4 ms·

Major breakthroughs in UK munitions production

46 points by tomjohnneill 1y ago

jmyeet 1y ago
Empires usually operate by looting their holdings to enrich the imperial core. There is normally something that sustains their dominance. The British Empire was the drug dealer empire, first with tobacco and later with opium. There were also some spices in there too. But the British Empire at one point covered a quarter of the globe, leading to the double-meaning of "the sun never sets on the British Empire" (also meaning it never ends). Rome was a little diferent because of simply looting their provinces (by demanding tributes). Instead they formed alliances of mutual benefit and provinces essentially became Romanized. This sustained Rome for ~1500 years (post-Republic, ignoring the Holy Roman Empire). Spain looted silver from South America. The USA is an empire but it breaks the mould by generally not using direct colonization. It's probably better described as economic imperialism. Even "global" institutions largely just project US power (eg the IMF and the World Bank). Ultimately, the US is an arms dealer empire. What backs the US dollar is the US military and, in addition to the ability to directly project global military power, the US has a ton of influence by who it chooses to sell weapons to. Additionally, there's soft power through things like foreign aid. Why do I mention all this? Because despite the mantra of "making America great", the current administration is doing more to destroy US direct and soft power than anyone could possibly have imagined, more than current and former adversaries (eg the USSR, China) could ever have dreamed of doing themselves. Abandoning Ukraine, which is what the US is really doing at this point, may in fact be the catalyst to restart European weapons production. The president may complain that Europe is taking advantage of the US with NATO and we're somehow "paying for European defense" like that's a bad thing. It's not, at least from the perspective of US foreign policy and interests. NATO is what the US uses to control and influence Europe. If Europe becomes no longer dependant on US weapons and can be responsible for European security, then NATO doesn't really need to exist, which is bad for the US and good for basically everybody else. Now if the goal is American isolationism then all this sort of makes sense but I don't think that is the goal. Also, it's worth adding that previous periods of American isolationism happened in the lead up to both WW1 and WW2.
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  Trump is an avatar to revive the imperial core, elected by a proletariat which has been looted by bourgeoisie focused on the periphery of the empire and their insular power games, eg, controlling EU via NATO. The US is not a monolith and understanding Trump requires understanding the class factions within the US. This too has analogs in Rome. In a present context, this is US multipolarity: focused on building the US and NA (as a modern Monroe Doctrine) while dropping foreign entanglements. Trump’s threats against Canada, Mexico, Greenland, and Panama are best understood within that context.
- pixxel 1y ago
  [dead]
- roenxi 1y ago
  > Why do I mention all this? Because despite the mantra of "making America great", the current administration is doing more to destroy US direct and soft power than anyone could possibly have imagined, more than current and former adversaries (eg the USSR, China) could ever have dreamed of doing themselves. The two aren't inconsistent; one of the major dissident observations that has propelled Trump is that the Not-An-Empire doesn't seem to be driving prosperity in the way people would expect. It is driving prosperity to the ... I dunno, call them imperial elites or upper middle class+. Obviously the empire is great for people like the Bush or Biden families. Not so obvious the 20 years of war in Afghanistan was a big win for everyone else or all the unrelated destruction. It stands out that China has built a US-sized economy in the last 50 years without really sending out any armies; military aggression obviously isn't the only factor here. It is a complex issue but ultimately it is not easy to rule out the bureaucracy that manages the empire doing more damage to the US than the benefits empire brings. Voting by the numbers is suggesting that the damage has been significant.
zabzonk 1y ago
[flagged]
- dudeinjapan 1y ago
  [dead]
- looofooo0 1y ago
  Don't worry about this, it is even worse. 75% of all casualties Russian military doctors see stem from drones. (In major wars before it was artillery leading this list.) So investing into artillery shells is a bit like investing in cavalry 120 years ago..
  - roenxi 1y ago
    That argument does not hold. See the famous plane diagram - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald - you're talking about a highly biased sample, it isn't safe to draw that sort of conclusion. And that is even before the observation that killing people isn't necessarily (or even usually) the goal of war.
    - looofooo0 1y ago
      You mean people who make it back to doctors is biased? Maybe against guns or mortars, but not so much against artillery. But this bias is also a secondary effect stemming from drones, as it increases time to evacuate or denies it totally. Which means that guns and mortars became more deadly because of drones. You can also look at the statistics of number of bullets to kill someone in major wars. Which is shockingly high. So with single digit hit percentage of drones and the numbers of drones deployed...
  - ohgr 1y ago
    These artillery shells are mostly for destroying equipment and structures not people.
    - 1y ago
roschdal 1y ago
[flagged]
- seszett 1y ago
  Europe was convinced more ammo wasn't needed anymore and the world was becoming less and less dangerous, but mainly Russia and more recently the US made it very clear that Europe was wrong in that. So yes, more ammo obviously is needed and saying otherwise is disingenuous at best, or wilfully misleading more likely.
- kleiba 1y ago
  I know you meant that as sarcasm, but unfortunately with no shortage of narcistic lunatics in powerful positions around the world, keeping a country's ability to defend itself includes the availability of ammunition.
sleepyguy 1y ago
Innovation brought on by the fact they want to rid themselves of dependence on the USA. All around the world more and more countries and industry are looking for ways to decouple from American dependence.
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  As an American, this is a good thing. I don't want a world where Europe / UK are vassals to the hegemon. A European happy to live under America's boot rather than own their own destiny is a weak person indeed.
  - 4ndrewl 1y ago
    I mean only if they are prepared to use it against US interests...
  - lokimedes 1y ago
    For a continent with two world wars within a span of 30 years, Europe was ready for US hegemony in 1944. The Trump narrative is not really based on neither US nor European logic, but his own particular kind of gaslighting.
  - Incipient 1y ago
    Other than the recent clown the US has elected, does the EU really feel like a "vassal"? Do people toil against their will, yield their culture to another power? In Australia we're even more so a "vassal" of England, but we're as Aussie as Aussie can be. Life wouldn't change a zack if we separated from the UK...we'd just be a Republic I suppose? I can't imagine the EU should feel particularly different? (other than Ukraine and the recent shemozzle)
    - monero-xmr 1y ago
      If you are invaded by China and won’t fight to the death, expecting America or someone else to save you, or would just roll over and take it, you are a vassal mentally. If some country invaded America I would fight to the death
ohgr 1y ago
I imagine my BAE stock will rise yet again. 48% YTD. Least meme stock out there. Well that and Rheinmetall. Sad situation really.
- lysace 1y ago
  Similar feelings about my SAAB stock: up 87% YTD.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
adolph 1y ago
> A pilot has already demonstrated the technological breakthrough producing the explosives in small nodes. This technology would remove the need for a large-scale explosive factory. The new propellant formulation and associated manufacturing process have been demonstrated across a wide range of products from small arms to large calibre munitions. Imagine if it could be scaled down enough so a person could carry it around, just give them feedstock and the processor creates propellant.

