• Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
      ·
      6 months ago

      They keep claiming they have what they need to destroy Russia, but 2 years into the conflict, it still hasn't shown up, and Russia is even stronger. NATO doesn't have anything else they can part with.

    • Tunnelvision [they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It really isn’t. For nato to be well armed they would have to dump massive amounts of money into manufacturing and even then it would take years to get up to speed. We have every indication that the US has given from their own stockpiles. Not all of it, but there really isn’t old stock to speak of.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      6 months ago

      UK admitted they have ammo for 3 weeks of warfare. German military is in shambles. French and Polish disarmed some of their units to send arms to Ukraine. US is not in such a great condition too, eating L after L from barely armed people like Taliban or Ansar Allah.
      Sure, they may be well armed but for usual aerial terror campaigns (because not even for naval now), but absolutely not for land warfare.

        • Tunnelvision [they/them]
          ·
          6 months ago

          If the United States had the capacity to make enough ammunition and ordnance to fight multiple wars at the same time, there would be enough people employed by these companies that you would probably personally know at least 1 of them.

            • Tunnelvision [they/them]
              ·
              6 months ago

              All those places together do not even employ 400,000 people. I work in manufacturing and I don’t know a single person who works at these places. What I’m saying is so many new jobs would be created that MILLIONS of people would from that point on be in the defense sector making bombs and bullets. It’s not even comparable.