> 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

> 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.