U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#41

Post by bootload » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:26 AM UTC

dools wrote: post #15

hitekker wrote: post #10

Side note: I wish discussion boards had a feature where you could upvote literature or some basic articles relating the to topics covered in the OP. This way people who are not familiar with the matter, or perhaps just curious about alternative interpretations could see other sources that the community deems worthy. For the article above, it would likely be an intersection of "War on ISIS", "Military Industrial Compl…

Awesome I'd never heard of 'war is a racket', thanks! In return let me reccomend "the ruses for war" by john quigley and confessions of an economic hitman (and others) by john quigley as well as "a game as old as empire" with foreward by the same.

'war is a racket'

@dools, history isn't considered that important for learning. I found out about 'War is a Racket' reading about Smedley Butler USMC [0] and his warning on the attempted overthrow of FDR and the US government. [1],[2]

If you followed the press carefully this month you'll see a AUD 49 Million dollar boost for Victorian CT, [3], Dassault saves 10,000 jobs, £12 billion goes to UK BAE and in Germany, €8 billion earmarked for defence. [4]

Smedley was the Snowden of his era. [5]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

[2] http://www.npr.org/2012/02/12/145472726/when-the-bankers-plo...

[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-25/funding-boost-to-victo...

[4] http://www.smh.com.au/business/paris-attacks-war-on-islamic-...

[5] "Book of the Month: War Is a Racket | Jesse Ventura" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h30FE0MxEMc

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#42

Post by stickfigure » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:27 AM UTC

skuhn wrote: post #16

jemfinch wrote: post #5

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 citi…

For those who aren't familiar with it, the parent is quoting from Eisenhower's 1953 Chance for Peace speech [1]. There's an interesting piece from the NY Times in 2013 about what a bomber would buy today [2]. The situation has become considerably worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech [2] http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/what-would-a-fight...

"Software saved the aerospace industry. Every other way of adding cost to an airplane also adds weight."

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#43

Post by bcoates » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:28 AM UTC

oconnore wrote: post #6

vippy wrote: post #2

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?

They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?

But enough about Saudi Arabia, what's your opinion about ISIS?

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#44

Post by rdtsc » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:28 AM UTC

jemfinch wrote: post #5

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 citi…

For fun, looking at numbers today: a B-2 bomber is around $2B/aircraft. A 500MW gas powered power plant could be around $0.5B, and would serve maybe 50K homes. So you could buy 4 power plants today for the cost of one advanced bomber.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#45

Post by engi_nerd » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:29 AM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #13

jemfinch wrote: post #5

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 citi…

where is that quote from? It sounds old. 500,000 bushels of wheat is only about $4m. What fighter plane is this a comparison to?

For that era, most likely an F-86 Sabre or equivalent.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#46

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:35 AM UTC

pj_mukh wrote: post #33

hnamazon123 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copy pasting this from below: Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all . We need to do what is strategically sound. If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?

Because bombing the shit outta them, won't fix it? Boots on the ground means a larger surge of extremists turning into combatants rushing into the place to make their apocalyptical dreams come true (that is the connection to 'what they want'). For America (or Europe) to rush in seems like the most intellectually bankrupt and strategically inept thing to do. A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region…

"A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region."

Sure it has. Ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Where is it now? What happened to it? What happened to Pharaonic Egypt? The Crusader States? The Achaemenid Empire? Carthage? Troy? Akkadia? Babylonia?

Many others could be named; the history of the region is rife with examples of ground wars quite decisively solving problems in the region.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#47

Post by engi_nerd » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:37 AM UTC

xacaxulu wrote: post #3

I see opportunity. US arms industry needs DevOps methodologies to increase velocity.

As a person in that industry...what do you mean by "DevOps methodologies"? And what do you mean by increasing velocity?

Are you saying, "The US arms industry needs to be more agile in responding to the needs of its customers by producing better weapons in shorter periods of time"? If so, then your real problem is not with the industry.

