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

Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

gao.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#101

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

no_wizard wrote: post #71
actionfromafar wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logistics are already straining against Iran, can't see how the US could hold up around Taiwan. And China can now see for themselves how weak the US military machine has become. Testosterone injections won't help there.

They aren’t. Political will is faulting but the military is holding back on Iran. There is no follow on ground invasion or clear carpet bombing of the entire country. These strikes are all suppose to be strategic. If the US military was waging a true all out war, Iran would be piles of rubble and glass I am not supportive of war with Iran by a long shot but to see the US military and be like “oh it’s strained” is jus…

The military loves to say how they are pulling their punches. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. When things get real, the US will totally be there and unstoppable.

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#102

Post by no_wizard »

Sabinus wrote: post #87
no_wizard wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t negate capability which is what is being mentioned.

The USA wouldn't be able to invade and carpet bomb China and end the war before logistical strain started to show either. There's no point talking about USA's theoretical capabilities to end a war quickly if they can't use those capabilities to end a war quickly. Yes, the USA is holding back on invasion, carpet bombing, total war and nukes. It doesn't matter to the Chinese assessment for the capability of sustained h…

Oh it most definitely does matter, to think it doesn’t makes no sense. The Chinese may be building up their military capabilities but they still spend a fraction of what the US does every year.

They’re different leagues, and in a gloves off war being on the receiving end of the US military would be devastating.

I think if China makes a move it’s because they perceive US political will to defend Taiwan to be weak enough that there won’t be a real protracted fight or escalation.

Which I half wonder if that is why they aren’t more defensive about Iran. Bleed out the political will of the US populace on a war and it’s unlikely we’ll want to support another one anytime soon.

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#103

Post by pocksuppet »

no_wizard wrote: post #102
Sabinus wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA wouldn't be able to invade and carpet bomb China and end the war before logistical strain started to show either. There's no point talking about USA's theoretical capabilities to end a war quickly if they can't use those capabilities to end a war quickly. Yes, the USA is holding back on invasion, carpet bombing, total war and nukes. It doesn't matter to the Chinese assessment for the capability of sustained h…

Oh it most definitely does matter, to think it doesn’t makes no sense. The Chinese may be building up their military capabilities but they still spend a fraction of what the US does every year. They’re different leagues, and in a gloves off war being on the receiving end of the US military would be devastating. I think if China makes a move it’s because they perceive US political will to defend Taiwan to be weak enou…

How well is this military doing against Iran right now? I think a few months ago a civilization was destroyed one night, right?

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#104

Post by pocksuppet »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #101
no_wizard wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren’t. Political will is faulting but the military is holding back on Iran. There is no follow on ground invasion or clear carpet bombing of the entire country. These strikes are all suppose to be strategic. If the US military was waging a true all out war, Iran would be piles of rubble and glass I am not supportive of war with Iran by a long shot but to see the US military and be like “oh it’s strained” is jus…

The military loves to say how they are pulling their punches. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. When things get real , the US will totally be there and unstoppable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_Final_Warning

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#105

Post by _spduchamp »

therealpygon wrote: post #81
Veliladon wrote: post #10

Start by banning disposable vapes. The sheer waste of lithium from those fucking devices is insane in 2026. We need every scrap of it we can get!

95% come from China? Why ban importing the materials you desire, which are not going to magically be cheaper by banning them, instead of providing services to simply and easily recycle them?

Collection and recycling these safely at scale seems mind boggling difficult. Various batteries, electronics, resin encrusted elements, oils, plastics, and mouthy guckiness.

I would love to see how this process works. Banning them seems to be the most economic and safest solution.

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#106

Post by therealpygon »

_spduchamp wrote: post #105
therealpygon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

95% come from China? Why ban importing the materials you desire, which are not going to magically be cheaper by banning them, instead of providing services to simply and easily recycle them?

Collection and recycling these safely at scale seems mind boggling difficult. Various batteries, electronics, resin encrusted elements, oils, plastics, and mouthy guckiness. I would love to see how this process works. Banning them seems to be the most economic and safest solution.

You’re correct, it isn’t worthwhile in either case, imo. However, I’m more curious as to what the “solution” is so supposed to achieve.

If you took the lithium from every disposable vape imported into the US yearly and instead used the lithium for industrial scale batteries, you’d get like 100. That’s it. Or maybe 5k batteries for EVs. That’s about 0.005% of yearly EV sales.

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#107

Post by ceejayoz »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #99
ColdStream wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a good chance of this. Nukes need ongoing yearly maintenance to be operational, without that they are basically just a flying tin can. The whole movie trope of stealing an old nuke and using it doesn't apply to the real world. Also corruption is somewhat accepted in some countries as it allows those at the top to have legitimate means of disposing of traitors when needed without that hassle of drumming up fa…

What ongoing yearly maintenance does a non-hydrogen nuke need?

The rockets need regular attention.

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#108

Post by jandrewrogers »

ColdStream wrote: post #88
jandrewrogers wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been discussed in strategic geopolitical circles for a long time. When surveying defense analysts and similar if they believe a "great powers conflict" will occur in the near future, the percentage that say yes has been rising rapidly (currently 40-50%). If you search for "probability of global war in $YEAR" you will find a lot of discussion of varying quality. The major alignment is almost always assumed to…

Up until a about a decade back, here in Australia/New Zealand, politicians behind door always talked about the tyranny of distance. Simply due to distance we were largely kept out of or behind larger global flows. Nowadays it is seen as having the world largest moat. When things like global conflict starts, it does impact us but it is more the flow on effects rather than direct impacts. The last few minutes of this 2…

Australia at least is taking it very seriously and aggressively upgrading their capabilities.

If things go down in the Pacific no one will be safe.

Re: Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. import reliance with substitution and recycling

#109

Post by idiotsecant »

GlickWick wrote: post #41
idiotsecant wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is not an irrational actor. They know that the most effective way to take Taiwan is slowly, through soft power and political subterfuge. There is no need or advantage to a full frontal assault.

Rational or not, they're building warships and an invasion fleet, along with the ability to stifle any US attempt to stop them. This is not the action of someone hoping for a slow victory. The person at the top of the chain was asking why everyone is preparing for war. This behavior from China is why. It predates any of the Greenland Trump idiocy, too.

There are undoubtedly elements within the state that advocate for war, just like the elements within our state that do the same. So far, chinas political leadership is shrewd enough to mollify them and still maintain power.

The downside of autocracy is ...autocracy. the upside is that you have a consistent hand at the helm, making predictions of behaviour simpler and more rational than the rotating cast of leadership we present.

China has consistently chosen soft power over military action. I suspect they will continue to do so.

Post reply on HN