|
C.M. Kruger posted:poo poo back in 2015 they tried to do training exercises and lost like four or five aircraft over the course of a week, including two Tu-95s. What in the unholy gently caress happened in that video?
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
White Phosphorus posted:The F-105 Thunderchief is the most amazing sounding aircraft ever! That's a drat fine chorus, but here's my favourite solo performer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5acn0Ksn66E&t=56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft2Krq132wE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ1kjgJye7U&t=47s
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:They'll probably end up with a very limited amount of them, pretty much for propaganda purposes and to try and sell them, as Russia probably can't afford to field them in significant quantities. Also, not 5th generation. At least not stealth-wise. Hunting around the internet finds comments like it's really only low RCS from the front and that the RCS is something in the 0.1m^2 to 2m^2. So, anywhere from slightly better than to slightly worse than the published RCS of an F-15C (1m^2)? Meanwhile the published RCS of an F-22 is 0.0001 m^2 from the front and is also low observable from sides as well. As far as the T-90 tank goes, does anyone find it odd that Russia, who has been the main proponent of reducing the silhouette of tanks, has designed their new super-tank to basically look like a 15 foot high wall?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
e: wrong thread!!! i'll post a pic 
A Handed Missus fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Also, not 5th generation. At least not stealth-wise. Hunting around the internet finds comments like it's really only low RCS from the front and that the RCS is something in the 0.1m^2 to 2m^2. So, anywhere from slightly better than to slightly worse than the published RCS of an F-15C (1m^2)? The new fiction tank is the Armata, T-14 I think? T-90 is still as low as a T-72. Which it essentially is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
You're right. I mean Armata. Sorry. e: Also there is no posted RCS of the PAK-FA. The PAK-FGFA, the India-Russian collaboration has a stated RCS of 0.5m^2. A Russian minister is quoted as saying that the RCS of the PAK-FA is around 1/40th the RCS of the SU-35BM which is published at 0.3m^2. Which would put the PAK-FA about inline with the F-35 from the front. e2: Keep in mind also that RCS is a function of the wavelength of the prosecuting radar system as well. The F-35 is optimized against ground based radar wavelengths, the F-22 is optimized against air-search. I would assume the PAK-FA will also be optimized against air-search. Murgos fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What in the unholy gently caress happened in that video? Not sure of the specific mechanical failure, but wing erupting in flame on takeoff run, subsequently spinning it off the runway at high speed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Maybe fatigued wing spar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I feel we will find that a wartime US industry can ramp up far quicker than a Chinese (or Russian) wartime industry. China can barely maintain quality at dedicated and controlled facilities. We will be depleting their prewar stocks far quicker than they'll be depleting ours as well. To come back to this from a couple of pages ago. I know that the Pentagon maintains plans of how to ramp the economy over to war footing, things like tracking essential manufacturing resources and what can be built out quickly. Still I can't imagine that providing 'global war' quantities of top-of-the-line equipment in any reasonable time frame is realistic. If suddenly we decide we do need 700+ F-22s to reliably act on multiple fronts and a sustained production rate of 10 a month to support losses, I doubt it's going to happen in anything less than 5+ years no matter how much money you throw at it. 10k+ M1A2's? Probably can happen in a couple of years. 50K+ trucks and Hummvees, yeah sure. 400 Arleigh Burkes and stores? Err, no. I was wondering if something like designing for the 80/20 rule could be put in effect. That is, generate designs or even just vetted design proposals at intervals that have 20% of the manufacturing complexity of the first rate units but are only 80% as effective and just keep those in your back pocket. Like for this next gen air superiority contract have all the major players also put in an effort of say, a modern version of something as capable as an F-15C but with every compromise centered on fast/easy/cheap manufacturability and ease of use. Although I guess things like the F-15SE and F-16V might fit that goal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Murgos posted:To come back to this from a couple of pages ago. I know that the Pentagon maintains plans of how to ramp the economy over to war footing, things like tracking essential manufacturing resources and what can be built out quickly. Still I can't imagine that providing 'global war' quantities of top-of-the-line equipment in any reasonable time frame is realistic. If suddenly we decide we do need 700+ F-22s to reliably act on multiple fronts and a sustained production rate of 10 a month to support losses, I doubt it's going to happen in anything less than 5+ years no matter how much money you throw at it. Bewbies' earlier post fits in quite well with this: bewbies posted:One of the big issues you run into with any sort of military futures planning is the basic fact that, in all likelihood, everything that you know and have on hand and have done is going to be pretty useless once the shooting starts. So, the current thinking is that in the event of a big shooting war between peers, we're probably going to be starting from scratch with an awful lot of stuff, and so the best approach is to make both the people and the things as adaptable as possible so as to possibly ease the transition between the military sucking rear end at everything and eventually being good at stuff. The basic idea