Live data from Hacker News

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

roblh.substack.com

341–350 of 367 posts

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

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putin just gave a two hour interview where he explains the efforts they made and why they view this as a US coup. There’s nothing about this which is colonial/imperial: Ukraine was already separate for decades, peacefully, until outside nations supported violent overthrow of a democratically elected government which followed its rise to power with oppression of an ethnic group. If we’re discussing what politicians sa…

> - Ukraine is saying crazy things, like laying claims to part of Russia. Do you have any links to this? I am not aware of Ukraine laying claim to any part of Russia, asides from those parts that the international community still regards as Ukrainian territory that Russia illegally annexed (namely, Crimea, Donbass, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson).

Yep, that's literally what is being said -- that Crimea, Donbas, Kherson etc are of course "part of Russia" and that it is Ukraine which is "laying claim" to those regions.

Which is completely backasswards of course. But because a well-spoken, powerful man on TV (who also aligns with his geopolitical / moral views), in this case Putin, is saying those things -- a lot of folks have no problem believing it. Ditto with the supposed "coup" in 2014 (which is somewhat more nuanced, but not all that nuanced or hard to figure out).

And not only believing this nonsensse - but sucking it up as if it were air.

BTW strictly speaking, we don't know if the grandparent actually believes in these particular bullet points -- they aren't saying this is what they believe, only "this is what politicians are saying." But it's basically in tune with other misconceptions that they (the grandparent) has been putting forth in this thread.

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

#342

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…

Ukraine has passed a law saying they absolutely refuse to negotiate a peace settlement with Putin.

Which law are you referring to?

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

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why, if we decide we need to take out China, we'll sail over to the coast off Yemen, and stop any oil headed their way. They'll collapse within 6 months. (Or so sayeth Peter Zeihan)

When I see statements like this, I try to think "what would they do in response that would change the calculus?" E.g. cutting off oil...not like that has ever led to unexpected outcomes (perl harbor). Countries generally react to mitigate your actions. What are some of the potential reactions you could see if the PRC perceived that as an existential threat?

Belt and Road, String of Pearls, massive build-out of anti ship missiles and navy.

And it's not enough, at least for the next ~decade. The ocean supply route is to large and too strung out for a navy lesser than the USN to defend.

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

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand why people get so caught up on the fabs in Taiwan, as if their presence is the actual goal or the important thing. An invasion of Taiwan would probably effectively destroy globalisation, China exports would be sanctioned, China imports of energy and raw materials would be heavily disrupted (China's supply of fossil fuels is very vulnerable). It would be the most disruptive event to the world…

The US only stopped trading with Nazi Germany after Germany declared war on the them, after Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

The US was engaged in a long period of isolationism during that period.

The US attitude to world conflict now is vastly different to the views of 1941

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

#345

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 promised not to invade and then invaded, then promised not to invade, then invaded, then promised not to invade, then invaded, then promised not to invade Ukraine. Did the same trick for all former parts of Russian Empire, including Poland, Baltic States, Finland, etc.

Let's take this as a given, which it isn't. Calling actions of people like e.g. Stalin, a Georgian leader of the USSR, simply "Russia" is not entirely reasonable, but whatever. It's inconsequential. We'll not only take it as a given, but also assume that Ukraine knew, without any doubt, that if they sign this agreement then Russia will come marching in and try to "really" invade them in 5 years.

The point remains is that this war was a choice. They could fight now, or not. Ukraine could have, instead, spent the next 5 years setting up an unprecedented series of defense in depth series of barriers around the border, akin to what Russia did when preparing for the Ukrainian counter-attack. This was not an obligatory war for self existence, but a choice - a choice made at the urging of the West.

