4 ms·

The "+" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your argument. It is not trivial to transfer technology, especially on a large scale and in warfare conditions. The

The "+" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your argument. It is not trivial to transfer technology, especially on a large scale and in warfare conditions. The Russians probably have all the necessary know-how to create something like HIMARS. But they cannot design and manufacture such a weapon quickly enough, much less deploy it. The same probably applied to the Nazis and the atomic bomb. Their physics was up to par, but their entire industrial complex wasn't.

juve1996 4y ago
> It is not trivial to transfer technology, especially on a large scale and in warfare conditions. Sure it is. There are countless examples of this throughout history. We're doing this transfer of technology RIGHT NOW en masse to Ukraine. > The Russians probably have all the necessary know-how to create something like HIMARS. But they cannot design and manufacture such a weapon quickly enough, much less deploy it. Not sure how this is relevant at all. Logistics is a different problem. In any case, the russians still control massive regions of Ukraine. While their overextension is a failure, the war is a long way from over, and Russia has always historically been able to grind opponents down. > The same probably applied to the Nazis and the atomic bomb. Their physics was up to par, but their entire industrial complex wasn't. Of course - late in the war their cities were being firebombed, factories under constant bombing raids. This isn't a technological problem. The US was able to build without any threat whatsoever, thus, irrelevant to our debate here.
ianburrell 4y ago
Russia has a lot MLRS artillery in Ukraine and are using it heavily. Ukraine has MLRS too but used most of their stocks and slowly building locally. The difference isn’t HIMARS but the guided rockets, GMLRS and GLSDB, that US has been giving Ukraine. This changes HIMARS from something that can destroy an area to something that hit small targets. It means that can use $100k rocket instead of air attack to destroy supply dumps, command posts, and bridges.

juve1996 4y ago

> It is not trivial to transfer technology, especially on a large scale and in warfare conditions. Sure it is. There are countless examples of this throughout history. We're doing this transfer of technology RIGHT NOW en masse to Ukraine. > The Russians probably have all the necessary know-how to create something like HIMARS. But they cannot design and manufacture such a weapon quickly enough, much less deploy it. Not sure how this is relevant at all. Logistics is a different problem. In any case, the russians still control massive regions of Ukraine. While their overextension is a failure, the war is a long way from over, and Russia has always historically been able to grind opponents down. > The same probably applied to the Nazis and the atomic bomb. Their physics was up to par, but their entire industrial complex wasn't. Of course - late in the war their cities were being firebombed, factories under constant bombing raids. This isn't a technological problem. The US was able to build without any threat whatsoever, thus, irrelevant to our debate here.

ianburrell 4y ago

Russia has a lot MLRS artillery in Ukraine and are using it heavily. Ukraine has MLRS too but used most of their stocks and slowly building locally. The difference isn’t HIMARS but the guided rockets, GMLRS and GLSDB, that US has been giving Ukraine. This changes HIMARS from something that can destroy an area to something that hit small targets. It means that can use $100k rocket instead of air attack to destroy supply dumps, command posts, and bridges.