Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok, so, at least I can take small comfort that we see the same thing. This is DISTURBING.
A Large War Looming?
- Thread starter Gilligan
- Start date
Ok, so, at least I can take small comfort that we see the same thing. This is DISTURBING.
Would have been an amazing success if we hadn't elected a democrat before it was over. Don't care which one, they don't think globally nor fund globally. Their mindset when dealing globally tend to be let the UN do it. Have no idea on world affairs.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Exactly what would a republican have done better?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Define 'amazing success'. If the goal was to get rid of Hussien, done. Secure all WMD's, STUNNING failure as we know #### trucked out to Syria and, probably, Iran. Establish a Jeffersonian democracy based on rule of law, individual rights and favorable to the US, stunning failure. All that was set in stone BEFORE Obama.
Our meddling, as usual, far from establishing rule of law and promoting the general welfare, unhinged the Middle East. Again, that was all before Obama. To expect someone else to clean up your messes after you're gone, is the thinking of a child.
H
Hodr
Guest
I think the biggest reason that this is significant, is if you believe the author's point, that money spent = strength (or more specifically, spending less makes us weaker), then it would stand to reason that all of these countries that spend less than us are weaker than us. Obviously the reality is much more complicated, but the argument is money = power. And by a pretty comfortable margin we spend the most money.
What is very interesting as it relates to China..is how incredibly much more they get for the money they spent, at least when evaluated in terms of simple parameters like "frigates launched per year". You can argue capabilities but they are fast closing those gaps and even without that, when it comes to things like open-ocean large naval combatants and auxiliaries , "quantity is a quality of its own". The Chines are outbuilding us at a remarkable pace and we do not even have, any longer, the shipbuilding capabilities to keep up with them even if we wanted to.
Do we have to respond symmetrically to every other navy?...no. But lets not kid ourselves that China's massively military expansion is somehow made benign simply because they spend less than we do.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok, but, as a practical matter, the volume isn't to win war, it's to deter us from interfering, or to limit it, with their regional hegemony, agreed?
I mean, we are so stunningly powerful were we to actually choose to use that power it's not even funny so, the limiting factor, for them, is to say "Ok, at this size, they may see it worth physically pushing us back. At this size, they might not think so..."
ya contradict yourself sweetie .....
Germany was Sooooooo broke, they could not afford a MASSIVE MILITARY Build up and taking on Western Europe .....
that is what you do, when the money isn't coming in, you invade your neighbor and steal his food
I am sure there is plenty of money sitting in Russian Banks .... lots of dollars from when OIL was $ 100 a bbl and higher
the people producing the frigates also work for the GOV.
so there are no profits involved .... or western style wages :shrug:
That isn't all true, except for the wages/salaries part. I work there..in those very shipyards. They build a mix of commercial and naval vessels..some even build the odd megayacht or three. We'll be finishing up an oilfield support vessel right alongside a Type 56 frigate...and oddly enough I've never got the slightest interference or pushback from anyone when I stroll down the quay wall to check the naval vessel out.
There are three major "design houses" that are large and full of engineers and naval architects (SDARI..CSSC..etc) . Those enterprises are, by and large, essentially government owned and the government has a large say in which shipyards the designs produced will actually be built.
Last edited:
I am sorry, you are saying the Ship Builders are not ALL Owned by the Chinese Gov. ?
my understanding is western companies doing business in China, have to form a partnership with China one that China is the 60% owner and holder of all IP
That is exactly what I'm saying. And your description of the foreign holdings situation isn't really accurate either. If China was such a terrible/onerous place to do business, they would not be where they are now. There are certainly risks, especially IP risks...but that's just one of the things you factor in to your calculus when deciding whether or not to work there...how, and with whom.
The Chinese government has been "divesting" itself of business holdings for a long time. Most of the industries and locations that they still do own and run are ones that they are, frankly, forced to keep (or simply shut down). Many non-viable entities operating at often huge losses were stood up, mostly in the western/northern dirt poor areas of the country. Didn't work out commercially at all...
Last edited:
littlelady
God bless the USA
Bump. Interesting.
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
The article is no longer available at The Fresno Bee at the time of this post (404 error when I tried to access it).
Interesting to read the comments here, though. Some make good sense, others not so much.
The one that struck me as really "off" was the one about deflated oil prices.
If you've worked the Russia portfolio one would know that there is an ongoing, comprehensive discussion regarding artificially keeping oil prices high so as to keep Russia from doing anything rash. Not so high that that can truly benefit, but high enough. Not agreeing (or not) with the idea and its workings out, just saying that it is universally understood that we approach going to DEFCON 1 (I speak figuratively here, not literally) when oil prices go below ~ $65 per barrel.
So if you ever wondered why we can never seem to get consistently below $2 per gallon, now you know one of the reasons. It's a "Butterfly effect."
--- End of line (MCP)
Interesting to read the comments here, though. Some make good sense, others not so much.
The one that struck me as really "off" was the one about deflated oil prices.
If you've worked the Russia portfolio one would know that there is an ongoing, comprehensive discussion regarding artificially keeping oil prices high so as to keep Russia from doing anything rash. Not so high that that can truly benefit, but high enough. Not agreeing (or not) with the idea and its workings out, just saying that it is universally understood that we approach going to DEFCON 1 (I speak figuratively here, not literally) when oil prices go below ~ $65 per barrel.
So if you ever wondered why we can never seem to get consistently below $2 per gallon, now you know one of the reasons. It's a "Butterfly effect."
--- End of line (MCP)
BOP
Well-Known Member
Somebody in Maryland is doing their part. I went to get gas today, but regular unleaded was never below $2.30 a gallon. It was like 2 weeks ago that it was $2.09 at Wawa on 235 and Rue Purchase.
We did that to the Germans ...
- Liberty ships were disposable, we built so many the German's could not sink them fast enough. yes the War in the Atlantic was shifting in our favor.
- The M4 Sherman was an OK tank, designed to be easily repairable ..... but the US Cranked out about 50,000
M4 all variants almost 50k Production ramping up in 1942
| Total | 1942 | 1943 | 1944 | 1945 | |
| M4 series, 75mm gun | 33 671 | 8 017 | 21 245 | 3 758 | 651 |
| M4 series, 76mm gun | 10 883 | 0 | 0 | 7 135 | 3 748 |
| M4 series, 105mm how. | 4 680 | 0 | 0 | 2 286 | 2 394 |
Panzer III - 5774 Asuf M 517 42/43 - Asuf N 614 42/43 [Production was winding down in 42/42 In favor of the Pz IV]
Panzer IV - 8298 - Asuf H 2324 June 43 - Feb 44 - Asuf J 2160; Feb 44 - April 45
Tiger - 1350 Production rate was about 25 a month with a peak of 104 in April 44
Panther - 6132 - Ausf A 2,200; Aug 43 to Aug 44 - Ausf G 2961; March 44 to Apr 45
King Tiger - 492 - Only 492 units were produced: one in 1943, 379 in 1944, and 112 in 1945.
Stug III - 10,637 Assault Gun
Stug iV - 3416 Assault Gun
Jagdpanther - 425
Jagdtiger - 79
In total about 36,601 Tanks, Tank Destroyers and Assault Guns from 1938 to 1945
Each Tiger II produced needed 300,000 man hours to manufacture and cost over 800,000 Reichsmark or $300,000 USD (adjusted for inflation, approximately $4.2 million dollars in 2018) per vehicle. The vehicle was the costliest German tank to produce at the time.[26]