Ultimately I think the complete catastrophe this war has turned into is largely due to multiple miscalculations. Russia obviously thought they were 'ambushing' Ukraine and would be easily able to impose their demands. And the US/UK, in turn, thought they were 'ambushing' Russia and would be easily able to impose their demands. There's some extreme parallels with WW1, where I think everybody thought they were going to be able to go in and just finish the job pretty cleanly. If those nations could have seen out outcome they were signing up for (win or lose), WW1 would have never happened. And I think the same is true here.

So that leads me to wonder then, what is the future that we're signing up for now 5 years or another decade down the line? Does what sound good today, instead lead to regrets tomorrow? And that consideration is what drives my views, today.

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

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missiles were built by Ukraine.

Rocket engines, which were dual use with peacetime space exploration, I might add. They did not build warheads.

Warhead were built in closed cities, but research was done in institutes, mostly by Jews and Ukrainians. Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology was known as "Laboratory №1" for nuclear physics. Many nuclear physicists were trained there.

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

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia promised not to invade and then invaded, then promised not to invade, then invaded, then promised not to invade, then invaded, then promised not to invade Ukraine. Did the same trick for all former parts of Russian Empire, including Poland, Baltic States, Finland, etc.

Let's take this as a given, which it isn't. Calling actions of people like e.g. Stalin, a Georgian leader of the USSR, simply "Russia" is not entirely reasonable, but whatever. It's inconsequential. We'll not only take it as a given, but also assume that Ukraine knew, without any doubt, that if they sign this agreement then Russia will come marching in and try to "really" invade them in 5 years. The point remains is…

> if they sign this agreement then Russia will come marching in and try to "really" invade them in 5 years.

5 weeks. Typical Russian tactics is to invade, then call for peace, then reinforce area, perform ethnical cleansing, solve problem with logistic, then blame other side for something and invade again.

> Ukraine could have, instead, spent the next 5 years setting up an unprecedented series of defense in depth series of barriers around the border

We spent 5 years preparing our defenses, spending 5% of GPD on that, BUT huge border with RF (1974 km) and Belarus + shore (1500 km) are not easy or cheap to reinforce. Ukraine has the largest border in Europe between two countries.

> This was not an obligatory war for self existence, but a choice - a choice made at the urging of the West.

LOL

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

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says that Russia would have honored that settlement? It didnt all the others. Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, then started the proxy war in the Donbas and then a few years later came back for a full invasion. Dont forget the plethora of different reasons Putin gives for the invasion. Bio Labs, nuclear weapons aspirations, language laws, civil war(that he himself started).......There will always be more than en…

Putin just gave a two hour interview where he explains the efforts they made and why they view this as a US coup. There’s nothing about this which is colonial/imperial: Ukraine was already separate for decades, peacefully, until outside nations supported violent overthrow of a democratically elected government which followed its rise to power with oppression of an ethnic group. If we’re discussing what politicians sa…

You very well know that Yanukovych ran his campaign on a pro EU platform. He promised the people a customs union through an association agreement with the EU. The day before signing said agreement, he got bought off by Putin and proclaimed that Ukraine would enter a customs union with Russia and Belarus instead.

I really can not see any way such an action of a massively corrupt leader selling out his people and acting against their stated interest would not result in massive protests. During which Yanu chose to flee his country.

Also there have been two elections since then so who cares.

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

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO when seriously consider the math, the firepower:acquisition cost ratio doesn't make much sense, especially against PRC. SSGN with ~150 tomahawks, subsonic, easier to intercept, will likely never be reloadable at sea, and may not be able to operate permissively around PRC in due time. PRC ASW is improving rapidly, and they're deploying subsea ASW infra within 1st island chain. Not much info on projected upgrade of…

Which is why, if we decide we need to take out China, we'll sail over to the coast off Yemen, and stop any oil headed their way. They'll collapse within 6 months. (Or so sayeth Peter Zeihan)

He always seems to have such a strong handle on things, but I have absolutely zero idea whether or not he's completely full of crap.

