https://archive.is/yjpMF Don't be misled into thinking this is an article about China. This is an article about Ukraine and Russia, and conjuring up reasons to lessen support for Ukraine. The...
Don't be misled into thinking this is an article about China. This is an article about Ukraine and Russia, and conjuring up reasons to lessen support for Ukraine. The primary fallacy put forward here is that supporting Ukraine damages the American capacity to contend with China should they go after Taiwan or do something else aggressive enough to warrant a response.
The dilemma is a false one. It's perfectly feasible for the US to scale its capacity to address foreign conflicts, especially since the support for Ukraine is almost entirely composed of existing materiel and direct financial aid to the Ukrainian government; it does not impinge on American capabilities, and in fact enhances them - the increased spending on weaponry leads to manufacturers increasing their capacity to address demand, which is the natural reaction that the author pretends is impossible.
I think you’re right. Here’s a bit more background on specifics: After years of work, the US will be in a much better position to manufacture artillery shells and that’s because of the war in...
I think you’re right. Here’s a bit more background on specifics:
Militaries also learn a lot more about what works from seeing weapons used in war, which will change what they buy and how they prepare. Drones are changing things a lot. Unfortunately, that applies to everyone involved. China is making new kinds of drones too.
Using existing stockpiles means Ukraine gets weapons sooner, but it runs them down so they have to be replaced, so the replenishment should still be thought of as a cost of the war, though it has other benefits.
The reason manufacturers increase capacity is because they’re paid by government contracts; this is pretty directly a government policy decision. When the government stops spending, manufacturing lines get shut down. They are often so specialized that they don’t have other customers.
The next war might be much different from the war in Ukraine. Maybe it won’t use so many artillery shells? There will be different manufacturing bottlenecks.
There’s a lot of uncertainty about how a war with China would go and how prepared either side actually is. We can hope we never find out.
Maybe someone should tell him it doesn't seem very American for him to not believe we have the capacity to take on Russia and China at the same time. I guess he doesn't believe in the troops??
Maybe someone should tell him it doesn't seem very American for him to not believe we have the capacity to take on Russia and China at the same time. I guess he doesn't believe in the troops??
It has been US grand strategy and basically a doctrinal axiom that the US would be able to fight two major conflicts simultaneously. It is, IMO, preposterous to suggest the US couldn't even fight...
not believe we have the capacity to take on Russia and China at the same time.
It has been US grand strategy and basically a doctrinal axiom that the US would be able to fight two major conflicts simultaneously. It is, IMO, preposterous to suggest the US couldn't even fight one while sending some spare equipment to the other. The way things are going, I'm not even sure US forces would be needed if the Ukraine conflict expanded to NATO. Appreciated surely, but Europe isn't existentially threatened IMO.
And sending aid to Ukraine ensures that Russias hands are tied, so the second conceivable major war is much smaller.
Just a gentle reminder that Tildes prioritizes more effortful contributions. It's better to address something from the article if disagreeing, rather than to just respond to the headline alone.
Just a gentle reminder that Tildes prioritizes more effortful contributions. It's better to address something from the article if disagreeing, rather than to just respond to the headline alone.
"Double No" then? Sorry! Jokes asides I also read the article and basically I can't agree with the most points described in it. All sentences written in a way like 'X because of Y' but without...
"Double No" then?
Sorry! Jokes asides I also read the article and basically I can't agree with the most points described in it. All sentences written in a way like 'X because of Y' but without absolutely any explanation or analysis. Its like 'China is superpower, no one knows what China will do, USA will lose war with China and Russia both'. Its a populism in a worst way, because every sentence is created as final postulat and don't allow any nuances or questions.
Hm. Just like most political speeches...
To Wes' point, your one paragraph response gives other commenters things to think about, react to, and/or respond to. Your response isn't "no"; your response is "No, because...". No one here can...
