Live data from Hacker News

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

roblh.substack.com

361–367 of 367 posts

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

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know about the report. How do its contents establish causus bellum?

Since Grozny, Putin has been a brutal war criminal for me. For me, nothing justifies this war. It is a political question of how to deal with Russia's claims to power in Ukraine or the Caucasus. Georgia was smarter in my opinion. Ukrainian nationalists and their neoconservative supporters from the USA were less wise. There should be a political discussion. https://www.rnd.de/politik/krieg-in-der-ukraine-botschafter-.…

Georgia was smarter in my opinion.

The situations are not really comparable, given that Russia's designs on Ukraine are very different. Categorically different in fact.

Perhaps in the years 2014-2022 they were somewhat comparable (when Russia was more or less trying to keep Ukraine in an extended "punishment box"). But definitely not since.

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

#362

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)

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…

    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.
So let's say China sends some conventional missiles to CONUS.

How does this not trigger MAD?

The US has no way of knowing if the incoming missiles are conventional or nukes. Would the US wait for the missiles to land to figure out if they're nukes or not? Would the US not simply launch a retaliatory (presumably nuclear) counter-strike while China's initial missiles are en route?

I honestly don't understand what value striking the CONUS would have for China. Seems like it would just instantly trigger MAD.

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

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'd sure think so. - A peer/neer-peer adversary can presumably throw a very large number of simultaneous drones at a USN vessel. I don't know how feasible it is rustle up 10 or 100 reliable simultaneous human suicide bombers. - The jet ski drones can surely be physically smaller than a speedboat that needs to hold a human - The jet skis can trade some of that size back and armor themselves against CIWS etc in w…

I looked into these a little more and the main thing I took away from it was, given their size and payload these aren't really "jet skis," even though the Ukrainians are sometimes naming them such. They are definitely formidable. I don't think I'd be so worried about them surviving hits from the CIWS. On the open ocean I'd be worried about the possibility of encountering so many drones that the CIWS runs out of ammun…

In addition to running out of ammo at some point, at some point I would imagine the CIWS would need a cooldown period?

I still also think the front of a "jetski" drone could probably be hardened to withstand a certain amount of 20×102mm fire but, I am guessing and don't know how to determine how feasible that might be.

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

#364
post #46
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Ukraine negotiated nonstop with Russia from 2014 (when Russia first seized some of their territory) until literally 1 week before the invasion in 2022. It was 8 years of nonstop negotiations, brokered by France & Germany. I'm always amazed more people don't know about this. How did neg…

What do you think about the conclusions of this piece published by a former UN official, a former NATO military official, and an academic? https://braveneweurope.com/michael-von-der-schulenburg-hajo-...

This is the same bullshit line Putin spouted with Tucker Carlson: It was Poland that started WWII by forcing the Hitler to invade.

It is standard psychopathic tactics — DARVO — Deny, Attack, Reverse victim and Offender.

"Ukraine left us no choice to invade!" — Utter bullshit start to finish

"NATO forced us to invade!" — Mor of the same. NATO is ZERO threat to Russia's integrity, and Putin knows it. when Finland joined NATO, Russia PULLED troops from away from Finnish border, the exact opposite of what they'd do if NATO was actually a threat, or even a perceived threat.

The list is endless (because they'll always come up with more, just throw it up there and see what sticks).

Stop falling for it.

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean globally in general? They're obviously not the aggressor in Ukraine. My Ukrainian friends didn't have their their family home annihilated US shells directly or indirectly.

Whether you are an agressor or not depends on the conflict. One can be both in different conflicts, and even change roles over time in the same conflict.

Yes, and in the Russian-Ukranian war Russia is the aggressor.

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

#366
post #46
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Ukraine negotiated nonstop with Russia from 2014 (when Russia first seized some of their territory) until literally 1 week before the invasion in 2022. It was 8 years of nonstop negotiations, brokered by France & Germany. I'm always amazed more people don't know about this. How did neg…

What do you think about the conclusions of this piece published by a former UN official, a former NATO military official, and an academic? https://braveneweurope.com/michael-von-der-schulenburg-hajo-...

