Generational Dynamics World View News

[Tom Mazanec]

A good source for latest in military is to go to the Brian Wang website Next Big Future and click the military tab.

[Bob Butler]

well, sweden is leading the way, italy is next, britain first is gaining popularity, I can't wait to see civilisation back on its feet.

A quick look at Swedish immigration shows them taking 110,000 people per year in a country with 10,350,000 population. We took 15,000 a year in 2021 in a nation of 329,500,000. Are you sure you advocate we become more like Sweden?

[Guest]

well, sweden is leading the way, italy is next, britain first is gaining popularity, I can't wait to see civilisation back on its feet.

A quick look at Swedish immigration shows them taking 110,000 people per year in a country with 10,350,000 population. We took 15,000 a year in 2021 in a nation of 329,500,000. Are you sure you advocate we become more like Sweden?

I was talking about electing right wing/populist governments.

[thomasglee]

well, sweden is leading the way, italy is next, britain first is gaining popularity, I can't wait to see civilisation back on its feet.

A quick look at Swedish immigration shows them taking 110,000 people per year in a country with 10,350,000 population. We took 15,000 a year in 2021 in a nation of 329,500,000. Are you sure you advocate we become more like Sweden?

15K? You're high. Maybe 15K per week, or month.

https://www.newsweek.com/over-2m-migran ... ed-1672691

[FullMoon]

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-09-16/
Securing the Heartland before taking on the Rimlands.

[Bob Butler]

15K? You're high. Maybe 15K per week, or month.

The 15K was the limit Trump set on legal immigration. If you include the illegals, sure, it gets higher.

[Bob Butler]

I was talking about electing right wing/populist governments.

If I'm supporting the will of the people checked by the rights of the individual, it is hard to argue against populist. Thing is, the right to chose is popular. Overturning Roe seems to have really mobilized women. The rights of minorities are popular. We're heading towards a majority of Americans being minority one way or another. Keeping the MAGA crowd is also questionable at this point. The alternative to populist is holding a violent insurrection on behalf of an autocrat periodically. And after cutting services for years, putting services back is making the Democrats popular. We'll have to see how it goes.

[Bob Butler]

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-09-16/
Securing the Heartland before taking on the Rimlands.

Xi seems to be dealing with a fight against tribal, religious or other cultures wishing to govern themselves rather than be controlled by a larger force. I would suggest Communism and Capitalism as the usual larger forces. If I were Russia or China, yes, borrowing the language of fighting terrorism would be useful. But it could also be viewed as a desire for independence and wishing to avoid bullies. Ukraine wishing to be free of Russian interest would be an example. Tribes wishing independence in the Middle East another. Taiwan and Hong Kong clinging to western values a third.

Not that we are free of this dynamic. White supremacy folk wishing to continue dominance, anti abortionists attempting to force their ethics on all, minorities seeking to continue their own culture, all reflect the same desire for some to control those unalike. Arguably, seeking to dominate others is not a good way to be popular.

[Xeraphim1]

An interesting perspective on the current operations in Ukraine and possible plans to take advantage of the coming winter.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... me-changer

Given Putin's early brag about low casualties, I found this bit very interesting:
There were no Russian Armed Forces in those settlements: only Rosgvardia, and these are not trained to fight military forces. Kiev attacked with an advantage of around 5 to 1. The allied forces retreated to avoid encirclement. There are no Russian troop losses because there were no Russian troops in the region.

Jeez. That reads like it was written directly in the Kremlin

[Xeraphim1]

Here is more on the disastrous state of ammunition supply capacity for the USA:
https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/supp ... -military/

As a result of Iraq and the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the defense industrial base in general, and the munitions industrial base in particular, is being challenged to meet current and future requirements. Post-Cold War downsizing, consolidation and disinvestment has left the Department of Defense (DoD) in many instances hard-pressed to meet the logistics and supply demands of the GWOT. The period from the end of the Cold War to the present [2004] saw a 68 percent reduction in the overall capacity of the munitions industrial base. Today, the United States has but a single government-owned production facility for small caliber ammunition, a plant that was opened during World War II [and BTW, still uses WW2 age machinery]. Despite recent increases, funding levels still are not adequate to address the full range of demands confronting the munitions industrial base, including replenishing diminished stockpiles, modernizing production capabilities, and simultaneously, preparing for a future of advanced weapons and munitions.

It is difficult to overemphasize the need for additional resources to support modernization of facilities and manufacturing equipment. The entire ammunition production capability of the United States depends on the availability of nitrocellulose, which in turn depends upon the continuing operation of an aging and technologically antiquated acid production facility at Radford Army Ammunition Plant. Should this single acid production facility be shut down, it could have serious consequences for the production of ammunition and, hence, for U.S. military operations worldwide. This acid plant is but one example of numerous single points of potential failure that exist throughout the munitions industrial base. The loss of production from any of these single points could shut down the production of numerous munitions.

See also this more recent article that implies that nothing has really been done to alleviate the problems discussed by the Lexington Institute articles above:
https://www.army.mil/article/249276/ame ... the_future

From your previous post it's going to come down to opinion and I'm not going to try changing your mind.

As for ammunition, there is no real need for government owned plant for small arms ammunition because there is a lot of private manufacturing. The US government already buys a lot because private companies are more efficient.

As for artillery ammunition, there has not been a lot of production because there hasn't been a lot of consumption. And much of what has been produced is precision ammunition. The US has no intention of fighting a WW II type artillery battle because it doesn't have to. Your arguments are similar to decrying the fact that the US doesn't have huge stocks of 500 lb bombs any more and in a WW II style bombing campaign would not be able to supply 500 plane type raids on enemy cities. And that's because there is no intention of ever mounting such raids.

And I'll repeat, the only target for mass artillery fire right now is... Russia. Those shells are doing exactly what they were intended to do - destroying Russian personal and equipment. Just it isn't US troops doing the firing.

Now, I will agree that there are too many bottlenecks and single points of failure in our supply chains. Like everybody else, the military adopted methods to lower cost at the expense of robustness. Blame various presidents and particularly Congress for that.Perhaps there will be sufficient awareness now to actually do something about that.