this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
44 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23239 readers
275 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That doesn't add up. I think you're confusing JDAMs and hellfires for patriots and THAADs here.
In Iraq they used 800 tomahawks, that's around 16 years production. a few hundred in Syria/against the houthies etc. A bunch elsewhere.
No it does, in one of the articles tervell posted on the Ukraine war, they said the botleneck was explosives production. Then someone argued that the lack of artillery production didn't matter because the us uses some acronym bombs that are better(they are not, canon artillery delivers orders of magnitude more volume), without addressing that the botleneck was chemical precursors to explosives, and that acronym bombs are presumably also made of explosives.
Chemical shortages explains why the US hasn't scaled up artillery production. That shortage can be explained by the US's shift to expensive "smart bombs" which are allegedly more efficient with their explosives. You can't conclude from that the US has been under producing smart bombs for 25 years.
It's an issue of volume. The explosives, can be made into bombs, artillery, missiles, etc, but the volume of whatever is made is limited. They can't produce enough volume of whatever is the end product. The claim that bombs are better than a trusty cannon, is a way to justify the lack of production. But there is a still a lack of production, due to problems in the chemical industry.