You see, weapons do not grow on trees. Instead, you need to allocate resources, to either construct them yourself, or purchase them from other people who do. This is usually done with money.
Decade? Probably not, unless you’re trying to spin up domestic production from nothing.
Few years maybe. Depends who you buy them from and how developed their industry is. S Korea does a lot of artillery production. US has its fair share if you want jets. Everyone’s got small arms, trucks, stuff like that.
The EU and America ARE starting from scratch. They shuttered most of their industrial capacity, thinking war in the future was only going to be high-tech.
O pull your head out of the sand. You must be young and don’t remember the Rust Bowl in America. And all the Americans thrown out of work as they deindustrialized. No one has the capacity to beat Russia in producing armaments. It takes years to build that type of capacity.
… remember the Rust Bowl? lol You should do your homework a little better.
Now I will agree that it takes years, absolutely. Not decades though, which is what you said earlier. Also, fortunately, the process of scaling up armaments production was already started, about two years ago.
You don’t know what you don’t know. So you weren’t around when America shut down all its industry and moved manufacturing to China? LOL I still stand by my position that it will take a least a decade to spin up manufacturing to be able to compete with Russian manufacturing of military product. Other than China or possibly India, Russia hasn’t any competition in this regard. That’s one of the reasons they’ve won the war, well, that and superior military tactics. Russia has never been conquered—Not even close.
You read too much bullshit. The US is the second-largest manufacturer on the planet, after China. We have quite a lot of industry still. Nor was “rust bowl” ever a term, which you’d know if you were an American.
If Russian production is so plentiful, where are all the T-90s? Seems to me a major producer of materiel wouldn’t be needing to field its T-64’s in a modern conflict.
Of course, that’s why they’ve been able to devastate Ukraine without facing much resistance. They’re certainly not being humiliated, are they?
But let’s be real, there’s a big difference between being able to build tractors with a cannon attached and actually producing proper tanks. Europe has one capability, and Russia has the other—I don’t need to spell out which is which, the convoy heading toward Kyiv at the start of the war made that pretty clear.
It could be, I’m not a military expert, but I have eyes in my face and I can see that they’re not capable of gaining air superiority against one of the poorest countries in Europe. Maybe they didn’t want to, but I believe they couldn’t. I see that it’s almost been three years since the Moskva sank, and there’s still no replacement in sight. Maybe they don’t want to build one, but I think they can’t.
You see, weapons do not grow on trees. Instead, you need to allocate resources, to either construct them yourself, or purchase them from other people who do. This is usually done with money.
@Carrolade@lemmy.world
Which won’t happen overnight — Probably take a decade or more.
@NightOwl@lemmy.ca
Decade? Probably not, unless you’re trying to spin up domestic production from nothing.
Few years maybe. Depends who you buy them from and how developed their industry is. S Korea does a lot of artillery production. US has its fair share if you want jets. Everyone’s got small arms, trucks, stuff like that.
@Carrolade@lemmy.world
The EU and America ARE starting from scratch. They shuttered most of their industrial capacity, thinking war in the future was only going to be high-tech.
@NightOwl@lemmy.ca
Scratch? No, not even close. A reduction and an elimination are not the same thing.
@Carrolade@lemmy.world
O pull your head out of the sand. You must be young and don’t remember the Rust Bowl in America. And all the Americans thrown out of work as they deindustrialized. No one has the capacity to beat Russia in producing armaments. It takes years to build that type of capacity.
@NightOwl@lemmy.ca
… remember the Rust Bowl? lol You should do your homework a little better.
Now I will agree that it takes years, absolutely. Not decades though, which is what you said earlier. Also, fortunately, the process of scaling up armaments production was already started, about two years ago.
@Carrolade@lemmy.world
You don’t know what you don’t know. So you weren’t around when America shut down all its industry and moved manufacturing to China? LOL I still stand by my position that it will take a least a decade to spin up manufacturing to be able to compete with Russian manufacturing of military product. Other than China or possibly India, Russia hasn’t any competition in this regard. That’s one of the reasons they’ve won the war, well, that and superior military tactics. Russia has never been conquered—Not even close.
@NightOwl@lemmy.ca
You read too much bullshit. The US is the second-largest manufacturer on the planet, after China. We have quite a lot of industry still. Nor was “rust bowl” ever a term, which you’d know if you were an American.
If Russian production is so plentiful, where are all the T-90s? Seems to me a major producer of materiel wouldn’t be needing to field its T-64’s in a modern conflict.
Of course, that’s why they’ve been able to devastate Ukraine without facing much resistance. They’re certainly not being humiliated, are they?
But let’s be real, there’s a big difference between being able to build tractors with a cannon attached and actually producing proper tanks. Europe has one capability, and Russia has the other—I don’t need to spell out which is which, the convoy heading toward Kyiv at the start of the war made that pretty clear.
@Foni@lemm.ee
You’re quite deluded about Russia.
@NightOwl@lemmy.ca @Carrolade@lemmy.world
It could be, I’m not a military expert, but I have eyes in my face and I can see that they’re not capable of gaining air superiority against one of the poorest countries in Europe. Maybe they didn’t want to, but I believe they couldn’t. I see that it’s almost been three years since the Moskva sank, and there’s still no replacement in sight. Maybe they don’t want to build one, but I think they can’t.
Maybe I’m quite deluded about Russia.