Some black projects and other less sensitive but desperately needed projects can be "short-circuited" by being done without the usual oversight and red tape. You will only find out about those years after they are fielded, if ever. But most programs are subject to this process: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wal...

Do you understand everything that's going on in this chart? I don't either, and I was forced to attend several weeks worth of classroom training plus more online training in the nuances of this process. Anyone who wishes to develop a major weapons system must work through this process, which is mandated by US federal law.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#48

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 5:07 AM UTC

sago wrote: post #29

hnamazon123 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've…

> thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car. Smaller even than the risk you'll choke on your next meal, or harm yourself putting your pants on tomorrow. > the choice is between doing nothing It really isn't. The alternative to bombing…

"A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car."

By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free since the chance of being murdered is less than the chance of dying in a car wreck?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People, in general, don't think that way.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#49

Post by pj_mukh » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 5:34 AM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #46

pj_mukh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because bombing the shit outta them, won't fix it? Boots on the ground means a larger surge of extremists turning into combatants rushing into the place to make their apocalyptical dreams come true (that is the connection to 'what they want'). For America (or Europe) to rush in seems like the most intellectually bankrupt and strategically inept thing to do. A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region…

"A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region." Sure it has. Ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Where is it now? What happened to it? What happened to Pharaonic Egypt? The Crusader States? The Achaemenid Empire? Carthage? Troy? Akkadia? Babylonia? Many others could be named; the history of the region is rife with examples of ground wars quite decisively solving problems in the region.

Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter. The wide mass spread of ideas worldwide is what makes the 'idea' more potent than anything ground troops could go door-to-door to kill. We have to face it, we cannot shoot and bomb our way out of this.

The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#50

Post by npunt » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 5:54 AM UTC

uptownfunk wrote: post #31

npunt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Current patterns in discussion board designs are very unsophisticated and drive content toward uninformed debate and reader exhaustion, rather than constructing understanding. Our entire news infrastructure (blogs/articles, television, etc) also suffers from similar problems. Its like we can't break orbit of much shallowness, except in relatively esoteric, insular communities online and offline.

Perhaps unrelated, but are there any groups (deliberately non-specific) working to address this?

Very good question, I don't know!

I'm unfamiliar with the structures of working groups but I imagine it'd have to be pretty heavily social sciences weighted (ethnography, sociology/psychology, media studies, education, etc). Personally, I'd like to see a mix of rapid prototyping, science fiction (engaging in hypotheticals on systems and cultural impact), and solid research. Evaluation is going to be challenging due to the uniqueness of experiences in social systems (e.g. in social networks every feed is different, so less unified starting point). I think surfacing the problems-behind-the-problem like understanding / capturing the different starting points of each readers knowledge would play prominently in any truly transformative solution.

On the business end, right now I can't imagine there's much of a business vehicle for driving this forward, as the market would favor general solutions applied to pre-existing properties (e.g. bolt-ons like Disqus) or incremental changes (e.g. better mod tools on reddit or something), whereas my strong suspicion is that deeper innovations probably need to be developed alongside wholly new online properties - you know, the medium is the message and all that. Evaluating success would be difficult given the need to create and verify new metrics of success, and I'm not sure many startups have the patience, knowhow, or desire to dig deep into research required for this.

I guess its worth mentioning I started an online news company so I've had more than a passing chance to think about / be frustrated with this problem space. In the challenging environment of growing a journalism startup (not exactly a high $$ biz), I wasn't able to sink my teeth enough into creating new designs for media publishing and community tools, and was so unsatisfied with the present offerings that we just avoided going down the discussion board route altogether. It remains my belief that a 'news' is a sense-making and ultimately educational problem being solved (poorly) by publishing systems, and the field of 'journalism' lacks imagination in what ways they can create said news, assuming everything just becomes an article written by a journalist because thats how newspapers did it.