3 ms·

Americans and their leadership are far too blasé about logistical disruption. I don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were serio

by dv_dt 3y ago

Americans and their leadership are far too blasé about logistical disruption. I don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted. Covid was the easier case and we did terribly. Though in terms of war, I worry more about civil war than world war.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rank0 3y ago
Ridiculous. Which nation would be more resilient to global supply chain disruption? I am genuinely open to a suggestion because I see no serious contenders to the US in terms of technological, economic, military, and diplomatic advantage. (Obviously were talking about war here not ‘inherent goodness’)
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted You're describing an energy, food and minerals exporter with internally-navigable waterways and the world's largest rail network. Oh, and friendly neighbours to the north and south--both of whom we dwarf militarily--and oceans on each coast to keep the meanies away. Adapting to self (more realistically: continental) sufficiency wouldn't be fun. But I struggle to think of a country better situated for a collapse in global trade. (Caveat: agree with you on our political structure being questionable in terms of harnessing these advantages.)
Supermancho 3y ago
> I don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted. The US will do very well for decades, compared to most of the world. US resources, other than rare earth elements, are abundant in the US alone. The rest is available from neighbors. The US has been the one securing globalism. This is changing, intentionally.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > US resources, other than rare earth elements North America has plenty of rare earths [1][2]. We just don't want to process them domestically because it's dirty. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-showing-the-global-distribution-of-rare-earth-element-deposits-and-mines-Walters_fig4_285538097 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-showing-the-global-d... [2] https://energyindustryreview.com/metals-mining/upcoming-competition-over-rare-earths-economic-and-strategic-impact/ https://energyindustryreview.com/metals-mining/upcoming-comp...
  - dv_dt 3y ago
    This kind of thing is exactly why I say the US is blase about production logistics. After decades offshoring any product or process that could be cheaper outside the nation - we barely have the know how understand how small interruptions inflate up to big disruptions in all sorts of supply chains. Is it all relocatable, rebuildable, yes - but on what timescale after a disruption.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  The US has a decent shot at continuing to do well but not for this reason. The American continent has in fact many examples of geographically blessed countries, Argentina and Brazil first and foremost, the former once one of the ten richest nations on earth. In fact all of Latin America is incredibly blessed, yet look at Venezuela. Despite what's actually surprising geopolitical calm in the region, there's disastrous outcomes abound. It's one of the important lessons from Why Nation's fail. You can walk from an American town into a Mexican town 50 miles apart, people with the same families, same geography etc. But one side is ten times as wealthy. The US is not doing well because of some geographic determinism but because of institutions whose existence is not god given but contingent on making correct choices.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    > The US is not doing well because of some geographic determinism Correct. Why the US is doing well (for some value of well), is not what I was referring to. The issue under discussion was the breakdown of globalism, and the effect on the US. The US navies will stop patrolling international waters to protect all popular shipping lanes, over the next decade. The US presence in the oceans will be reduced, drastically. There's a couple reasons for this. The US just doesn't care enough to guard the oil sea thoroughfares anymore, which covers half the globe's oceans. Second, the demographics of most countries has created an age bubble that will cause consumerism to drop off a cliff, making the other half of the world's oceans (around southeast asian countries) less attractive to patrol. Third, the Navy continues to decommission ships faster than it builds them. If you work for a retail-based business/corp, inflation is only part of the spending decline.

by dv_dt 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rank0 3y ago

Ridiculous. Which nation would be more resilient to global supply chain disruption? I am genuinely open to a suggestion because I see no serious contenders to the US in terms of technological, economic, military, and diplomatic advantage. (Obviously were talking about war here not ‘inherent goodness’)

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted You're describing an energy, food and minerals exporter with internally-navigable waterways and the world's largest rail network. Oh, and friendly neighbours to the north and south--both of whom we dwarf militarily--and oceans on each coast to keep the meanies away. Adapting to self (more realistically: continental) sufficiency wouldn't be fun. But I struggle to think of a country better situated for a collapse in global trade. (Caveat: agree with you on our political structure being questionable in terms of harnessing these advantages.)

Supermancho 3y ago

> I don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted. The US will do very well for decades, compared to most of the world. US resources, other than rare earth elements, are abundant in the US alone. The rest is available from neighbors. The US has been the one securing globalism. This is changing, intentionally.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> US resources, other than rare earth elements North America has plenty of rare earths [1][2]. We just don't want to process them domestically because it's dirty. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-showing-the-global-distribution-of-rare-earth-element-deposits-and-mines-Walters_fig4_285538097 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-showing-the-global-d... [2] https://energyindustryreview.com/metals-mining/upcoming-competition-over-rare-earths-economic-and-strategic-impact/ https://energyindustryreview.com/metals-mining/upcoming-comp...
- dv_dt 3y ago
  This kind of thing is exactly why I say the US is blase about production logistics. After decades offshoring any product or process that could be cheaper outside the nation - we barely have the know how understand how small interruptions inflate up to big disruptions in all sorts of supply chains. Is it all relocatable, rebuildable, yes - but on what timescale after a disruption.
Barrin92 3y ago
The US has a decent shot at continuing to do well but not for this reason. The American continent has in fact many examples of geographically blessed countries, Argentina and Brazil first and foremost, the former once one of the ten richest nations on earth. In fact all of Latin America is incredibly blessed, yet look at Venezuela. Despite what's actually surprising geopolitical calm in the region, there's disastrous outcomes abound. It's one of the important lessons from Why Nation's fail. You can walk from an American town into a Mexican town 50 miles apart, people with the same families, same geography etc. But one side is ten times as wealthy. The US is not doing well because of some geographic determinism but because of institutions whose existence is not god given but contingent on making correct choices.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > The US is not doing well because of some geographic determinism Correct. Why the US is doing well (for some value of well), is not what I was referring to. The issue under discussion was the breakdown of globalism, and the effect on the US. The US navies will stop patrolling international waters to protect all popular shipping lanes, over the next decade. The US presence in the oceans will be reduced, drastically. There's a couple reasons for this. The US just doesn't care enough to guard the oil sea thoroughfares anymore, which covers half the globe's oceans. Second, the demographics of most countries has created an age bubble that will cause consumerism to drop off a cliff, making the other half of the world's oceans (around southeast asian countries) less attractive to patrol. Third, the Navy continues to decommission ships faster than it builds them. If you work for a retail-based business/corp, inflation is only part of the spending decline.