171–180 of 249 posts
Something like 70% of US steel production is now from scrap. Part of this was moderation of growth. In steady state, nearly all steel could come from scrap (limited by contaminants, I guess.) I expect aluminum to displace more steel in the future. Witness what's happening with "gigacasting" at Tesla and elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is an interesting narrative but largely untrue. As the article points out, US Steel (and the US steel industry in general) was making enough profit, what they were not doing was re-investing those profits into upgrading their steel making. Instead, the "People in Charge" were giving themselves large bonuses and pay upgrades for being bosses of the "big steel." This was especially true through the 80's and 90's in…
I’m not sure that narrative on “forgetting how to build quality cars” is fair. Germany and Japan introduced a lot of new technologies and processes that would naturally be a little rocky from time to time. It is the nature of immature services. Once those matured, the new stuff quickly caught up. But it needed time. What makes you think it was the increase in executive or shareholder comp that caused the degradation…
I refer you to the movie Roger & Me.
Reminiscent of the business school joke - What does US Steel make? The answer is not "steel", but "money", that being the point of any company.
Although it's true, that's a hazardous way of thinking. If they had put more of their focus on making steel, keeping up with the technological advances rather than being dragged along grudgingly, perhaps they'd be making more money these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This all depends on victory conditions. The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. But WW2 was fought as the U.S. was an ascendant (but not dominant) power among a number of peer rivals, and the U.S. was not the aggressor. It felt like a victory, because we emerged as the dominant p…
The government of North Korea did not fall or surrender. You can argue that it was a political win if the goal was defending South Korea, but militarily, it was a stalemate. North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam after we withdrew. It was in no way a victory for the United States. Afghanistan was arguably pretty similar, although we did install a new government while we were there. Germany and Japan, on the other hand…
Also note. There were 4x as many deaths from suicide. If we really cared about soldiers, this would be the number one story every day.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/military/kil...
Over 7,000 U.S. service members and over 8,000 contractors have died in the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Over 30,177 U.S. service members and veterans of the post-9/11 wars have died by suicide. Coalition partners have died in large numbers: approximately 177,000 uniformed Afghans, Pakistanis, Iraqis, and Syrian allies have died as of November 2019.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A small country winning the war against post WW2 USA seems like it would be a bit of a plot hole.
Which war did the US win post WW2? Afaict they all ended in stalemates and eventual retreat (Korea,Iraq,Vietnam,Afghanistan,..)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This all depends on victory conditions. The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. But WW2 was fought as the U.S. was an ascendant (but not dominant) power among a number of peer rivals, and the U.S. was not the aggressor. It felt like a victory, because we emerged as the dominant p…
The government of North Korea did not fall or surrender. You can argue that it was a political win if the goal was defending South Korea, but militarily, it was a stalemate. North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam after we withdrew. It was in no way a victory for the United States. Afghanistan was arguably pretty similar, although we did install a new government while we were there. Germany and Japan, on the other hand…
Do you think that wars are not political? A political win is a military win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government of North Korea did not fall or surrender. You can argue that it was a political win if the goal was defending South Korea, but militarily, it was a stalemate. North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam after we withdrew. It was in no way a victory for the United States. Afghanistan was arguably pretty similar, although we did install a new government while we were there. Germany and Japan, on the other hand…
>Saying that Germany and Japan were “bombed back into the Stone Age” is a wild exaggeration Japan was firebombed pretty ruthlessly. McNamara openly stated that he would have been tried as a war criminal had the US lost the war. Here is a list of 67 Japanese cities that were firebombed with their destruction % and their US size equivalent: http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html#google_vignette Source: The Fog of War…
Guess technically, 'stone age' is hyperbole. They didn't literally have to climb back up through a bronze age and steal age again.
But point stands, they were severely crippled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the wars mentioned have ckear, internationally acknowledged winners and loosers as well as treaties. Vietnam ended in US defeat, and French defeat before that. Afghanistan ended with US / NATO defeat and the Taliban taking over the country. The Korean War isn't over yet technically, all we have there is a cease fire. Stalemate, nobody surrendered. The US won the second Gulf War, Panama and some smaller stuff I am…
Would you mind providing some “clear and internationally acknowledged” sources for the Korean War that stated it’s still ongoing or that Afghanistan was an undisputed loss?
The “clear and internationally acknowledged” criteria for a 'loss' is being caught on camera while the last soldiers evacuate and the enemy takes over.
So technically Vietnam and Afghanistan are losses. Because of the video's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US picks extremely difficult battles to fight in a way its citizens deem acceptable, and they aren't wars of conquest. Those factors are going to make it very hard to point at a simple winner.
All the wars mentioned have ckear, internationally acknowledged winners and loosers as well as treaties. Vietnam ended in US defeat, and French defeat before that. Afghanistan ended with US / NATO defeat and the Taliban taking over the country. The Korean War isn't over yet technically, all we have there is a cease fire. Stalemate, nobody surrendered. The US won the second Gulf War, Panama and some smaller stuff I am…
They’re inherently different and the only way to “””win”””(which is a loaded term with wars against insurgents. We accomplished important strategic goals in Vietnam before leaving the country to self determine) is to resort to tactics employed by folks like The Butcher did in Cuba.
Steel remains a technology with huge potential for future development. Some keywords: eutectic solution, bulk metallic glass, and boron steel. It seems crazy to me that any first world nation would let it's steel production fall into foreign hands. As a machinist for 5 years in my country I would have been excempt from military service even in total war. If US steel is unable to innovate and foreign ownership is some…