is that you grow the things that take a long time to grow before anything happens, then scale up production of simpler things once everything kicks off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Murgos posted:To come back to this from a couple of pages ago. I know that the Pentagon maintains plans of how to ramp the economy over to war footing, things like tracking essential manufacturing resources and what can be built out quickly. Still I can't imagine that providing 'global war' quantities of top-of-the-line equipment in any reasonable time frame is realistic. If suddenly we decide we do need 700+ F-22s to reliably act on multiple fronts and a sustained production rate of 10 a month to support losses, I doubt it's going to happen in anything less than 5+ years no matter how much money you throw at it. The issue with planning for global war is you have to assume the majority of both countries heavy manufacturing will take a serious hit in the opening salvos. Two sides aren't going to field armies of that scale in some far away land like some round in an RTS. A few properly cruise missiles making it through defenses and you knock out an entire nations ability for large scale steel production. 100 Bridgeport mills stored away in people's basements, cannot match the material contribution of a single of the huge 5axis CNC machines that exist in shipbuilding and aerospace machine shops. It will take months to rebuild those capabilities if they're destroyed. We have concentrated high end manufacturing in a few small areas because the pinnacles of the supply chain keep getting higher and more costly. 80/20 will be come a necessity as we roll back to retooling hand lathes and smaller stamping presses. For example I don't think theres any way to recover our ability to cast modern reactor vessels within a year, or curl submarine hull sections. You'll be thrown back to 1950s level manufacturing ability of quantity and quality. All sub-100nm chip fabs? Gone. Kills your ability to make ASEAs. And you've got whatever you've stock piled I don't think even M1A2s or F-16s are a reasonable goal because turbines alone have a huge and complex manufacturing chain. DrAlexanderTobacco posted:Bewbies' earlier post fits in quite well with this: Yes I agree with Bewbies about that as well. The outbreak of war will quickly demonstrate the fallibility of each sides equipment. The US has another advantage there in that we have the budget to continue ally be testing and training and fielding which has led to better quality. Especially in air and sea. But other sides are continually trying to improve.So we deplete all sides of long lead time procurements. Heavy manufacturing in both countries being smashed will make those losses irreplaceable for the immediate future. Which is why months ago I was arguing for the future of drone warfare. Plastic molding is quickly adaptable and small scale enough to ramp up within weeks. Small scale electronics need far less overhead and smaller and easily replaceable manufacturing equipment. You don't need air superiority to field an infantry portable drone swarm for CAS replacement. Sustaining any sort of global war will require small localized manufacturing capability with agility and easy to reproduce components. Murgos posted:As far as the T-90 tank goes, does anyone find it odd that Russia, who has been the main proponent of reducing the silhouette of tanks, has designed their new super-tank to basically look like a 15 foot high wall? KV-2 is Stonk tank of motherland 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:12
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Sustaining any sort of global war will require small localized manufacturing capability with agility and easy to reproduce components. "Soldier handle that 3D printer like your life depends on it"
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Murgos posted:To come back to this from a couple of pages ago. I know that the Pentagon maintains plans of how to ramp the economy over to war footing, things like tracking essential manufacturing resources and what can be built out quickly. Still I can't imagine that providing 'global war' quantities of top-of-the-line equipment in any reasonable time frame is realistic. If suddenly we decide we do need 700+ F-22s to reliably act on multiple fronts and a sustained production rate of 10 a month to support losses, I doubt it's going to happen in anything less than 5+ years no matter how much money you throw at it. You might actually be kind of shocked at the forecasts...I certainly was, the ones I've seen in some detail being Patriot interceptors, rocket artillery rounds, air to air missiles, and tube artillery systems. There's a lot of hoopla about the decline of American manufacturing and so on, but the country's industrial base, especially when it comes to technologically demanding products, is still absolutely mammoth in comparison to the rest of the world. If the money firehose ever gets turned on all the way, the ramp-up time for a variety of important systems is surprisingly short. Money makes things go fast. The big concerns aren't so much the capacity of the various lines, it is the sourcing of rare raw materials. This has been a major focus of R&D dollars for the last several years - the American industrial base is largely immune to kinetic attack (cyber of course is a different animal), but if you can't get the couple grams of (EXTREMELY RARE HEAVY METAL THAT IS FOUND ONLY IN ONE MOUNTAIN DEEP IN THE GOBI DESERT) that your fancy missile absolutely requires, you're in some deep trouble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Thinking about the USAF buying new build F-15s, has there been any studies done on re-engine'ing either legacy F-15s or new build F-15s with the F119 engine in the F-22? The size and weight don't seem too far off based on wikipedia specs and the performance gains (and maybe supercruise and thrust vectoring) seem like they would be worth it--if the USAF went down that route. Or maybe the F119 engines just won't fit or would be prohibitively expensive. But imagine new build F-15s with supercruise and hardpoints for days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
