As Russian President Vladimir Putin makes his first visit to North Korea in more than two decades this week, his focus is widely seen to be on securing ongoing support from the hermit nation for his grinding war in Ukraine.
They keep claiming they have what they need to destroy Russia, but 2 years into the conflict, it still hasn’t shown up, and Russia is even stronger. NATO doesn’t have anything else they can part with.
UK admitted they have ammo for 3 weeks of warfare. German military is in shambles. French and Polish disarmed some of their units to send arms to Ukraine. US is not in such a great condition too, eating L after L from barely armed people like Taliban or Ansar Allah.
Sure, they may be well armed but for usual aerial terror campaigns (because not even for naval now), but absolutely not for land warfare.
A very large portion of American military doctrine is centered around avoiding overextension. US military stockpile information isn’t published but with their budget and emphasis on being able to fight a traditional war, imperialist projects and counter revolution at the same time, it’s safe to assume US stockpiles are still strong. Secondly, American military failure in those regions is more of a result of not knowing how to do counterinsurgency than a lack of material. Also the way the US fights land wars is through campaigns of aerial terror. You can’t separate the two when it comes to the US.
Overextension of the US army isn’t really happening now. The US military’s greatest weakness is the inability to hold objectives and fight counterinsurgency and that’s more of what we’re seeing, not supply or logistics failures.
The US Navy is currently extremely overextended. They are currently losing what Navy officers have described as the largest naval battle the US has been in since WW2 against a nation whose navy consists of speedboats.
On the subject of supply or logistics, the US military basically lacks any of the transport/airlift capacity they had 25 years ago. That, to my mind, qualifies as a supply or logistics failure, given that such a capacity would be a basic necessity for any actual Army engagement in a conflict.
It doesn’t make it less dangerous. My argument is that the US military is still a very large danger, and being unable to hold ground but able to kill a lot of people is still very dangerous.
If the United States had the capacity to make enough ammunition and ordnance to fight multiple wars at the same time, there would be enough people employed by these companies that you would probably personally know at least 1 of them.
All those places together do not even employ 400,000 people. I work in manufacturing and I don’t know a single person who works at these places. What I’m saying is so many new jobs would be created that MILLIONS of people would from that point on be in the defense sector making bombs and bullets. It’s not even comparable.
Walmart is a big employer. Can they supply war munitions? Being a big employer is genuinely irrelevant unless the bulk of those employees are making munitions
Look I’m not trying to be a dick here but are you being serious? The US can deliver some special, expensive wundermunitions via aircraft, if they have absolute air superiority. They only get that against shepherds. We’re talking about enemies in 2024 who have more than just sheep maintenance capacity, so…
It really isn’t. For nato to be well armed they would have to dump massive amounts of money into manufacturing and even then it would take years to get up to speed. We have every indication that the US has given from their own stockpiles. Not all of it, but there really isn’t old stock to speak of.
NATO has mostly given old munitions, not their main stockpiles. NATO still remains a well armed threat.
They keep claiming they have what they need to destroy Russia, but 2 years into the conflict, it still hasn’t shown up, and Russia is even stronger. NATO doesn’t have anything else they can part with.
UK admitted they have ammo for 3 weeks of warfare. German military is in shambles. French and Polish disarmed some of their units to send arms to Ukraine. US is not in such a great condition too, eating L after L from barely armed people like Taliban or Ansar Allah.
Sure, they may be well armed but for usual aerial terror campaigns (because not even for naval now), but absolutely not for land warfare.
A very large portion of American military doctrine is centered around avoiding overextension. US military stockpile information isn’t published but with their budget and emphasis on being able to fight a traditional war, imperialist projects and counter revolution at the same time, it’s safe to assume US stockpiles are still strong. Secondly, American military failure in those regions is more of a result of not knowing how to do counterinsurgency than a lack of material. Also the way the US fights land wars is through campaigns of aerial terror. You can’t separate the two when it comes to the US.
And yet they are currently already overextended.
Overextension of the US army isn’t really happening now. The US military’s greatest weakness is the inability to hold objectives and fight counterinsurgency and that’s more of what we’re seeing, not supply or logistics failures.
The US Navy is currently extremely overextended. They are currently losing what Navy officers have described as the largest naval battle the US has been in since WW2 against a nation whose navy consists of speedboats.
On the subject of supply or logistics, the US military basically lacks any of the transport/airlift capacity they had 25 years ago. That, to my mind, qualifies as a supply or logistics failure, given that such a capacity would be a basic necessity for any actual Army engagement in a conflict.
Just gonna add here that yes, the US military does have trouble with the basic requirements of a military. This does not help your argument.
It doesn’t make it less dangerous. My argument is that the US military is still a very large danger, and being unable to hold ground but able to kill a lot of people is still very dangerous.
There’s no question about that. The US military can do massacres, but it can’t achieve military goals unless they’re just “air based massacres”.
If the United States had the capacity to make enough ammunition and ordnance to fight multiple wars at the same time, there would be enough people employed by these companies that you would probably personally know at least 1 of them.
It’s not like Ball, Lockheed, Northrop or Boeing are huge employers or anything
All those places together do not even employ 400,000 people. I work in manufacturing and I don’t know a single person who works at these places. What I’m saying is so many new jobs would be created that MILLIONS of people would from that point on be in the defense sector making bombs and bullets. It’s not even comparable.
Walmart is a big employer. Can they supply war munitions? Being a big employer is genuinely irrelevant unless the bulk of those employees are making munitions
Those companies make materiel, yes. They don’t specialize on artillery but the US tends to focus more on bombs and rocketry which is what they make.
Look I’m not trying to be a dick here but are you being serious? The US can deliver some special, expensive wundermunitions via aircraft, if they have absolute air superiority. They only get that against shepherds. We’re talking about enemies in 2024 who have more than just sheep maintenance capacity, so…
It really isn’t. For nato to be well armed they would have to dump massive amounts of money into manufacturing and even then it would take years to get up to speed. We have every indication that the US has given from their own stockpiles. Not all of it, but there really isn’t old stock to speak of.