4 ms·

Again, spending a lot is not the same as having large number of machinery produced. Dollar bills don't blow up BTRs, cheap energy is cool but Russia too has che

by mrtksn 2y ago

Again, spending a lot is not the same as having large number of machinery produced. Dollar bills don't blow up BTRs, cheap energy is cool but Russia too has cheap energy. They also have cheap people who can use that cheap energy to build huge numbers of cheap stuff that blow up expensive things. It's like India going to the moon at cost that would be considered pocket change in the USA. Ping me when Ukrainian drones are made by US/European parts and not Chinese.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> spending a lot is not the same as having large number of machinery produced You’ve made a series of wrong, uncited claims. This is another one. (And the last one I’m responding to. You are not arguing in good faith.) You called out electric motors. By mass and production volume, China is outstripped by Allied production. > cheap energy is cool but Russia too has cheap energy Much less than America production-wise. We’re counting volumes and mass, right? > like India going to the moon at cost that would be considered pocket change in the USA You really keep picking terrible examples to spitball on. The SSLV’s launch cost per kg is over 3x Falcon 9’s [1][2]. American access to space is orders of magnitude cheaper and more extensive than India, Russia and China’s combined, despite massively higher labour costs and design requirements. That said, India actually got to the Moon. Can’t say as much about Russia [3]. [1] https://www.newspace.im/launchers/isro https://www.newspace.im/launchers/isro [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competit... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_25 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_25
airstrike 2y ago
At this point you're just trolling. It's honestly tiresome. The US could easily produce cheap electronic motors if it wanted to in record time, particularly in a war effort. It would be child's play. The whole reason this stuff is offshored to developing nations is because anyone can do it, so you might as well hire the cheapest labor—or so the reasoning goes. Check your own biases at the door next time you're looking to engage in intelligent discussion, lest you come across as quibbling in bad faith.

by mrtksn 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> spending a lot is not the same as having large number of machinery produced You’ve made a series of wrong, uncited claims. This is another one. (And the last one I’m responding to. You are not arguing in good faith.) You called out electric motors. By mass and production volume, China is outstripped by Allied production. > cheap energy is cool but Russia too has cheap energy Much less than America production-wise. We’re counting volumes and mass, right? > like India going to the moon at cost that would be considered pocket change in the USA You really keep picking terrible examples to spitball on. The SSLV’s launch cost per kg is over 3x Falcon 9’s [1][2]. American access to space is orders of magnitude cheaper and more extensive than India, Russia and China’s combined, despite massively higher labour costs and design requirements. That said, India actually got to the Moon. Can’t say as much about Russia [3]. [1] https://www.newspace.im/launchers/isro https://www.newspace.im/launchers/isro [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competit... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_25 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_25

airstrike 2y ago

At this point you're just trolling. It's honestly tiresome. The US could easily produce cheap electronic motors if it wanted to in record time, particularly in a war effort. It would be child's play. The whole reason this stuff is offshored to developing nations is because anyone can do it, so you might as well hire the cheapest labor—or so the reasoning goes. Check your own biases at the door next time you're looking to engage in intelligent discussion, lest you come across as quibbling in bad faith.