Live data from Hacker News

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

roblh.substack.com

241–250 of 367 posts

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

#241
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah it's incredibly embarrassing to supposedly plan for so long only to have it fail so spectacularly. Even Georgia didn't go very well.

It's hard to know if the person saying that about Putin is a plant for propaganda or if he really was being honest. He could be unknowing be spreading misinformation to benefit Putin and I could be doing the same quoting what the man said.

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

#242
post #6

This reminds me of the excellent series "Blueprint for Armageddon" in Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast [1]. It's about the First World War. WWI tends to get less attention than WW2 and while there are good reasons why we focus on the atrocities of WW2, in some ways WWI was far more devastating. The artillery production mentioned here reminds me of how scales changed from the beginning to the end of the war. At t…

All available evidence seems to suggest that Russia has no intentions of taking the land bridge and calling it a day. They’re vocally aiming to take the whole of Ukraine. They may be trying to wait out western support but it feels shaky. Perhaps with a trump presidency. Ukraine’s increasing ability to hit deep targets suggests to me this strategy of Russia’s will not work. The offensive pace is too slow for the immen…

> They’re vocally aiming to take the whole of Ukraine

Putin (following Dugin) has expressed the goal of building a Russian empire stretching from Vladivostok to Lisbon. I suppose that's just sabre-rattling; but Leningrad is very exposed, at the end of a long land corridor bordered on either side by NATO members. I'm convinced he hopes to dominate all the land between Russia and the Baltic.

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

#243
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.

How? How US can be loosing a war it doesn't fight in? It's the same as saying that North Korea is loosing against Ukraine because they deliver ammunition to Russia. A fallacy.

And even if you'd want to use that metric. How exactly loosing zero US personnel at the cost of getting a real-life assessment of NATO combined mobile warfare against the Soviet artillery superiority doctrine is a lose situation for US?

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

#244
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Israelis are from Eastern European backgrounds, and it's plausible that they may have inherited some military culture from there.

I’m not sure it has much to do with culture but almost everything with cost. Missiles are extremely expensive and you’ll soon run out of them during a long war of attrition (especially in a symmetrical conflict like in Ukraine)

I don't actually understand why missiles are so expensive. You can buy an off-the-shelf turbojet engine for $1,000, and cheap toy drones are equipped with sophisticated guidance electronics. I'd have thought it shouldn't be hard to build a cruise missile with INS for under $20,000.

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could replace [Russia] there with the countless other countries we invade/occupy, for far lesser rewards than Russia would offer. So, yes I'm 100% certain we would.

Nobody cares about Russia unless it invades its neighbors or tries to fuck things up for the rest in another way. Russia is a gas station with nuclear weapons that is inherently self limited due to its kleptocracy. And again, the US cant even be bothered to kill off Russia by supplying some insignificant amount of aid and you think that there would be boots on the ground?

And so, in your mind, the US has never shown a geopolitical proclivity to invade, shall we say, 'noncompliant' "gas stations"?

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, these pacifist-style comments are really tone deaf and out of touch. Yes, we'd all prefer peace and leaving each other alone, but if some other nation comes to kill your countrymen and replace your democracy with a puppet, suddenly just relying on pacifist ideals doesn't work well anymore. Most of the time, these commenters don't want to engage with reality as it currently exists. If you ask them what exactly y…

I agree that we should engage with reality as it currently exists. Davyd Arakhamia [1] is a Ukrainian member of parliament, in Zelensky's party. He was one of the negotiators early on with Russia. He stated that Russia's main demand was simply that Ukraine agree to not join NATO. Meduza has an article about it (which also links to the interview itself) here, as well as spin from various sides. [2] If you're unaware o…

> Russia was paranoid about NATO, which has gradually been working to surround it with nuclear weapons, having a base setup in Ukraine which has a geographically clear path straight into Russia's heartland. And I don't find such paranoia particularly unreasonable.

Sorry, I find it unlikely that even you believe this line of reasoning.

Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. It is delusional to think that Russia is remotely at risk for a Iraq/Libya/Yugoslavia type situation.

Russia might not like its neighbors joining NATO, but maybe they wouldn't feel the need if being Russia's neighbor didn't suck so much?

In any case, Russia's actions in the last decade culminating with February 2022 have essentially convinced all post-1989 NATO inductees that it was the right move.

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

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that everybody know that nuclear war is a no win option. So they try to avoid it. You can game that. Simply give your enemy a way out. Don't press them too hard, just take something, not so much that they would feel threatened. Instead of invading them directly, take over their trading partners. Set up rebellions, insurrections. It's still your bullets in their bodies and their country taking damage. But y…

> Set up rebellions, insurrections. You fail to mention that the US are the best example for this strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

I wouldn't call that the best example. They failed way too often for that.

