Wow, the economist did an amazing analysis of what would happen if Europe deployed peacetime troops, and literally nothing else, purely on its own.
-
Wow, the economist did an amazing analysis of what would happen if Europe deployed peacetime troops, and literally nothing else, purely on its own.
It didn't consider a ramp up. It didn't consider the fact that Russia is fully engaged already. It didn't consider the massive imbalance in equipment, especially airpower.
Obviously a fully deployed military massively outnumbers a non-mobilized one, duh. That's not the point of the force at all.
The point is if Russia "intentionally" at location occupied by peacekeepers, they're shooting first. And if they shoot first, then a few hundred modern aircraft can start turning every vehicle and building in camo between the Kyiv and Moscow into a crater in a series of "calm and rational, surgical strikes".
Does that mean Europe doesn't need a bigger with Nazi America at their backs? Fuck yes we need that. But Russia literally can't even handle Ukraine right now.
While i don't doubt the superior quality of equipment like tanks and planes, i am not sure how much munitions are available and how much can be produced in time. IIRC there were estimates that for the summer 2022 fighting level the entire stockpile of Artillery shells of the UK would last like two days if Ukraine was to use it exclusively.
For the whole German debate around Taurus missiles one credible argument was that Germany won't send any, because Germany would only have a few dozen of them.
Of course combining the stockpiles and production capabilities across Europe should amount to a bit more, but i don't think that "turning every vehicle and building in camo between the Kyiv and Moscow into a crater in a series of “calm and rational, surgical strikes”" can be pulled off just like this with the available munitions.
-
Wow, the economist did an amazing analysis of what would happen if Europe deployed peacetime troops, and literally nothing else, purely on its own.
It didn't consider a ramp up. It didn't consider the fact that Russia is fully engaged already. It didn't consider the massive imbalance in equipment, especially airpower.
Obviously a fully deployed military massively outnumbers a non-mobilized one, duh. That's not the point of the force at all.
The point is if Russia "intentionally" at location occupied by peacekeepers, they're shooting first. And if they shoot first, then a few hundred modern aircraft can start turning every vehicle and building in camo between the Kyiv and Moscow into a crater in a series of "calm and rational, surgical strikes".
Does that mean Europe doesn't need a bigger with Nazi America at their backs? Fuck yes we need that. But Russia literally can't even handle Ukraine right now.
I mean, they're not "The General", I guess.
-
While i don't doubt the superior quality of equipment like tanks and planes, i am not sure how much munitions are available and how much can be produced in time. IIRC there were estimates that for the summer 2022 fighting level the entire stockpile of Artillery shells of the UK would last like two days if Ukraine was to use it exclusively.
For the whole German debate around Taurus missiles one credible argument was that Germany won't send any, because Germany would only have a few dozen of them.
Of course combining the stockpiles and production capabilities across Europe should amount to a bit more, but i don't think that "turning every vehicle and building in camo between the Kyiv and Moscow into a crater in a series of “calm and rational, surgical strikes”" can be pulled off just like this with the available munitions.
It helps that Russia's own equipment is mostly scrap in Ukraine already.
-
One thing that is definitly back from the cold war is British yellow press writing fear mongering articles...
Wasn't Cold War scaremongering supposed to urge ever-higher levels of readiness? When I read one of these modern pieces the vibe I get is more like "abandon all hope, the only way to do things is the 2010 way, and without America we're nothing".
-
Wasn't Cold War scaremongering supposed to urge ever-higher levels of readiness? When I read one of these modern pieces the vibe I get is more like "abandon all hope, the only way to do things is the 2010 way, and without America we're nothing".
No, down-playing our own capabilities and playing up the red scare was always the primary method. Nothing gets the profits and stocks (already up 10x) of the defense contractors soaring like some nice panic buying.
-
No, down-playing our own capabilities and playing up the red scare was always the primary method. Nothing gets the profits and stocks (already up 10x) of the defense contractors soaring like some nice panic buying.
No, down-playing our own capabilities and playing up the red scare was always the primary method.
That's what I said, isn't it? I've yet to read "so we've got to double our production or you're a peacenik" rather than just doomposting when it comes to what conclusions they draw, though.
already up 10x
If you're measuring from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it looks like it actually is!
It's 40% up just since November, which is also a huge jump.
-
While i don't doubt the superior quality of equipment like tanks and planes, i am not sure how much munitions are available and how much can be produced in time. IIRC there were estimates that for the summer 2022 fighting level the entire stockpile of Artillery shells of the UK would last like two days if Ukraine was to use it exclusively.
For the whole German debate around Taurus missiles one credible argument was that Germany won't send any, because Germany would only have a few dozen of them.
Of course combining the stockpiles and production capabilities across Europe should amount to a bit more, but i don't think that "turning every vehicle and building in camo between the Kyiv and Moscow into a crater in a series of “calm and rational, surgical strikes”" can be pulled off just like this with the available munitions.
What seems to be often overlooked in the realm of weapon's production, is that Europe is currently running on a "Whatever gives to most profit" system. There won't be a new production line set up without optimizing cost-benefit and ensuring it's most efficiently made.
Russia and Ukraine have been in the "Don't give a shit, make shells in your garden shed if you have to" method of war production for years now. Meaning in Europe there isn't a single converted factory, not even a hint of pressing civilian forges into making armor and not one fewer car produced in favor of a military truck.
Yes, it will take time to move to war production, and it's always better to prepare than to play catchup. But you can't compare the two methods.
-
No, down-playing our own capabilities and playing up the red scare was always the primary method.
That's what I said, isn't it? I've yet to read "so we've got to double our production or you're a peacenik" rather than just doomposting when it comes to what conclusions they draw, though.
already up 10x
If you're measuring from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it looks like it actually is!
It's 40% up just since November, which is also a huge jump.
I’ve yet to read “so we’ve got to double our production or you’re a peacenik”
The German media and also the German part of Lemmy is full of that exact argument, although usually they don't stop at double.
And yes I was explicitly thinking of Rheinmetall's stock.
-
What seems to be often overlooked in the realm of weapon's production, is that Europe is currently running on a "Whatever gives to most profit" system. There won't be a new production line set up without optimizing cost-benefit and ensuring it's most efficiently made.
Russia and Ukraine have been in the "Don't give a shit, make shells in your garden shed if you have to" method of war production for years now. Meaning in Europe there isn't a single converted factory, not even a hint of pressing civilian forges into making armor and not one fewer car produced in favor of a military truck.
Yes, it will take time to move to war production, and it's always better to prepare than to play catchup. But you can't compare the two methods.
I have no doubt that if Europe is threatened they can seriously ramp up the production of military equipment.
I don't have experience with ammunition or things like that but I know for example that a lot of parts for airplane engines are manufactured in factory where both military and civilian parts are produced.
Meaning that if you delay or lower the production of civilian parts you have a lot of extra manufacturing capabilities available immediately for these parts.
Then you can start covering factories, this takes longer ,even during war time, but having a big automobile and aerospace industry means that there are industrial capabilities to mass manufacture equipment that could be used for military purposes.
-
I’ve yet to read “so we’ve got to double our production or you’re a peacenik”
The German media and also the German part of Lemmy is full of that exact argument, although usually they don't stop at double.
And yes I was explicitly thinking of Rheinmetall's stock.
You know, that actually makes me hopeful. It doesn't make the speaker a peacenik (whatever that is), but when I've heard people saying it's all just talk or politics or whatever I have to think they're living in some kind of alternate reality.
-
System shared this topic on