To Wes' point, your one paragraph response gives other commenters things to think about, react to, and/or respond to. Your response isn't "no"; your response is "No, because...". No one here can do anything with "No". Did the original commenter read the whole article or just the headline when they said "no"? Is "no" in response to the thesis of the article? To every point made in the article? Why? No one besides the OC knows. This isn't to say I don't think they didn't read the article, nor that I agree with any of the points made. The point is all of the ambiguity leaves the door open for misunderstanding. "no" is not meaningfully or thoughtfully engaging the post in any way. Not every comment needs to be a graduate thesis that is peer reviewed and the result of hours of time and energy, but they should give the community something to engage with.
https://archive.is/yjpMF
Don't be misled into thinking this is an article about China. This is an article about Ukraine and Russia, and conjuring up reasons to lessen support for Ukraine. The primary fallacy put forward here is that supporting Ukraine damages the American capacity to contend with China should they go after Taiwan or do something else aggressive enough to warrant a response.
The dilemma is a false one. It's perfectly feasible for the US to scale its capacity to address foreign conflicts, especially since the support for Ukraine is almost entirely composed of existing materiel and direct financial aid to the Ukrainian government; it does not impinge on American capabilities, and in fact enhances them - the increased spending on weaponry leads to manufacturers increasing their capacity to address demand, which is the natural reaction that the author pretends is impossible.
The author is intensely conservative and isolationist in his other writings and suggests that the best way to protect Taiwan is to sanction it. The kindest interpretation of his stances is that they are relentlessly disingenuous.
I think you’re right. Here’s a bit more background on specifics:
After years of work, the US will be in a much better position to manufacture artillery shells and that’s because of the war in Ukraine. New European assembly lines are being built, too.
Militaries also learn a lot more about what works from seeing weapons used in war, which will change what they buy and how they prepare. Drones are changing things a lot. Unfortunately, that applies to everyone involved. China is making new kinds of drones too.
Using existing stockpiles means Ukraine gets weapons sooner, but it runs them down so they have to be replaced, so the replenishment should still be thought of as a cost of the war, though it has other benefits.
The reason manufacturers increase capacity is because they’re paid by government contracts; this is pretty directly a government policy decision. When the government stops spending, manufacturing lines get shut down. They are often so specialized that they don’t have other customers.
The next war might be much different from the war in Ukraine. Maybe it won’t use so many artillery shells? There will be different manufacturing bottlenecks.
There’s a lot of uncertainty about how a war with China would go and how prepared either side actually is. We can hope we never find out.
Maybe someone should tell him it doesn't seem very American for him to not believe we have the capacity to take on Russia and China at the same time. I guess he doesn't believe in the troops??
It has been US grand strategy and basically a doctrinal axiom that the US would be able to fight two major conflicts simultaneously. It is, IMO, preposterous to suggest the US couldn't even fight one while sending some spare equipment to the other. The way things are going, I'm not even sure US forces would be needed if the Ukraine conflict expanded to NATO. Appreciated surely, but Europe isn't existentially threatened IMO.
And sending aid to Ukraine ensures that Russias hands are tied, so the second conceivable major war is much smaller.
"I don't mean to say X, but rather, use euphemic, evasive language to say X."
Author writes as if we couldn’t lick Xi & co. if we wanted to.
No
Just a gentle reminder that Tildes prioritizes more effortful contributions. It's better to address something from the article if disagreeing, rather than to just respond to the headline alone.
"Double No" then?
Sorry! Jokes asides I also read the article and basically I can't agree with the most points described in it. All sentences written in a way like 'X because of Y' but without absolutely any explanation or analysis. Its like 'China is superpower, no one knows what China will do, USA will lose war with China and Russia both'. Its a populism in a worst way, because every sentence is created as final postulat and don't allow any nuances or questions.
Hm. Just like most political speeches...
So, my reaction is 'No' too.
To Wes' point, your one paragraph response gives other commenters things to think about, react to, and/or respond to. Your response isn't "no"; your response is "No, because...". No one here can do anything with "No". Did the original commenter read the whole article or just the headline when they said "no"? Is "no" in response to the thesis of the article? To every point made in the article? Why? No one besides the OC knows. This isn't to say I don't think they didn't read the article, nor that I agree with any of the points made. The point is all of the ambiguity leaves the door open for misunderstanding. "no" is not meaningfully or thoughtfully engaging the post in any way. Not every comment needs to be a graduate thesis that is peer reviewed and the result of hours of time and energy, but they should give the community something to engage with.
While I agree I also think this article was so unbelievably dumb that I had a hard time even comprehending a way to talk about.