bewbies posted:the American industrial base is largely immune to kinetic attack (cyber of course is a different animal). Besides being surrounded by oceans what immunity does American industry have to kinetic attack? Bomber penetration into US airspace is not impossible, just bulwarked by our current superior air power and air defense. As those assets get depleted then we really don't have that advantage. No other peers cruise missiles match up to ours now but it wouldnt take much to cripple key industry's for the duration of a global conventional war. Ignoring completely strategic weapons release.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
bewbies posted:You might actually be kind of shocked at the forecasts...I certainly was, the ones I've seen in some detail being Patriot interceptors, rocket artillery rounds, air to air missiles, and tube artillery systems. There's a lot of hoopla about the decline of American manufacturing and so on, but the country's industrial base, especially when it comes to technologically demanding products, is still absolutely mammoth in comparison to the rest of the world. If the money firehose ever gets turned on all the way, the ramp-up time for a variety of important systems is surprisingly short. Money makes things go fast. Yeah, people forget that while we don't make bic pens and cheap toys anymore, we *could* do so fairly easily. There are plenty of injection molding machines and CNC lathes and whatever in this country, it's just not economically sensible to produce cheap consumer goods with expensive, valuable labor. Same goes for small low value parts. Manufacturers all over the world have figured out how to deal with sudden parts shortages and supply chain problems; it takes less time than you might think as long as you have the money. A lot of rare metals are mined in China and Mongolia, but also in Australia and Chile in lesser amounts. Some stuff like lithium is pretty much only mined in South America. M_Gargantua posted:Besides being surrounded by oceans what immunity does American industry have to kinetic attack? Other than that Mrs. Kennedy how did you enjoy your trip to Dallas? Mortabis fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
SgtMongoose posted:Or maybe the F119 engines just won't fit or would be prohibitively expensive. But imagine new build F-15s with supercruise and hardpoints for days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Are oceans really all that effective as barriers any more? I mean, even without canned sunshine, all it takes is one sub getting close enough to pop out a bunch of cruise missiles and a large chunk of the high-tech industry just blew up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Are oceans really all that effective as barriers any more? I mean, even without canned sunshine, all it takes is one sub getting close enough to pop out a bunch of cruise missiles and a large chunk of the high-tech industry just blew up. ...not really? Like, if you blow up a microsoft office they'll just move into a new office. And they're not all in one building. You'd need a lot of loving cruise missiles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:...not really? Like, if you blow up a microsoft office they'll just move into a new office. And they're not all in one building. You'd need a lot of loving cruise missiles. Putting a hurting on an Intel fab is somewhat easier, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
A Microsoft office is not a strategic asset that you'd waste a cruise missile on. That's a cyber target where you'd just wipe as much of their data and backups as you could manage. Things like our small handful of military shipyards, dpecialized high strength alloy casting facilities, chip fabricators, turbine and airframe manufacuries, those are strategic targets which have an immense amount of irrecoverable and immobile capital invested in them to produce the goods they do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
E: ^^^ This is put way better than my ramblings.^^^ Yeah I was talking more about breaking all the fancy, expensive, and rare manufacturing equipment, not knocking down some offices in Silicon Valley. I mean, it wouldn't cripple the industry or anything, but when basically everything more advanced than a rifle or truck needs delicate and specialize equipment it'll still hurt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Russia is the only nation we could feasibly fight that could project any transpacific force in the next two decades. And most of their stuff is long in the tooth. We could take a few hits but it's not like every industrial site within 100 miles of the Pacific is dead. Getting bombers in the air is more feasible but not likely to end well for anyone on that strike.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:A Microsoft office is not a strategic asset that you'd waste a cruise missile on. That's a cyber target where you'd just wipe as much of their data and backups as you could manage. Aim a little lower on the supply chain: Cripple the precision bearing industry, kneecap the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
The F119's inlet diameter is almost the same as the overall maximum diameter of an F100-229. It won't fit in an F-15. Getting more thrust from the F100 is probably possible, but would probably be cost-prohibitive. (We should have bought 600 F-22s, done away with the C/D Eagles entirely, and probably saved money.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Are oceans really all that effective as barriers any more? I mean, even without canned sunshine, all it takes is one sub getting close enough to pop out a bunch of cruise missiles and a large chunk of the high-tech industry just blew up. It is a huge ask to get a SSGN all the way across a heavily contested ocean undetected, and even if you do, 1) you're delivering, in total, about the same amount of HE as a Bigger concerns in this scenario, at least in my opinion, are 1) interdicting shipments of materials, especially those on the water, and 2) either industrial sabotage or some sort of undercover ninja managing to blow something up. Ruble for ruble, undercover ninjas are going to give you a much better ROI than attempting some sort of intercontinental precision strike. bewbies fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
