10 ms·
Is that still true now?
by sonthonax 5y ago
Is that still true now?
- shadowgovt 5y agoGreat question. It's still doctrinally true (i.e. governments believe it is true; it was one of the reasons cited for the US federal government buying key stake in domestic auto manufacturers instead of letting them go bankrupt during the real estate market crash), but whether light and heavy armor is actually of military worth in an era of drones and air power is a question I don't have the military training or knowledge to answer.
- starfallg 5y agoYes, because heavy industry produces light and heavy armour, and heavy industry is also required to produce military drones and other weapons.
- sonthonax 5y agoI'm unsure whether you can still retool an automotive factory to produce war materiel. During WWII Ford automotive plants produced aircraft, but back then the construction techniques needed to build a bomber weren't all together different from a car (think larger engines and chassis). > whether light and heavy armor is actually of military worth in an era of drones and air power is a question I don't have the military training or knowledge to answer. On this point, it obviously depends on what kind of war we're fighting. The British used unarmoured and open top Land Rovers with 50cals mounted on the rear for the first few years in Afghanistan until the government got its act together (they looked cool, but were IED death traps). There's a similar story with the Humvee. Nonetheless, civilian style vehicles had their use.
- mywittyname 5y agoYes. One scary fact that I learned is that, in war games between China and the USA, China almost always wins due to superior production capacity. Those $100B American battle carriers and $40MM advanced fighter jets can be taken out by $50,000 rockets/missiles produced at a rate of hundreds or thousands per day.
- huge87 5y agoThis is in line with my intuitions; do you have any sources so I can read more?
- mywittyname 5y agoSure! https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2021-07-27/US-China-military-war-game-hyten-2326077.html https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2021-07-27/US-China-mili...
- onepointsixC 5y agoThat doesn't support your core thesis that the US will lose a protracted war and that mass producing missiles is going to actually led to planes being destroyed. That's not how that works.
- NotSammyHagar 5y agoNotice this resembles somewhat (in reverse) the WW2 situation with high quality German tanks and Japanese Zeros etc and the us making many more tanks and planes compared to the Germans and Japanese. But we are on the other side of that now.
- alisonkisk 5y agoIsn't the reverse also true?
- lallysingh 5y agoYup, but that leaves you at a draw for existing assets and you depend on production capacity after that.
- dylan604 5y agoHow many tomahawks does it take to destory these factories?
- 5y ago
- bumby 5y agoYes, I remember an article on HN a while back that referenced a DoD report stating a dwindling manufacturing base as a major national security risk. Related, they track a “manufacturing readiness” metric
- hypertele-Xii 5y agoArmored vehicles are a little over 100 years old invention. That's only a few human generations.
- humaniania 5y agoNuclear armed countries going to war is supposed to be an extinction level event. That's the whole point. It's supposed to be unthinkable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction