3 ms·

The US defense complex is large but it’s also inefficient and sclerotic, partly as a direct result of those fat budgets that have created a many decades old cul

by api 2y ago

The US defense complex is large but it’s also inefficient and sclerotic, partly as a direct result of those fat budgets that have created a many decades old culture of graft and waste. A country with less of this cost disease could probably be competitive with 1/4 the spend or less, especially if they skip big heavy Cold War era tech in favor of faster cheaper stuff like drones and smart munitions. Aircraft carriers and manned fighters look cool but I’m not sure how much they matter anymore. What I see from the EU is that while they do also have cost disease, it might not be as entrenched in that sector. They also have Russia directly adjacent to them, which motivates people to actually care. If Mexico were belligerent with a history of imperialism, had nuclear weapons and a huge army, and had just invaded and taken Cuba, we’d be in a similar situation and similarly motivated. As it stands we have a “big beautiful ocean” between us and Russia and do not face a direct threat. The US is almost uninvadeable unless you sterilized it with nukes first, and we have those too.

mike_hearn 2y ago
[flagged]
- fabian2k 2y ago
  The story about Puma being designed with the rules for pregnant woman in mind is widely circulated, but almost certainly false. The Bundeswehr clarified publicly that a tank is not a workplace as defined in those regulations. There's certainly huge problems with procurement in the German military. But it's also not an uncommon story in other countries that the per-unit costs get really bad because the order is drastically reduced later.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Almost certainly false? The source is the CEO of the manufacturer who complained about specific requirements in the contracts issued by the Bundeswehr itself. https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article147528582/Sind-deutsche-Panzer-Vorschriften-wirklich-so-absurd.html https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article147528582/Sind-deutsch... > For example, one of the more than 100 "relevant documents" for the development contract for the infantry fighting vehicle stipulates that the technical regulations for hazardous substances must also be observed. These stipulate that the carbon monoxide content must not exceed a certain limit, as otherwise there is a risk of "damaging the amniotic fluid" in pregnant soldiers. The air inside the Puma must therefore be so clean that even pregnant women can ride safely. Another problem in a related vein: the Pumas have fire extinguishers which brick the vehicles by spraying powder into the engines. Normal extinguishers that keep the vehicle operational are banned because the gases aren't friendly enough to the ozone layer. This was admitted to be a problem and never fixed. https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/feuerloescher-macht-panzer-unbrauchbar-pistorius-hat-ein-problem-mit-dem-puma-67269d662c8f6d76af0af2d7 https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/feuerloescher-macht-panze... Manufacturers want to sell vehicles. They usually don't wish to comply with expensive rules as they do so. If they're complaining about regulations that make manufacturing hard, and doing things like equipping their vehicles with fire extinguishers that break the engines, then at minimum the Bundeswehr has screwed up its acquisitions and communications process so badly that its suppliers are confused about what they should do. More likely the manufacturers are correct and the people writing the rules didn't think through the consequences of what they wrote.
- piva00 2y ago
  > For instance, the cost of German Puma tanks was exploded by regulations requiring them to be able to safely carry pregnant soldiers without exposing their amniotic fluids to munitions fumes. This sounds like the German version of the bendy bananas lie told to Brits about EU regulations, a lie enveloped around some small fact and overblown to look as ridiculous as possible. Also, the Greens pushing for money to wean Germany off gas is probably quite good for national security, not directly military related but does help in 2nd order effects (less reliance on fossil fuels saves the German economy from being a hostage to cheap gas as well as helps keeping fuel for the military if the need arises).
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Nothing dishonest or overblown about the EU regulating bendy bananas. The EU even admitted its regulation of misshapen fruit was stupid and wasteful in a press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_08_0723 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_08... You aren't the first HN poster to claim this was some sort of British propaganda, even though the regulations are perfectly readable online and still in effect. You can just search for "eu bendy bananas" and the first hit is a Wikipedia page all about it. Where does this idea that it was British propaganda come from? What are European media telling you about this?
    - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
      You're misrepresenting what the link says, and it doesn't even apply to bananas. What is does say is that certain fruits and vegetables don't benefit from "minimum marketing standards" and some misshapen products may be sold if labeled as intended for processing. What all this is is reasonable efforts to define standards for marketing, but it misrepresented by "British propaganda" as something hysterical, just like you misrepresent the press release for the sake of your straw man argument.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        They said they wanted to change the rules to allow that, not that it'd always been that way from the start. The original claims that led to them admitting it was dumb weren't "hysterical" (since when is pointing out regulation even the EU admits is bad hysterical?)

