EPTNone of my plants make tanks but you can scale up or down relatively rapidly if you have existing lines. You don’t need to source raw materials from scratch etc., you just need to call your supplier and ask them if they could meet the hypothetical demand. There’s generally a lot of slack within production because you wouldn’t want to build a plant that could only handle exactly current demand. The marginal cost add for excess capacity in everything but labour is low and labour is relatively flexible.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 370
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
KwarK
United States43985 Posts
None of my plants make tanks but you can scale up or down relatively rapidly if you have existing lines. You don’t need to source raw materials from scratch etc., you just need to call your supplier and ask them if they could meet the hypothetical demand. There’s generally a lot of slack within production because you wouldn’t want to build a plant that could only handle exactly current demand. The marginal cost add for excess capacity in everything but labour is low and labour is relatively flexible. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23946 Posts
On February 01 2023 08:04 Gorsameth wrote: Isn't the obvious and simple answer that the US is not operating at "war time production"? The US is not at war, and doesn't consider the situation in Ukraine to warrant such a ramp up in production that would certainly come at a cost somewhere else. Russia is fighting for its future, for the US its just another day in the week. I'd say this (though the US is in a proxy war imo) plus the whole not being able to account for almost 2 out of every 3 things they have on paper makes giving up what they can account for (and/or people presume they have) harder. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43985 Posts
On February 01 2023 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote: I'd say this (though the US is in a proxy war imo) plus the whole not being able to account for almost 2 out of every 3 things they have on paper makes giving up what they can account for (and/or people presume they have) harder. I think that 2/3 thing was from the auditors and they issued a disclaimer over 2/3 the financials. A disclaimer doesn’t mean they found it was wrong, it means they lacked sufficient evidence to conclusively say either way. Your audit options are basically “based on what I looked at it’s probably fine”, “based on what I looked at it’s probably mostly fine”, “based on what I looked at it’s probably wrong”, “based on what I looked at it’s probably a dumpster fire”, and “they wouldn’t show me anything so who knows”. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5811 Posts
On February 01 2023 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote: I'd say this (though the US is in a proxy war imo) plus the whole not being able to account for almost 2 out of every 3 things they have on paper makes giving up what they can account for (and/or people presume they have) harder. This is not a proxy war. By definition, in a proxy war either one or both parties involved wage war at the instigation of another state, not directly involved. Ukraine was not instigated to do anything. They are simply defending. And Russia is clearly not doing anything at the instigation of the US. Russia is the aggressor and they are directly involved. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
The USAI funds would go toward the purchase of a new weapon, the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) made by Boeing Co (BA.N), which have a range of 94 miles (150 km). The United States has rebuffed Ukraine's requests for the 185-mile (297-km) range ATACMS missile. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-readies-2-bln-plus-ukraine-aid-package-with-longer-range-weapons-sources-2023-01-31/ These are very cheap, definitely easier to shoot down than GMLRS because it's a glide bomb rather than a missile, and works directly with the HIMARS/M270 etc that Ukraine already has. If they can get them in enough quantity, it's going to degrade the anti-air abilities of Russia (If USA can get hundreds to thousands of them to Ukraine) because they cost roughly as much as the Iranian Shahed drones, but are presumably available in far higher quantities, so intercepting them is a losing battle. So far what we've seen in this war is ranged fire is the dominant factor in advancing lines forward. Aircraft > Artillery > Tanks/Armored Cavalry roughly in that order, and since anti-air is preventing the heavy use of aircraft, artillery is the next best thing. The more range you have on your artillery, the better off you are, especially when the artillery is accurate at extreme ranges. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On February 01 2023 09:10 maybenexttime wrote: This is not a proxy war. By definition, in a proxy war either one or both parties involved wage war at the instigation of another state, not directly involved. Ukraine was not instigated to do anything. They are simply defending. And Russia is clearly not doing anything at the instigation of the US. Russia is the aggressor and they are directly involved. Is this right? Your wording is extremely similar to the definition given by the Wikipedia page for “proxy war”: A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities. But there’s a big ol’ “on behalf of” in the Wikipedia definition. Are we gonna say a proxy war can’t be defensive? Was Vietnam not a proxy war even though the Soviets supported the Viet Cong, because the US was the one invading? Or when the US supported the Mujahideen against the Soviet invasion, was that not a proxy war? If we insist on that definition, surely you can at least grant they have a lot of commonalities with proxy wars (great powers supporting sides in a smaller conflict as a way of furthering their position against other great powers). I confess that “proxy war” is exactly how I’ve been thinking of the war in Ukraine. I don’t consider it a criticism; I think the Ukrainian cause is just, and the rules of engagement between nuclear powers seem to be that, for various reasons, military aid is allowed but direct intervention is not, so we’re doing what we can within those parameters. Don’t get me wrong, I feel bad that Ukrainians are risking their lives while the rest of us are only risking our pocketbooks, but averting nuclear escalation is also a just cause and this seems to be how we’re trying to prevent that. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