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

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia will always "be open" to negotiations if only to create cracks in the western support for Ukraine. But what are they offering? Last I head Putin was only prepared to negotiate based on the understanding that all occupied territories would stay under Russian control. Ukraine should have handled this better and also signaling being open for negotiations. On the condition of returning all territories that are wit…

Russia annexed those territories, following referendums, because Ukraine refused to negotiate. Russia views them as Russian territory now — and has said they’re willing to use nuclear weapons in their defense (as they would for any territory). De facto those are Russian. Ukraine has passed a law saying they absolutely refuse to negotiate a peace settlement with Putin. Again, you can believe that’s righteous… but all…

Putin claimed at the beginning of the war that it did not seek any territory from Ukraine (to be fair, nobody really believed him). Annexation of those territories was thus an increase in the amount of war goals that Russia sought. The referendums were canceled in the wake of the Russian army suffering an embarrassing rout near Kharkiv, and hurriedly rescheduled when it looked like Russia might lose control of Kherson soon--that is, the annexation happened in response not to Russian military success but immediate Russian military failure.

The annexation should signal to the world that Russia is not interested in any serious peace settlements. Indeed, it should be a strong signal that Russia is uninterested in acknowledging that its military is not capable of achieving a state that makes concessionless peace deals possible. I will fault Ukraine for many things, but being unwilling to negotiate with someone who will not moderate their goals in line with their ability to achieve them is not one of them.

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

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that we should engage with reality as it currently exists. Davyd Arakhamia [1] is a Ukrainian member of parliament, in Zelensky's party. He was one of the negotiators early on with Russia. He stated that Russia's main demand was simply that Ukraine agree to not join NATO. Meduza has an article about it (which also links to the interview itself) here, as well as spin from various sides. [2] If you're unaware o…

> Russia was paranoid about NATO, which has gradually been working to surround it with nuclear weapons, having a base setup in Ukraine which has a geographically clear path straight into Russia's heartland. And I don't find such paranoia particularly unreasonable. Sorry, I find it unlikely that even you believe this line of reasoning. Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. It is delusional to think that…

You need to look at the world probabilistically and over an extended period of time, not just try to guess what will immediately happen and go with that. The United States is still longing for global hegemony, when it's increasingly clear such is no longer possible. That creates a very dangerous situation, especially when we seem to keep picking rather poor leaders who lack much in the way of competence or foresight.

There's also simply misreading other leaders' intentions. If the US does not believe that Putin would respond to a conventional attack with nuclear weapons, then that also dramatically increases the chances of such an attack. And in fact one could argue that we're currently trying to probe how Russia would respond to slowly escalating types of provocations.

There's also the future. As we enter into a multipolar world it's possible the dollar could collapse, which could create unimaginable chaos. Russia could have some degree of turmoil once Putin permanently leaves office, which could be seen as an opportunity for the US. We might even develop a means of completely mitigating nuclear weapons, and so on. And so Russia is going to be looking at scenarios probabilistically. You're absolutely right the chances of the US trying to directly invade are extremely low, but they are also nowhere near 0. And that's in the current state. Who knows what the future holds? And once a country is right there, in NATO, it's there 'forever'.

----

Like try to take yourself back to WW1. Tensions were of course very high, but try to imagine what you'd think would happen if a Bosnian Serb (with secret state backing) assassinated an Austro-Hungarian royal. Would you expect to see Brits killing Germans over it, and tens of millions of people being killed? It just seems like a highly improbable outcome, to say the least. And in fact we could be living in a timeline where some 0.00001% probability event played out, and has completely shaped our world ever since. Such things can, and will, continue to happen - history makes this clear.

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

#250

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…

> Hate ‘em or hate ‘em, nukes are a deterrent to open war. This is demonstrably false. Nukes have allowed those who have them, to bully (wage asymmetric warfare on) those who don't. Would the USA have been so cock-sure about murdering 5% of Iraqs population, if it didn't have nukes?

Unfortunately that is an illustration of what I mean. Iraq and Ukraine participated in nuclear disarmament and monitoring. Iran has continued to pursue nuclear development and gets very diplomatic kid-gloves from even US military retaliation on Iran-backed groups in the area.

The US was very clear in not attacking Iranians, though Iranian support was the vehicle by which US troops were attacked. Iran got a measured response for its allies because Iran 'carries a big stick'

Post reply on HN