Those are the ones that just burn, they do not distribute pamphlets or manifestos first.
This guy had a point. He may have been crazy, but it made sense to HIM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

Putin is winning because Ukranian soldiers are leaving the front in droves lately.
Can't fight when you run out of ammo.

My favorite post in this thread so far.
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6497105

We will see how long it takes for that to turn around once Congress gives permission to send aid. It passed the house, will take another day in the Senate, and Biden will not wait long to sign it.

@wpeckham: The US Congress is once again promising to send money. But the combined ammunition-production capacity of EU and USA is simply not enough ... by a factor of 10 ... to counter the amount of ammunition, weapons, and other gear that Russia can steadily produce and deliver to the front. (Over its own territory ...)

Modern warfare is very much a contest of industrial production. (And, not just of "military stuff.") Eighty years ago, the USA was a self-sufficient "Arsenal of Democracy." But, "eighty years ago" turns out to be a very long time. And, having "de-industrialized" in favor of [Chinese] imports, you cannot now simply snap your fingers and change things. Nor can you pass another spending bill and change things.

Unfortunately, a certain General who wore five stars on his lapel saw this all coming. He tried to warn us what would happen if "war" became a lucrative (and, top-secret) "industrial product." He foresaw that we would lose sight of what "real war" actually is, and lose our ability to fight one. But he did not foresee that the nation would utterly decimate its own industrial capacity.

That is not true. We are sending mostly arms and ammunition, and replacing those in our inventory with new equipment and munitions. One of the Generals answered questions about how fast they could get new shipments of arms to Ukraine, and told the reporter we "have long had a logistical system optimized for delivery anywhere in the world". We need such systems in times when we are directly involved in a conflict, but they work very well even when we are not.
As far as I know, none of our military arms or munitions are sourced from China. They do not meet GSA standards as a supplier. I have been ranting against exporting production of things we need for security purposes (including military) to nations that may not be friendly in the event of conflict. Three previous POTUSs made trade deals that DECIMATED the US Steel industry while I was working to support it. We exported expertise to several other nations and in return they produced cheap still and dumped it on the US market driving US steel companies out of business.

We have only one left that belongs to US citizens, the rest are all gone or under foreign ownership.

You cannot fight and win in an aluminum tank.
The good news is that this is ramping up our own production and improving the quality of US arms and arms production rapidly.

@wpeckham: I guess it isn't possible to convince you that there are dire consequences to giving-away the domestic capacity to "produce for yourself." It is simply not true that "USA/EU/NATO" is physically capable of producing ... even what this very small(!) example of "modern War against a Peer enemy" physically requires. But, your opponent can, and does.

Face it: "You're not Rocky Balboa anymore. Hell, you're not even Terry Malloy." Look at your biceps: there is nothing there. "Rapidly" isn't enough.

I'm sorry that "MAGA = Make America Great Again" became nothing more than "an acronym on a [probably, made in China ...] red hat." But I think that this nation is about to realize that it is, in fact, a fundamental national security imperative.

We literally cannot afford to "poke the Panda" in Taiwan right now, and the disciples of Sun Tzu know why: "The greatest Art of War is to defeat your enemy without fighting him." Their simplest "military" response – and it would be "military" in its effects – would be to cancel all of the contracts and order every one of their container ships to leave port and return home with their cargo. No one took our capabilities away from us – we did it ourselves.

As a result of all this, a very fundamental "sea change" is now in the works – which does not have to mean "Civil War 2.0" – and as usual our present crop of "elites" are clueless. Even though they cannot see outside of their gold-plated ivory towers, millions of other people do. "They know that that thing isn't just a wooden statue of a horse."

"May you live in interesting times." Guess what: you are here. The history-book is being written as we speak, and, for us, the next page is blank.

Instead of "rapidly" the other choices are "we already did", "slowly", or "never". Of those "Rapidly" is the choice that is best that we have right now. It is "Rapidly" that expanded our capabilities and inventory enough to make the difference in our engagements in WW-II.

You might have noticed that Russia has a bigger equipment and infrastructure problem than we have, that it surprised them, and that they have no history of rapidly firing up their industry, infrastructure, and munitions the way we have. The do some things fast and VERY well, but it takes a toll on their population. You might also note that much of the population there does NOT support this war. (It is a war against the cousins, and friends of many of the Russian families!)

We do agree that depending upon resources you do not control for your national defense is less than optimal. I have cussed about the choices many times, and we do not need to revisit that again. The thing to note is that the previous administration pushed even more capability out of the country, while the current administration is bringing it back in country and building it up fast.


We have the capability RIGHT NOW to support current conflicts and another at need. More importantly we have the capacity to add additional production and inventory RAPIDLY to replace what we ship or use. AND that build-up is already progressing nicely. AND we have the capacity to deploy that inventory wherever we need to in the world.

As for Taiwan, they have been an ally since the Communist takeover of China. If you look at what they produce for the rest of the world, we cannot afford to let them fall. IT would be VERY costly for them to even suffer a serious attack! It is a LOT cheaper in MANY ways to defend them diplomatically and militarily than to suffer their destruction. I am hoping that never pulls us into a war situation there, but that is more up to China than it is up to the US and Taiwan.

Compared to WWII, the big difference is that they use depleted uranium everywhere.
Advantage is that burning U powder ignite fire in contact with air. Which allows the inside of a tank to explode completely, like nothing?
However this wide spread of Uranium will be everywhere, in contact with all nature, people,... and it will remain.
Although it is depleted, it is still radioactive.
Still... with the widespread of the war, the use will increase and mess up the whole country.

It will wide spread over the water, rivers, and likely the sea. Those elements (U, and more), will reach the sea, oceans, and more.

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fu...pleted-uranium

Have fun reading... check your fish, what's inside.


ref:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/03...9486566548.jpg