If this supposed enemy is really trying to cripple our military and our ability to wage war, just manufacture another My Lai early on. ISIS has demonstrated that videos of abominations make the world hate the guilty. So, make a video of American troops murdering civilians running into their arms for safety - shoot it in such a way that any war becomes immensely unpopular. It's been said here time and again that the Russians and Chinese value life differently, so what is it to them to sacrifice a village or a small city? Hell, the current administration is proving that the media will pursue anything even as our government denies it. Every time we bomb a wedding or a medical facility it's a small outrage - imagine if it's shown on CNN, CNBC, and Fox News every night. Remember that poor bloodied Syrian kid that was on every front page for awhile? Make that our fault. Make war so unpopular that we handcuff ourselves publicly for doing it, remove our ability to wage war in the public eye. All it takes is a few hundred or a few thousand innocent civilians, some cameras and a bunch of Twitter and Facebook accounts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Ruble for ruble, undercover ninjas are going to give you a much better ROI than attempting some sort of intercontinental precision strike. The prospect of some dedicated individuals with AMRs (or even just .308s) putting holes in big power transformers all around the country is seriously scary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:If this supposed enemy is really trying to cripple our military and our ability to wage war, just manufacture another My Lai early on. ISIS has demonstrated that videos of abominations make the world hate the guilty. So, make a video of American troops murdering civilians running into their arms for safety - shoot it in such a way that any war becomes immensely unpopular. It's been said here time and again that the Russians and Chinese value life differently, so what is it to them to sacrifice a village or a small city? I'm reminded of that scene in Babylon 5 now. What honestly stops Russia was outright filming and fabricating a war crime implicating the US and then having it be "leaked" via WikiLeaks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Pro tip: if the US is at a point where attrition either means they have to choose to stop their far away war using US expeditionary forces or open up CONUS to conventional bombardment to the point of crippling our industrial base, we're going to stop the expeditionary attrition even if it means losing a war in another power's back yard. So yes, oceans and airspace fuckin' matter because the US is not going to tolerate mass conventional strikes on its soil even if it means saying goodbye to some of our overseas influence/interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Frankly Archer isn't available either, more than likely, thanks to its shitshow development. no it actually works now and is in service, it just took like 15 years to get here We're even getting twice as many as originally intended because the Norwegians cancelled their order and we picked them up instead since they were already assembled. The problem though is that we still only got 24 tubes (enough for two brigades), and they're all at the one artillery regiment in the country, and, well:  It's one of the better places to be in Europe if you want to do live fire exercises without bothering anyone other than reindeer, but it's otherwise sort of inconvenient. Boden is further north than Nome, Alaska. Also note Moscow in the lower right corner. (beware though that the northern part of the map is a bit distorted due to high latitude and mercator projection) TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
bewbies posted:You might actually be kind of shocked at the forecasts...I certainly was, the ones I've seen in some detail being Patriot interceptors, rocket artillery rounds, air to air missiles, and tube artillery systems. There's a lot of hoopla about the decline of American manufacturing and so on, but the country's industrial base, especially when it comes to technologically demanding products, is still absolutely mammoth in comparison to the rest of the world. If the money firehose ever gets turned on all the way, the ramp-up time for a variety of important systems is surprisingly short. Money makes things go fast. Even China? I mean high tech military R&D maybe not so much but they make a hell a lot of the world's stuff right now, they're the major source of components for a whole lot of things, and I seem to recall reading they were trying to corner the rare earths market a while back. I mean, the steel for your warships isn't coming from Pittsburgh any more, it's imported. From China, or India.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Even China? I mean high tech military R&D maybe not so much but they make a hell a lot of the world's stuff right now, they're the major source of components for a whole lot of things, and I seem to recall reading they were trying to corner the rare earths market a while back. China attempted to cut off Japan's supply of rare earths due to some international incident in the 00s. This caused prices to increase about 10x (depending on the exact REE). Subsequently, manufacturers started using 90% less REEs - remember how giant old HDD magnets were compared to modern ones? Turns out that most REEs can be substituted with other things with minor impact on performance. When demand dropped, prices collapsed and this took the only two non-Chinese mines out of the market (one in South Africa, another in California). But manufacturers continued to use less REEs, so demand stayed low. Most REE producers even within China - the largest mine with literally 10 times higher grade than the former American producer - are currently losing money. So China screwed their own companies over, is now effectively subsidizing everyone's electronics and glass polishing powder, and when they stop there is some chance of non-Chinese projects being viable. It's hardly the show-stopper the REE exploration companies would have you believe, and if the government truly believed that supply chain would be a threat, a small strategic reserve (literally just several dozen tonnes depending on the element) would be enough for years of supply for critical applications. For some of the rarer elements like Thulium you could fit a year's demand within a suitcase.