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

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO when seriously consider the math, the firepower:acquisition cost ratio doesn't make much sense, especially against PRC. SSGN with ~150 tomahawks, subsonic, easier to intercept, will likely never be reloadable at sea, and may not be able to operate permissively around PRC in due time. PRC ASW is improving rapidly, and they're deploying subsea ASW infra within 1st island chain. Not much info on projected upgrade of…

Which is why, if we decide we need to take out China, we'll sail over to the coast off Yemen, and stop any oil headed their way. They'll collapse within 6 months. (Or so sayeth Peter Zeihan)

Incoming Zeihan rant:

That was fine strategy 10 years ago when he wrote Accidental Superpower / pre PLA modernization. This is the part where we circle back to developing PRC conventional hypersonics and potential to overwhelm US missile defense, and PRC increasingly able to strike CONUS at scale from mainland - PRC's version of prompt (conventional) global strike which they've been telegraphing development for years. A threat vector US planners are slowly acknowledging. Which means PRC can proportionally deny US energy by hitting critical infra like oil/LNG refineries, huge stationary targets with simple kill chain. Fortress America + shale autarky doesn't mean anything if you can't protect energy security (and by connection of fossil industrial inputs, food security), which is PRC's reverse UNO for the the entire blockading PRC oil strategy, except when applied to US, straight to extraction chain because can't blockade US from US. So next best proportional (even if escalatory thing) is just to make US as vunerable as PRC. All the resources in US sovereign soil is no good if they can't be extracted and made useful to sustain US hegemony. Saudi equipped US hardware learned that lesson when Houthis hit their refineries. Sure Us isn't incompetent like Saudi, but PRC isn't Houthis either, unless you think they actually replaced rocket fuel with water, and used said fuel for hotpot.

Zeihan of skips over the politics in geoPOLITICS when convenient, i.e. US has most waterways, but PRC actually engineered significantly more and uses more internal waterways. US has deep coasts, but PRC dredged her to make way for half of worlds top 10 ports, the other half doesn't contain US. PRC has bad demographics, except PRC has the ideal demographics for geopolitical competition in the timelines relevant to us - set to produce and coordinate more high skilled talent in next 30 years (the cohorts that actually build national power) than US is projected increase population from all sources total, AND declining population of non productive peoples (old, unskilled, unproductive) aka less import dependencies. Declining cohort also has high home ownership and savings rate because frankly they don't expect big welfare net like west. Next 30 years, PRC swapping 50 million STEM talent (already born) with tier1 city earning potential for 100m farmers, migrant workers etc (old -> uneducated die first) that earn 1/10 that. IMO PRC demographic trend (if scrutinized beyond naive pyramid reading) is more pros than cons, especially considering PRC geographic/resource constraint - they don't need 3x more people than the US where only 1x can marginally compete with US and 2x are excess mouths to feed. Better off long term with 2x US population that PRC soil can sustain, where 1.5x can out compete US.

Eitherway the point is frequently politics in geopolitics matter more.

Fortress America has always been part geographic fortress and part artificial, technologic fortress. The entire reason US built/maintains the largest high tech expeditionary military is basically to stay on the front doors of any potential adversaries so they can't get close to CONUS. Let's not forget Continental Navy couldn't hold against out British blockade during revolutionary war without French Navy entering picture. CONUS was vunerable with 1800s tech, it's the technology (politics) part that made fortress america and it's the technology (military) that ensure two oceans are moats. High end missiles circumvents that, hence US unlikely to take out PRC without PRC taking out US unless US engages PRC directly. That's without considering PRC can drag US to fight near PRC home court by hitting JP/SKR/PH to trigger security obligation. Those are island with much worse self sufficiency that'll collapse in 2 months that US is treaty bound to defend. The TLDR is entire Malacca delima / SLOC blockade strategy operates on logic from 10 years ago when US can unilaterally fuck PRC at no _existential_ cost to herself (CONUS), once that logic breaks, blockade becomes unlikely / suicide pact. Question then is what will US/PRC commit suicide over.

Post reply on HN