
I think one could reasonably assume that it has further declined from what is discussed in this study.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-96-133.pdf
Some highlights (bolding added by me):
So here's a follow-up (a dated one) on the decline in our Ammunition manufacturing capabilities. This is a DoD study from 1997.
I think one could reasonably assume that it has further declined from what is discussed in this study.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-96-133.pdf
Some highlights (bolding added by me):
quote:
DOD's war reserve requirements are now based on the need to fight two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. Key assumptions in this new plan are (1) each conflict will be intense and short in duration (60 to 120 days); (2) the military will rely on existing stocks for the entire duration of the conflicts; (3) there will not be a significant surge in ammunition production during the conflicts; and (4) following the conflicts, ammunition items will be replenished to a designated level within a specified time frame, to prepare for the next conflict.
quote:
When we discussed the ammunition shortages caused by industrial base problems with service officials and reviewed DOD's industrial base studies, we did not identify any industrial base problems that would keep the military from fighting two major regional conflicts, as required by the current Defense Planning Guidance, or from replenishing the stockpile. However, ammunition shortages that result from funding problems will not be filled by a surging industrial base because the current guidance does not require the base to have a surge capability, as in the past. DOD officials stated that shortages of preferred munitions will be likely if two major regional conflicts arise and that shortages will be met with substitute munitions. This substitution is in accordance with the current Defense Planning Guidance.
quote:
In addition to the DOD industrial base studies, several private organizations have studied the industrial base. However, most of the private studies have concluded that the industrial base is inadequate to meet the services' ammunition requirements. One such study was completed in June 1994 by the Committee for the Common Defense, the national security arm of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. The study concluded that the nation's ammunition industrial base was “rapidly-deteriorating.º The report based this conclusion primarily on the Korean War experience, but it also pointed out that the 323,000 tons of preferred munitions7 in the current U.S. stockpile represented less than the amount of ammunition sent to the Persian Gulf region in 1990 and 1991 for Operation Desert Storm.8 A private study conducted for the Munitions Industrial Base Task Force also found that the ammunition industrial base could not repeat the performance of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. It stated that the industrial base could not support the demands of one major regional conflict, much less two simultaneously. However, the task force study assumed that the major regional conflicts would last 180 days, much longer than DOD's projected 60-120 days.
Page 1231 of 5046
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News