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm reminded of that scene in Babylon 5 now. Nothing. This is why the piss tape is real, whether or not the incident actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
It's hard to disrupt heavy industry with lots of HE from the air when your CEP is 10,000'. Also laffo at America backing down in the face of a vulnerable CONUS, were you here for 2002? We'd nuke our own foot off first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
I must have missed the part where in 2002 we overextended out wars until conventional strikes knocked out our industrial base.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Besides being surrounded by oceans what immunity does American industry have to kinetic attack? Bomber penetration into US airspace is not impossible, just bulwarked by our current superior air power and air defense. As those assets get depleted then we really don't have that advantage. No other peers cruise missiles match up to ours now but it wouldnt take much to cripple key industry's for the duration of a global conventional war. Ignoring completely strategic weapons release. M_Gargantua posted:A Microsoft office is not a strategic asset that you'd waste a cruise missile on. That's a cyber target where you'd just wipe as much of their data and backups as you could manage. I quote you but I'm really addressing everyone who is talking about the instability of American industry in a war. Stop it. This is worse than watching the RAM/RCS discussions because its actually unclassified. A bunch of specific points for those who care: -They tyranny of distance is a real thing. -Being an ocean away is a big deal. Its way easier to detect stuff over the ocean, making round trips is very hard. -We have the capacity to produce aircraft currently all over the country. When war breaks out critical components will likely be made at multiple sites. The lack of shipyards is a cogent point but thats why JLENS (or one that works), missile defense, AEW planes, etc. protect those critical sites you only have a few of. By the way we have them on both coasts as well. -Someone mentioned ball bearings, there are currently 490 US government suppliers with the name bearings in the company name and probably 1000+ bearing suppliers. We got plenty of fuckin' bearing makers, this isn't WWII Germany. -We have HUGE numbers of machine shops in every city and several indigenous machine tool manufacturers. -We have incredibly flexible manufacturing. I toured an automaker's engine plant for a job interview, its not a bunch of specialized machines. Its a bunch of OKK horizontal CNC mills of the exact same size and model that produce a variety of the engine components. The only thing done on a specialized machine is some engine block operations. Plane manufacturing is going this way as well, I have seen regular ol' robots with special end effectors do a number of operations in air frame assembly. -There are TONS of specialty chip/CCA/electronics manufacturers here. Everything from the foundry all the way to assembly. mlmp08 posted:Pro tip: if the US is at a point where attrition either means they have to choose to stop their far away war using US expeditionary forces or open up CONUS to conventional bombardment to the point of crippling our industrial base, we're going to stop the expeditionary attrition even if it means losing a war in another power's back yard. This! CarForumPoster fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Stop taking about a conventional WW3 like it would be WW2 with PGMs. Y'all sound like a bunch of battleship admirals in 1929.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm reminded of that scene in Babylon 5 now. We live in a world where 4channers can play capture-the-flag over an entire continent based only on the footage from a webcam pointed at the flag in question. I'm pretty sure fabricating something that would stand up to actual analysis is bit more difficult than you suggest. You're also assuming that in an existential war that people would persist in worrying about things like minor war crimes. If the Vietnamese had been bombing US soil I think the reaction to May Lai would have been something more along the lines of a shrug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:Even China? I mean high tech military R&D maybe not so much but they make a hell a lot of the world's stuff right now, they're the major source of components for a whole lot of things, and I seem to recall reading they were trying to corner the rare earths market a while back. I mean, the steel for your warships isn't coming from Pittsburgh any more, it's imported. From China, or India. You're partially correct in that there are still a bunch of (mainly raw) materials that the US is, or would be for a while, reliant on imports. Manufacturing high end war gizmos though, that is very different from building things like ipads or memory chips, and it is an area where the US still holds a considerable advantage in most respects. I won't go into much more detail than this as I am unsure of classifications etc, but the lines for practically every important thing are limited mainly by personnel cost: industry is paid very well to keep their facilities rapidly expandable in the event the money is there to do the expansion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 21:49
|
|