46 points by tomjohnneill 1y ago

Empires usually operate by looting their holdings to enrich the imperial core. There is normally something that sustains their dominance. The British Empire was the drug dealer empire, first with tobacco and later with opium. There were also some spices in there too. But the British Empire at one point covered a quarter of the globe, leading to the double-meaning of "the sun never sets on the British Empire" (also meaning it never ends). Rome was a little diferent because of simply looting their provinces (by demanding tributes). Instead they formed alliances of mutual benefit and provinces essentially became Romanized. This sustained Rome for ~1500 years (post-Republic, ignoring the Holy Roman Empire). Spain looted silver from South America. The USA is an empire but it breaks the mould by generally not using direct colonization. It's probably better described as economic imperialism. Even "global" institutions largely just project US power (eg the IMF and the World Bank). Ultimately, the US is an arms dealer empire. What backs the US dollar is the US military and, in addition to the ability to directly project global military power, the US has a ton of influence by who it chooses to sell weapons to. Additionally, there's soft power through things like foreign aid. Why do I mention all this? Because despite the mantra of "making America great", the current administration is doing more to destroy US direct and soft power than anyone could possibly have imagined, more than current and former adversaries (eg the USSR, China) could ever have dreamed of doing themselves. Abandoning Ukraine, which is what the US is really doing at this point, may in fact be the catalyst to restart European weapons production. The president may complain that Europe is taking advantage of the US with NATO and we're somehow "paying for European defense" like that's a bad thing. It's not, at least from the perspective of US foreign policy and interests. NATO is what the US uses to control and influence Europe. If Europe becomes no longer dependant on US weapons and can be responsible for European security, then NATO doesn't really need to exist, which is bad for the US and good for basically everybody else. Now if the goal is American isolationism then all this sort of makes sense but I don't think that is the goal. Also, it's worth adding that previous periods of American isolationism happened in the lead up to both WW1 and WW2.