pmp10
3396 Posts
On February 01 2023 09:46 Lmui wrote: Looks like the USA is giving Ukraine some longer range artillery: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-readies-2-bln-plus-ukraine-aid-package-with-longer-range-weapons-sources-2023-01-31/ These are very cheap, definitely easier to shoot down than GMLRS because it's a glide bomb rather than a missile, and works directly with the HIMARS/M270 etc that Ukraine already has. If they can get them in enough quantity, it's going to degrade the anti-air abilities of Russia (If USA can get hundreds to thousands of them to Ukraine) because they cost roughly as much as the Iranian Shahed drones, but are presumably available in far higher quantities, so intercepting them is a losing battle. Are these even available for mass production? I keep seeing the capabilities but no one talks availability. If new assembly lines are needed then this can't make a difference before autumn. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2395 Posts
On February 01 2023 16:58 pmp10 wrote: Are these even available for mass production? I keep seeing the capabilities but no one talks availability. If new assembly lines are needed then this can't make a difference before autumn. Read somewhere that the US will send surplus from Afghanistan first, so there's already some in stock. Apparently it only costs 40k which might indicate it's relatively straightforward to make? | ||
|
pmp10
3396 Posts
Anyway I think I found the awnser. [...]Although a handful of GLSDB units have already been made[...] Sounds like no mass production to date. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17743 Posts
I wonder how credible those predictions are. If they're true then it's going to be a rough ride worldwide... | ||
|
0x64
Finland4615 Posts
On February 01 2023 19:35 Manit0u wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-Wn64ShZzo I wonder how credible those predictions are. If they're true then it's going to be a rough ride worldwide... If Nazi germany didn't end up in stone age, and was able to become what is modern germany, so will Russia one day become something bearable (pun intended). | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Overall episode can be found here: | ||
|
warding
Portugal2395 Posts
On February 01 2023 19:35 Manit0u wrote: + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-Wn64ShZzo I wonder how credible those predictions are. If they're true then it's going to be a rough ride worldwide... Peter Zeihan is an interesting guy to listen to, as he seems to be a generalist with enough confidence to make predictions about the future. I think he makes claims with more certainty than he ought to, but sometimes these types of pundits are useful in order to give us more ideas to build our own worldview. The counter-example in terms of punditry is, for example, Michael Kofman. The guy certainly knows his stuff about the war and Russia's military but he never makes predictions, everything is always 'contingent'. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14123 Posts
But a lot of his core points about russia make a lot of sense and come from basic facts. The future situation for russia is so unbelievably bleak no matter what happens out of this war. If the things he says about the Russian education situation the russian demographic situation and the russian oil industry situation are true then things are so much worse than what I think joe on the street believes. I think a bigger problem than how bad things are going to get from them is that I just don't see how things will ever get better for them. There is a cascading series of problems that will be coming from them in the coming years. I just don't see how they will be able to reinterface with major economies if they hold onto any part of Ukraine and I don't see how they stay together without a major "victory" in the war. If they don't reinterface with the EU their wages for the dwindeling skilled labor they have now will not compete with EU wages. I'm talking basic consumer level technically skilled labor like AC repairmen. Every road just seems to lead to becoming a chinese vassel state or worse. The GLSDB on an aside isn't a wholly new manufactured weapon but a combination of GBU-39's and M26 rocket motors. Its a partnership between Saab and Boeing to reuse the two systems that don't have a use anymore. It was imagined to be used against the taliban in Afganistan, useing the inherent ability of the GBU side to hit reverse slope positions. They are old enough that they can fit nicely into the guided rocket launcher systems already in ukraine like the HIMAR's. The USA should have something crazy like 300k or so of the M26's so I'm just assuming that at this point they're figuring out new things to stick at the end of them. If they can develop something like a JDAM kit for rockets I wouldn't be surprised to see those start to get fired pretty quickly. Its a system that is cheap enough and agile enough that it could genuinely go after armored vehicles and artillery pieces instead of supply depots. They do fit into the same kind of Box ammunition for HIMARS MARS M270's use thats proven to be so effective. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5811 Posts