by api 2y ago

mike_hearn 2y ago

[flagged]

fabian2k 2y ago
The story about Puma being designed with the rules for pregnant woman in mind is widely circulated, but almost certainly false. The Bundeswehr clarified publicly that a tank is not a workplace as defined in those regulations. There's certainly huge problems with procurement in the German military. But it's also not an uncommon story in other countries that the per-unit costs get really bad because the order is drastically reduced later.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Almost certainly false? The source is the CEO of the manufacturer who complained about specific requirements in the contracts issued by the Bundeswehr itself. https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article147528582/Sind-deutsche-Panzer-Vorschriften-wirklich-so-absurd.html https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article147528582/Sind-deutsch... > For example, one of the more than 100 "relevant documents" for the development contract for the infantry fighting vehicle stipulates that the technical regulations for hazardous substances must also be observed. These stipulate that the carbon monoxide content must not exceed a certain limit, as otherwise there is a risk of "damaging the amniotic fluid" in pregnant soldiers. The air inside the Puma must therefore be so clean that even pregnant women can ride safely. Another problem in a related vein: the Pumas have fire extinguishers which brick the vehicles by spraying powder into the engines. Normal extinguishers that keep the vehicle operational are banned because the gases aren't friendly enough to the ozone layer. This was admitted to be a problem and never fixed. https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/feuerloescher-macht-panzer-unbrauchbar-pistorius-hat-ein-problem-mit-dem-puma-67269d662c8f6d76af0af2d7 https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/feuerloescher-macht-panze... Manufacturers want to sell vehicles. They usually don't wish to comply with expensive rules as they do so. If they're complaining about regulations that make manufacturing hard, and doing things like equipping their vehicles with fire extinguishers that break the engines, then at minimum the Bundeswehr has screwed up its acquisitions and communications process so badly that its suppliers are confused about what they should do. More likely the manufacturers are correct and the people writing the rules didn't think through the consequences of what they wrote.
piva00 2y ago
> For instance, the cost of German Puma tanks was exploded by regulations requiring them to be able to safely carry pregnant soldiers without exposing their amniotic fluids to munitions fumes. This sounds like the German version of the bendy bananas lie told to Brits about EU regulations, a lie enveloped around some small fact and overblown to look as ridiculous as possible. Also, the Greens pushing for money to wean Germany off gas is probably quite good for national security, not directly military related but does help in 2nd order effects (less reliance on fossil fuels saves the German economy from being a hostage to cheap gas as well as helps keeping fuel for the military if the need arises).
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Nothing dishonest or overblown about the EU regulating bendy bananas. The EU even admitted its regulation of misshapen fruit was stupid and wasteful in a press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_08_0723 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_08... You aren't the first HN poster to claim this was some sort of British propaganda, even though the regulations are perfectly readable online and still in effect. You can just search for "eu bendy bananas" and the first hit is a Wikipedia page all about it. Where does this idea that it was British propaganda come from? What are European media telling you about this?
  - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
    You're misrepresenting what the link says, and it doesn't even apply to bananas. What is does say is that certain fruits and vegetables don't benefit from "minimum marketing standards" and some misshapen products may be sold if labeled as intended for processing. What all this is is reasonable efforts to define standards for marketing, but it misrepresented by "British propaganda" as something hysterical, just like you misrepresent the press release for the sake of your straw man argument.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      They said they wanted to change the rules to allow that, not that it'd always been that way from the start. The original claims that led to them admitting it was dumb weren't "hysterical" (since when is pointing out regulation even the EU admits is bad hysterical?)