From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


"Industrial capacity is deterrence."

rCo The New York Times editorial laments: "What the U.S. military wants, America can no longer build."

On the 17th, The New York Times published an editorial from its editorial board reviewing decades of failures in U.S. military equipment development and manufacturing. Over the past 35 years, the U.S. Navy has ordered more than six new classes of warshipsrCofrom small combat vessels to large destroyersrConearly all of which ended in failure. Even those few ships that were eventually produced fell far short of their intended design specifications and performance expectations. As a result, the U.S. Navy remains heavily reliant on fleets originally designed during the Reagan era.

Other branches of the U.S. military face similarly disappointing realities. For instance, the development of next-generation fighter jets and bombers has fallen drastically behind operational needs, while the Air Force is retiring fighter aircraft at a pace far exceeding its ability to replace them.

The New York Times bluntly stated that AmericarCOs defense industrial base, like many other sectors of its economy, has lost the capacity for rapid and efficient production. This shortfall becomes especially stark when compared with China. Take shipbuilding as an example: for every new naval vessel the United States launches, China completes three. In the commercial shipping sector, the gap widens dramaticallyrCoto a ratio of roughly 1:200. Moreover, China has already deployed multiple types of hypersonic anti-ship missiles in large numbers, while the United States still has none operational in this domain.

According to data from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), ChinarCOs largest state-owned shipbuilder delivered more than 250 vessels last year alonerCowhose combined cargo capacity exceeds the total tonnage of all ships built by American shipyards since the end of World War II.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


Hisense fan posted:

"Industrial capacity is deterrence."
...
According to data from the Washington-based Center
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
ChinarCOs largest state-owned shipbuilder
delivered more than 250 vessels last year alonerCo
whose combined cargo capacity exceeds the total tonnage
of all ships built by American shipyards since the end of World War II.

If the topic is ability to make war, then:

Kinda sounds as if the so-called USA is not
as much into war as what is being called, China.

Maybe China wants to take over, to control the world.
Or, perhaps there are a few people who rule who do.

Once upon a time people who lived in what is now called
China didn't care about what everyone else was doing.

Why would people now want so many war ships.
Is there a plan or is it more out of a fear.

Most people in the world, on the surface,
aren't floating around in ships, nor flying
high above it. They aren't using drones to spy
nor destroy other stuff either.

Perhaps most have Dao.

Rulers who have lost Dao make war.
Rulers who have lost De prepare for war.

- funny, t'hats. Thanks! Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


aye posted:

Hisense fan posted:

ChinarCOs largest state-owned shipbuilder
delivered more than 250 vessels last year alonerCo
whose combined cargo capacity exceeds the total tonnage
of all ships built by American shipyards since the end of World War II.

If the topic is ability to make war, ...

If the topic is, economy, then
a wonder could be, why is it important
to have an industrial, commercial capacity
greater than all other so-called nation states
of mind on the planet.

A recent video suggests Norway, iirc, is the greatest
builder of cruise ships and possibly the only country
that is building them. Why don't they make war ships.

Perhaps that is not their interest.

Another video suggested that cargo ships are now so
extremely huge that they can't go thru canals, nor
are they able to dock at lots of ports to call home.

Cranking out consumer goods might be good
and then again, maybe there's a limit.

A rising tide is said to lift all boats or ships
and at the same time might be swamping islands
such that folks who live there need to swim
or move inland as a result.

The more economy, the more global warming.
A solution for me can be to change a pov.

There's an age of ice on the horizon.

What it does to war machines and ships
that go cruising on the surface of water
once its frozen solid might be a trip.

- thanks! Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


Hisense fan <user11874@newsgrouper.org.invalid> posted:

"Industrial capacity is deterrence."

rCo The New York Times editorial laments: "What the U.S. military wants, America can no longer build."

On the 17th, The New York Times published an editorial from its editorial board reviewing decades of failures in U.S. military equipment development and manufacturing. Over the past 35 years, the U.S. Navy has ordered more than six new classes of warshipsrCofrom small combat vessels to large destroyersrConearly all of which ended in failure. Even those few ships that were eventually produced fell far short of their intended design specifications and performance expectations. As a result, the U.S. Navy remains heavily reliant on fleets originally designed during the Reagan era.

Other branches of the U.S. military face similarly disappointing realities. For instance, the development of next-generation fighter jets and bombers has fallen drastically behind operational needs, while the Air Force is retiring fighter aircraft at a pace far exceeding its ability to replace them.

The New York Times bluntly stated that AmericarCOs defense industrial base, like many other sectors of its economy, has lost the capacity for rapid and efficient production. This shortfall becomes especially stark when compared with China. Take shipbuilding as an example: for every new naval vessel the United States launches, China completes three. In the commercial shipping sector, the gap widens dramaticallyrCoto a ratio of roughly 1:200. Moreover, China has already deployed multiple types of hypersonic anti-ship missiles in large numbers, while the United States still has none operational in this domain.

According to data from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), ChinarCOs largest state-owned shipbuilder delivered more than 250 vessels last year alonerCowhose combined cargo capacity exceeds the total tonnage of all ships built by American shipyards since the end of World War II.

========================================


Some Americans have shared an infographic claiming that China has already "taken the dominant position in the global power competition." The graphic shows that China's current installed electricity generation capacity stands at 3.75 terawattsrConearly three times that of the United States, which has approximately 1.30 terawatts. Elon Musk commented on the post, calling this a "significant competitive disadvantage" for the U.S.

Moreover, China currently has 34 nuclear reactors under constructionrComore than the combined total of the next nine countriesrCoand nearly 200 additional reactors are either in the planning stages or proposed. In stark contrast, the United States currently has no large-scale commercial nuclear reactors under construction.

Many Americans argue that the U.S. must "act immediately" to catch up with ChinarCOs pace. However, given the current energy policies and implementation under the Trump administration, it seems highly unlikely that the U.S. will be able to overtake China; at best, it might just manage to avoid falling even further behind.



https://p26-sign.toutiaoimg.com/tos-cn-i-ezhpy3drpa/e762c58bce17487182f8bc5e802885b7~tplv-obj:844:756.image?_iz=97245&bid=15&from=post&gid=1851993380398080&lk3s=06827d14&x-expires=1773964800&x-signature=X6Z1DToRfZn9XYs%2FfInhuJhfVpE%3D
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2