• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Allocating funds is not the solution when you lack industrial capacity to convert those funds into actual weapons and ammunition. Here’s what actually happens in a scenario where you allocate funds and supply of a commodity is limited:

      In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,171) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,489.60).

      https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          So far, there’s been very little actual expansion of military production. There’s been a bit in the US and practically none in the EU. The reality is that even if companies committed to this, it can’t be done overnight. You need trained workers skilled in trades, you need to build factories, you need secure supply chains, and so on. All of that takes years to implement. Real life isn’t like video games.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Historically the free-market has never attempted to do anything except maximize profit. The way the contracting system works in the Us, you never have to actual produce anything to get paid, all you have to do create a shell company that will produce the thing you are contracted to produce. When the shell company can’t produce the thing, you blame it on the suppliers of the shell company, and then you pocket the contract money. At no point would shells ever be produced.