this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
479 points (94.9% liked)

World News

32137 readers
1321 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we’ve been giving them that were just collecting dust over here?

Use of reserves motivates replacement. Just because you're giving them weapons that were produced in the past, and therefore whose (production) cost has already been incurred, doesn't mean that occurs in a vacuum. With stock running low, contemporary money goes in to replenishing that stock. In effect, there's no difference whether you send old or new equipment, because both incur costs in the present.

No actual money was involved and so didn’t really cost us anything.

It cost you exactly the amount it cost to produce them. Just because it was produced in the past, doesn't mean it was free. You paid for it X years ago, and are only now seeing it used. You paid for it. Moreover, you're now going to pay to replace it.

[–] SkyezOpen 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Except a bunch is old stock or overstock. The US was sitting on stockpiles of 203mm artillery rounds from the m110 that they would've had to pay someone to decommission, but it turns out that there's a soviet arty piece that can use them, and guess what? Ukraine has em. Not to mention they chronically overproduced M1A1 Abrams to the point that generals were begging for it to stop, simply because it would be more expensive to shut down and restart production than simply keep making tanks nobody wanted or needed. Plus, a significant portion of the old inventory was DESIGNED to blow up russian equipment. So the US is clearing out old shit, crippling the Russian military, and aiding a new democracy. The only downside is the fresh money that is probably going to be dumped into the MIC to fill those clean shelves, but (and this is basically NCDposting but here we go) the fact that the US can almost singlehandedly provide Ukraine the resources to hold out against fucking Russia for over a year and that equioment still being only a tiny fraction of their total might? Holy shit. Grab the money shovels boys.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Plus it helps clear out shelf space for new shiny shit, why have massive stocks of old obsolute junk sitting in the Sierra army Depot when you can empty it out and fill it with shiny new junk!

Also its interesting how the Ukrainians have used some of the equipment which gives new data for R&D.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who are we kidding. You think they wouldn’t just create excess anyways?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Who are you kidding thinking they don't want to have a constant state of excess? It will be replaced, it has to be bought.

[–] ICE_WALRUS 1 points 1 year ago

As a small millitary subcontractor the contractor above us is already hidding to replace the artillery shells we have sent over. Projections say it will take until 2026 to replenish the stock.

I'd like to note that yes there is a lot of useless to us equipment being sent over that we won't miss, but what I don't see reported is we are also legitimately depleting rockets and artillery ammo that is our bread and butter pretty rapidly.

It's not to the extent that we couldn't still invade a country, but it has dipped well below projections to fight a 2 front war which is why theres actually a pretty serious eagerness to replenish certain subsets of the stock.

I just wanted to point out that it isn't all mothballed equipment being sent, I know that is pretty much what's being reported, but ilI review contracts daily that say the reality is we are sending stuff we have identified as vital to our core defense strategy as well and furthermore the stocks are depleted enough to put us behind the required amount set by the upper brass of the millitary in case of a global war.