On February 01 2023 10:01 ChristianS wrote: Is this right? Your wording is extremely similar to the definition given by the Wikipedia page for “proxy war”: But there’s a big ol’ “on behalf of” in the Wikipedia definition. Are we gonna say a proxy war can’t be defensive? Was Vietnam not a proxy war even though the Soviets supported the Viet Cong, because the US was the one invading? Or when the US supported the Mujahideen against the Soviet invasion, was that not a proxy war? If we insist on that definition, surely you can at least grant they have a lot of commonalities with proxy wars (great powers supporting sides in a smaller conflict as a way of furthering their position against other great powers). I confess that “proxy war” is exactly how I’ve been thinking of the war in Ukraine. I don’t consider it a criticism; I think the Ukrainian cause is just, and the rules of engagement between nuclear powers seem to be that, for various reasons, military aid is allowed but direct intervention is not, so we’re doing what we can within those parameters. Don’t get me wrong, I feel bad that Ukrainians are risking their lives while the rest of us are only risking our pocketbooks, but averting nuclear escalation is also a just cause and this seems to be how we’re trying to prevent that. I distilled definitions from a few websites, including Wikipedia. Ukraine is not fighting on behalf of anyone. Ukraine is fighting for its own survival. Calling it a proxy war is a Russian propaganda talking point. It makes it seem as if the US and Russia were duking it out in Ukraine. It's insulting to Ukrainians and takes responsibility away from Russia by feeding into the NATO bogeyman nonsense. The US tried very hard to prevent this war by discouraging Russia, calling out the invasion, and so on. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On February 02 2023 03:15 maybenexttime wrote: I distilled definitions from a few websites, including Wikipedia. Ukraine is not fighting on behalf of anyone. Ukraine is fighting for its own survival. Calling it a proxy war is a Russian propaganda talking point. It makes it seem as if the US and Russia were duking it out in Ukraine. It's insulting to Ukrainians and takes responsibility away from Russia by feeding into the NATO bogeyman nonsense. The US tried very hard to prevent this war by discouraging Russia, calling out the invasion, and so on. Sure, I guess I get why you think the term would have negative connotations. But I don’t see why it should be insulting to Ukrainians to say they aren’t just fighting alone; they have the support (in various forms) of a wide array of democratic powers in the world, and they have that support because those powers agree that the Russian invasion is a menace, a threat to the sovereignty of a lot more countries than just Ukraine, and it’s everybody’s duty to oppose it. The US isn’t calling the shots, they didn’t cause the war, but they’ve certainly taken a side. If they were sending US troops to fight Russians it would just be a war, but instead their involvement is indirect (or, dare I say, “proxy”). Does that seem like an unfair or insulting characterization? I know you’re responding to GH who might actually have some of the uncharitable opinions you’re saying the term implies, but I guess I think focusing on definitions obfuscates the issue. I think Soviet involvement in Vietnam, US involvement in (the Soviet invasion of) Afghanistan, and NATO countries’ support for Ukraine all have similar characteristics that the term “proxy war” is meant to denote. Those characteristics are separable from whether the proxy-supported side’s cause was just or not. Or maybe this isn’t worth focusing so much on. Sorry, I’ll drop it if you want. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23946 Posts
On February 02 2023 03:15 maybenexttime wrote: I distilled definitions from a few websites, including Wikipedia. Ukraine is not fighting on behalf of anyone. Ukraine is fighting for its own survival. Calling it a proxy war is a Russian propaganda talking point. It makes it seem as if the US and Russia were duking it out in Ukraine. It's insulting to Ukrainians and takes responsibility away from Russia by feeding into the NATO bogeyman nonsense. The US tried very hard to prevent this war by discouraging Russia, calling out the invasion, and so on. Russia and the US are duking it out in Ukraine with Ukrainians doing the fighting. Russia invading them doesn't change that. I commend Ukrainians' fighting spirit and they have every right to fight, but it'd basically be a memory without the support from the US. Anyway, the point was that the US is engaged in multiple proxy wars around the world and Ukraine is being treated like another one of those (or "just another day" as Gor put it), when it comes to the US's capacity to supply more. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17743 Posts
On February 02 2023 02:39 Sermokala wrote: Zeihan is the guy I think that says things at that limit where you have to be an expert to figure out if its really wrong or not. I think he speaks enough that what he says is what he believes that you can collect it with economists or meteorologists for predictions. But a lot of his core points about russia make a lot of sense and come from basic facts. The future situation for russia is so unbelievably bleak no matter what happens out of this war. If the things he says about the Russian education situation the russian demographic situation and the russian oil industry situation are true then things are so much worse than what I think joe on the street believes. I think a bigger problem than how bad things are going to get from them is that I just don't see how things will ever get better for them. There is a cascading series of problems that will be coming from them in the coming years. I just don't see how they will be able to reinterface with major economies if they hold onto any part of Ukraine and I don't see how they stay together without a major "victory" in the war. If they don't reinterface with the EU their wages for the dwindeling skilled labor they have now will not compete with EU wages. I'm talking basic consumer level technically skilled labor like AC repairmen. Every road just seems to lead to becoming a chinese vassel state or worse. He posted a bit of a follow-up to the previous video, adding a bit of info on how the sanctions will probably collapse Russian economy by the 15th of April (when the default deadline hits and Russia has no way of paying its debts as their central bank has been cut off from all major foreign currencies). He's also talking about how the oil prices might change (expecting $170-200/barrel on a worldwide market) and how Canada might be the big beneficiary of the sanctions on Russia. As far as becoming the Chinese vassal state I think that's rather unlikely. China is going through some very rough times right now and it's unclear if it won't also collapse as they're hitting crisis after crisis and things are only going to get worse. | ||
| ||