zmgsabst 1y ago
Trump is an avatar to revive the imperial core, elected by a proletariat which has been looted by bourgeoisie focused on the periphery of the empire and their insular power games, eg, controlling EU via NATO. The US is not a monolith and understanding Trump requires understanding the class factions within the US. This too has analogs in Rome. In a present context, this is US multipolarity: focused on building the US and NA (as a modern Monroe Doctrine) while dropping foreign entanglements. Trump’s threats against Canada, Mexico, Greenland, and Panama are best understood within that context.
pixxel 1y ago
[dead]
roenxi 1y ago
> Why do I mention all this? Because despite the mantra of "making America great", the current administration is doing more to destroy US direct and soft power than anyone could possibly have imagined, more than current and former adversaries (eg the USSR, China) could ever have dreamed of doing themselves. The two aren't inconsistent; one of the major dissident observations that has propelled Trump is that the Not-An-Empire doesn't seem to be driving prosperity in the way people would expect. It is driving prosperity to the ... I dunno, call them imperial elites or upper middle class+. Obviously the empire is great for people like the Bush or Biden families. Not so obvious the 20 years of war in Afghanistan was a big win for everyone else or all the unrelated destruction. It stands out that China has built a US-sized economy in the last 50 years without really sending out any armies; military aggression obviously isn't the only factor here. It is a complex issue but ultimately it is not easy to rule out the bureaucracy that manages the empire doing more damage to the US than the benefits empire brings. Voting by the numbers is suggesting that the damage has been significant.

zabzonk 1y ago

[flagged]

dudeinjapan 1y ago
[dead]
looofooo0 1y ago
Don't worry about this, it is even worse. 75% of all casualties Russian military doctors see stem from drones. (In major wars before it was artillery leading this list.) So investing into artillery shells is a bit like investing in cavalry 120 years ago..
- roenxi 1y ago
  That argument does not hold. See the famous plane diagram - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald - you're talking about a highly biased sample, it isn't safe to draw that sort of conclusion. And that is even before the observation that killing people isn't necessarily (or even usually) the goal of war.
  - looofooo0 1y ago
    You mean people who make it back to doctors is biased? Maybe against guns or mortars, but not so much against artillery. But this bias is also a secondary effect stemming from drones, as it increases time to evacuate or denies it totally. Which means that guns and mortars became more deadly because of drones. You can also look at the statistics of number of bullets to kill someone in major wars. Which is shockingly high. So with single digit hit percentage of drones and the numbers of drones deployed...
- ohgr 1y ago
  These artillery shells are mostly for destroying equipment and structures not people.
  - 1y ago

roschdal 1y ago

[flagged]

seszett 1y ago
Europe was convinced more ammo wasn't needed anymore and the world was becoming less and less dangerous, but mainly Russia and more recently the US made it very clear that Europe was wrong in that. So yes, more ammo obviously is needed and saying otherwise is disingenuous at best, or wilfully misleading more likely.
kleiba 1y ago
I know you meant that as sarcasm, but unfortunately with no shortage of narcistic lunatics in powerful positions around the world, keeping a country's ability to defend itself includes the availability of ammunition.

sleepyguy 1y ago

Innovation brought on by the fact they want to rid themselves of dependence on the USA. All around the world more and more countries and industry are looking for ways to decouple from American dependence.

monero-xmr 1y ago
As an American, this is a good thing. I don't want a world where Europe / UK are vassals to the hegemon. A European happy to live under America's boot rather than own their own destiny is a weak person indeed.
- 4ndrewl 1y ago
  I mean only if they are prepared to use it against US interests...
- lokimedes 1y ago
  For a continent with two world wars within a span of 30 years, Europe was ready for US hegemony in 1944. The Trump narrative is not really based on neither US nor European logic, but his own particular kind of gaslighting.
- Incipient 1y ago
  Other than the recent clown the US has elected, does the EU really feel like a "vassal"? Do people toil against their will, yield their culture to another power? In Australia we're even more so a "vassal" of England, but we're as Aussie as Aussie can be. Life wouldn't change a zack if we separated from the UK...we'd just be a Republic I suppose? I can't imagine the EU should feel particularly different? (other than Ukraine and the recent shemozzle)
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    If you are invaded by China and won’t fight to the death, expecting America or someone else to save you, or would just roll over and take it, you are a vassal mentally. If some country invaded America I would fight to the death

ohgr 1y ago

I imagine my BAE stock will rise yet again. 48% YTD. Least meme stock out there. Well that and Rheinmetall. Sad situation really.

lysace 1y ago
Similar feelings about my SAAB stock: up 87% YTD.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

adolph 1y ago

> A pilot has already demonstrated the technological breakthrough producing the explosives in small nodes. This technology would remove the need for a large-scale explosive factory. The new propellant formulation and associated manufacturing process have been demonstrated across a wide range of products from small arms to large calibre munitions. Imagine if it could be scaled down enough so a person could carry it around, just give them feedstock and the processor creates propellant.