Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

roblh.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 367 posts

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#131

Post by butterknife »

cameron_b wrote: post #62

It should probably be restated that instead of the conflict in Ukraine catching our production capacity off guard, that rather it was our production posture along with denuclearization and disarmament of Ukraine that set the stage for the conflict. I’m not a “team America world police” advocate, much more the opposite. Even as stated in the article, most production is more interested in a deterrent. Hate ‘em or hate…

Ukraine only housed Soviet nuclear missiles. They (Ukraine) would never ever had access to launch codes. That it is stated in Budapest memorandum along with the rest of the Soviet army leaving does not in any way make Ukraine a former nuclear power.

We had Soviet nukes stationed in Czechia too. Does that make us a former nuclear power? I thought not...

Slava Ukraini

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#133

Post by vpribish »

zmgsabst wrote: post #93
MostlyStable wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, what Russia would prefer to happen in Ukraine is, to put it politely, their own fucking problem. I get why they might prefer that. But when they don't get their way, they are not allowed to invade a sovereign nation and slaughter thousands of civilians. Ukraine is allowed to pick who it wants to be associated with and Russia doesn't get a say. Also, at this point it is hilariously obvious that A) Russia will…

[flagged]

Yikes. Another one. You get this from a script or you improvise?

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#135

Post by tehjoker »

Throw73747 wrote: post #134
tehjoker wrote: post #132

[flagged]

And shelling Donetsk City is somehow different?

I am also against the Ukraine war and believe a peaceful settlement is possible. NATO (the US) is using Ukraine to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, though having to fight two wars at once is causing them to rethink their position.

ICJ did rule against Russia, and it makes sense since they invaded, but the roots of the conflict go back to attacks on Donetsk like you say since 2014 and various aggressive moves by NATO since 1991 in violation of the gentleman's agreement.

Basically, the US should not be supplying arms to these conflicts.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#136

Post by actionfromafar »

Log_out_ wrote: post #126
XorNot wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to parse this comment. Why would the US give up on Taiwan "before it gets serious". If the US is involved in a shooting conflict in the Taiwanese strait, they either win or lose it conventionally but if it happens at all then nukes aren't getting involved unless mainland territorial invasions go on the table - and they're not going to. The reality is the US would very much like to avoid having to neg…

The US is currently loosing to Russia in Europe, it's all talk no walk, similar to west - europe.

The US is "loosing" because it barely dipped a toe in the conflict. Motivate the US to go all in and it's a different story altogether. But I agree on the reluctance of Western Europe and the US to give support, the Ukraine conflict could have been over by now with proper support.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#137

Post by jabl »

khokhol wrote: post #34
zmgsabst wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No — but perhaps we could have negotiated a peace during a conference at Minsk a decade ago or in Feb 2022 at the outbreak of hostilities, rather than frantically send Boris Johnson to subvert it. Russia has consistently angled for Ukraine to be a neutral border between two blocs to facilitate trade — and that clearly would have been better for Ukraine than a senseless slaughter which destroyed a generation, by maimi…

The only "peace" settlement Putin would have accepted by Feb 2022 would have required the permanent secession of the then-occupied regions (and likely then some) to Russia. That clearly would have been better for Ukraine As if you know better than the Ukrainians themselves as to what's best for them.

Indeed. And if anything, if Ukraine would have accepted such a "peace" settlement, the result would only have been the mysterious green men appearing in the next regions in Ukraine near the border. Rinse and repeat.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#138

Post by jabl »

dghughes wrote: post #44
zmgsabst wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No — but perhaps we could have negotiated a peace during a conference at Minsk a decade ago or in Feb 2022 at the outbreak of hostilities, rather than frantically send Boris Johnson to subvert it. Russia has consistently angled for Ukraine to be a neutral border between two blocs to facilitate trade — and that clearly would have been better for Ukraine than a senseless slaughter which destroyed a generation, by maimi…

I watched a news segment where a former government official close to Putin said people don't understand him. Putin goes into incredible detail when planning military campaigns. For Georgia and Ukraine Putin had been planning the attacks for decades. Plus he has a Plan B, Plan C etc. all that he wants he's decided already years ago and is not interested in anything else. You missed your chance for peace talks by a dec…

Planning the lightning strike and capture of Kyiv for decades? Truly a strategic genius, Putin is.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#139

Post by 15457345234 »

somenameforme wrote: post #122
MilStdJunkie wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm relatively sure the search/track radar doesn't go with individual bullets, but yeah, you have a high PK (percentage of kill) when defending against one, two missiles. But that's not how they'll be employed - your problem is attack mass and engagement time. You'll have maybe a swarm of cheap drones, a few dozen Mig-21s revamped for drone control, a few incoming guided ballistic missiles at mach 7, fifty or so subs…

I also don't entirely understand how directed energy stuff can work against things that aren't just going on a ballistic trajectory like hypersonics. You need to nail that target for an extended period of time. And it's safe to say that if these things ever taken off then the countless sorts of passable protection (multiple layers of thick highly reflective surfaces for instance) would end up being applied to importa…

> You need to nail that target for an extended period of time.

I think the idea of DEW is that you're not trying to literally melt the thing out of the sky, you're trying to penetrate it electrically and scramble something. To that end a very sharp pulse (chirped pulse) is the better approach as then you're more likely to cause damage once you exceed the capacity of (for example) the input isolators on the radar antenna to divert excess energy away from the very sensitive amplifier. Or, to put it a simpler way, you're trying to make sparks jump across gaps.

Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production

#140

Post by somenameforme »

sherr wrote: post #124

Noah Smith (Noahpinion) had a decent post up a few weeks ago about this aspect of war - war production. He titled it "People are realizing that the Arsenal of Democracy is gone" [1]. It was quite a sobering read. The thought that we might ever need this level of commitment in the future is frightening. War is always full of nasty surprises. [1] https://archive.is/Ih3pm

That piece is not well thought out in my opinion. The "magical shield" that's been protecting people in developed nations is simple - nukes. Countries with nukes don't get invaded. Countries without nukes, do. It doesn't matter if you're a democracy (which Iran was until they dared question our control over their oil, and so naturally had to be have... monarchy... brought to them), or a little dictatorship with an affinity for rocket building. The primary point of conventional weaponry (from the perspective of a nuclear power) is to fuel proxy wars and enable the invasion of non-nuclear nations.

Of course he's right that if there is a WW3, the United States will lose. As will every other single major power. And how many artillery shells you have won't matter a lick in this. The goal in WW3 will not be to destroy the other nation's military, but to destroy the other nation, such that it can never recover to pose a threat to you again. Every single juicy high-density economic zone in every single country will end up getting nuked to oblivion. New York City, Moscow, San Francisco, Berlin, Paris - these places will, in all probability, simply no longer exist.

Striving to win an unwinnable war is not only painfully myopic, but also just seems like a great way for humanity to kill itself off.

Post reply on HN