Exactly. Watching this all play out is strikingly similar to watching Trump get away with a mountain of stuff that would have put a poorer person in jail, and yet, no consequences.
It’s a matter of what ammunition, not ammunition in general. Ukraine uses a quarter of a million artillery shells a month. The US doesn’t have facilities to build them that fast because we would never need to use that many. We would absolutely own the sky over both the battlefield and Russia itself, reducing the utility of artillery and increasing it’s effectiveness. The benefits of combined arms and force multiplication can’t be overstated.
We could very quickly build out capacity to produce the shells Ukraine needs, but it’s a problem of economics. Those facilities are expensive, and wouldn’t be required long enough to provide suppliers a return on investment. We would have to pay a massive premium on those shells and, this far, there hasn’t been the will to do that.
This is what scares me - the idea that we could run out of conventional weapons during a hot war, and start having to think of all those nukes lying around “doing nothing”
Some powers really are too much for humans. We’re not ready
deleted by creator
Exactly. Watching this all play out is strikingly similar to watching Trump get away with a mountain of stuff that would have put a poorer person in jail, and yet, no consequences.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Running out of old stockpiles to send. Western militaries have plenty to spare, but it’d be the ammo they actually use.
deleted by creator
What your suggesting is false and no source will convince you otherwise. Your acting in bad faith.
He’s a mod for a dying conservative community, he does this ALL the time.
deleted by creator
You did not cite a source. You made a baseless claim that these sources exist.
I’m solely blaming you for your deluded and misinformed takes.
deleted by creator
This article doesn’t support your assertion. You clearly have a issue with comprehension.
It’s been a common line pretty much since the war in Ukraine began:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/01/10/russia-might-be-running-out-of-tanks/?sh=23e456721027
Think of it like this:
Russia invades Ukraine and rather than bulldozing them in a week, they have been fought to a stand still for 2 years.
If Russia had to fight Ukraine + the combined power of NATO how fast would it end?
deleted by creator
It’s a matter of what ammunition, not ammunition in general. Ukraine uses a quarter of a million artillery shells a month. The US doesn’t have facilities to build them that fast because we would never need to use that many. We would absolutely own the sky over both the battlefield and Russia itself, reducing the utility of artillery and increasing it’s effectiveness. The benefits of combined arms and force multiplication can’t be overstated.
We could very quickly build out capacity to produce the shells Ukraine needs, but it’s a problem of economics. Those facilities are expensive, and wouldn’t be required long enough to provide suppliers a return on investment. We would have to pay a massive premium on those shells and, this far, there hasn’t been the will to do that.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Guns don’t win wars, they’re important, but we’re talking about artillery, missiles, drones, etc. Nobody is beating Russia with rifles.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This is what scares me - the idea that we could run out of conventional weapons during a hot war, and start having to think of all those nukes lying around “doing nothing”
Some powers really are too much for humans. We’re not ready
Western military uses bombs and missiles from planes not artillery. There isn’t much artillery ammo because our military isn’t set up to use it.
Ukraine doesn’t have the air superiority to risk doing the same thing so the way they fight doesn’t match the way Europe or the us does.
Yeah… Good, I guess… This is a terrible subject, isn’t it?
deleted by creator