A former UN official, a former NATO military official, and an academic?

Yet another example of the general rule that the fact of one having held at one point a high-status position does not, ipso facto, validate what one has to say about any particular topic.

As to the content -- some interesting history, albeit with a lot cherry-picking and selective omission; and apparently not a few simple misstatements or reversals of fact. The sibling commenters have done a better job of dissecting its content.

But beyond their words -- it's important to look at who these guys are, and crucially -- who they associate with, and who's buying them lunch.

As to Harald Kujat, from Wikipedia:

  Since July 2016, Kujat is a member of the Supervisory Board of the Berlin-based Research Institute Dialogue of Civilizations[4] (DOC), allegedly financed by Vladimir Yakunin,[5] until 2015 CEO of the Russian Railways and by some sources considered a member of the Russian president Vladimir Putin's inner circle.

  By some conservative German media (Bild-Zeitung, Die Welt) Kujat was criticized for his pro-Russian views in German TV talk shows,[6][7][8] allegedly being considered with misgiving by the German Federal Government.[9] 
Yakunin is (or was at one time anyway) the President of the DoC, and he's definitely very close to Putin. As for the criticisms of the German Press -- there's an article titled Talkshows verkaufen Propagandisten als „Experten“ you can easily which seems to get right to the point.

As for mister Hajo Funke (translated):

   In February 2023 Funke was one of the first signatories of the Manifest for Peace initiated by Sahra Wagenknecht and Alice Schwarzer that calls for [essentially the same "peace" plan described in the article]
Wagenknecht (former opposition leader in the Bundestag) and Schwarzer (an activist) have both held some notably weird, authoritarian views over the years (while seeming to mostly promote good wholesome left-wing views). Wagenknecht's were considered so extreme that it led to a row within her own party (The Left), some of whom said publicly that she ought to join the far-right AfD. In any case, she's generally considered to be radioactive in Germany politics right now - such that one doesn't go around signing or otherwise publicly endorsing something she says - unless one wishes to make a very conspicuous statement.

That tells you what you need to know about these guys (2 out 3 anyway).

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

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. So let's say China sends some conventional missiles to CONUS. How does this not trigger MAD? The US has no way of knowing if the incoming missiles are conventional or nukes. Would the US wait for the missiles to land to figure out if they're nukes o…

Realistically is US/PRC nuclear response is going to shift to launch on confirmation instead of warning against adversaries with credible capabilities to strike each others homeland. PRC certainly isn't going to be dissuaded from hitting CONUS if her homeland is struck or substantially degraded (via blockade) - PRC leadership would have domestic pressure to retaliate in way that satisfies the people, who are going to want US citizenry to go through the same food/energy shortage they are. And up until now the only thing preventing US adversaries from doing so is simply technical incapability which gives rise to this (somewaht hubris based) narrative that CONUS strikes leads to MAD. Meanwhile US is pursuing prompt global strike as well, because that's what it takes to win prolonged conventional wars - disrupt your adversaries homefront. Flip MAD fear around. Let's say US starts hitting PRC targets - how does PRC know they're not nukes and trigger MAD - almost every capable US platforms are nuclear capable.

For the actual process, I imagine it's going to be very communicated/coordinated affair to pace escalation. PRC: you stopped 40% of our energy imports, we're going to degrade 40% of your domestic energy infra if you don't stop in name of proportionality. First maybe via cyber, then via kinetic strikes, with warning ahead on list of facilities that are potential targets so they can evacuated ahead of time. Start with offshore rigs, then escalate to territorial targets. Launching X missiles at Y time at Z targets. US can either lift blockade, withdraw from PRC civil war, escalate to total war, or trigger MAD and both go back to stone age. Ideally this game theory gets played before hand, and there's no blockade or US intervention in first place - ability to hit CONUS is as much a deterrence function. But TLDR is PRC isn't going to sit back and take hits if they can dish hits as well. Meanwhile US expeditionary/military game theory has been based on fighting adversaries who can't really hit back. Which is why PRC is pouring so much resources into platforms that can.

Post reply on HN