4 ms·
Morally right or not, even the US and allies have a limit to how many military resources exist and at what rate they can produce more. Fighting on three fronts
by Mountain_Skies 2y ago
Morally right or not, even the US and allies have a limit to how many military resources exist and at what rate they can produce more. Fighting on three fronts at the same time, especially when one of them involves a country that supplies much of your industrial capacity, just isn't viable.
- tylerflick 2y agoYou underestimate the US military industrial complex.
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoToday it’s less an industrial complex and more a graft and lobbying complex. Look at the amount of equipment US has lost in Vietnam - 10,000 aircraft, including strategic bombers! incomparably more ammunition. Those losses were considered sustainable! Now it can’t produce enough dumb artillery shells!
- danielheath 2y agoUS military doctrine doesn't _use_ dumb artillery shells, because it assumes total air superiority.
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoThat’s a questionable assumption, but fine - look at production capacity of air to ground missiles, or whatever it is that you think is relevant. You will find that US can only produce a fraction of what it could in 1970’s.
- mullingitover 2y agoNo further production is necessary. Simply loan out a few fully stocked Ohio-class subs and watch how quickly the bullies back off.
- bpodgursky 2y agoThis is true, but there's an objectively worse middle ground (that we're in now) where the US deterrent lacks credibility so random semi-functional states are starting shit and the US drains capacity by half-heartedly responding to them (aka Houthis, Russia, Hamas, etc). If there was a firm belief "The US will respond in force to aggression" it would prevent the attempts, and the US would stop wasting ordinance responding in a halfassed way. Alternately, the US could just do nothing outside of the 1-2 regions it cares about (ie, the pacific). But the current status isn't great.