In terms of GDP, that's like saying "China might have to face the US and Belgium at the same time".
Russia's military output is constrained enough that importing shells from North Korea was a significant boost for them.
It would be interesting to see a more accurate comparison with spending adjusted by total amount and actual purchase/operating costs, though I'm not really sure how to go about doing that, and it gets even more murky looking at price gouging by military contractors for ordinary objects in the US ($50,000 trash cans come to mind.) For the first reason and one above I suspect our actual reported value gained from our budget is vastly overinflated.
I also suppose something similar would be happening in Russia/China, maybe not as price gouging fraud but theft of supplies/funding, which would be harder to compare.
And whose electronic countermeasures, by the Pentagon own admission, have been recently defeating some extremely sophisticated US weapons.
Don't underestimate an enemy, who can suffer losses unthinkable for Western Armies, with minimal danger of societal collapse....
"Russia's electronic warfare has repeatedly foiled American precision weapons in Ukraine." - https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-electronic-warfare-s...
"Every day, Russia produces 12,320 artillery shells" - https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/05/26/every-day-russia-pr...
They did not go to Korea and China because they can't produce ammunition. They went because they consume so much of it...
"The U.S. Army will boost production of 155mm artillery shells more than sixfold to 85,000 a month" - https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/2023/03/28/...
Just for comparison...in the Donbas region, Russia is estimated to have fired 40,000–60,000 152mm shells per day...
That is the US Army current monthly production in two days...
The US, again being at peace, is even less motivated to ramp up its production. While the exact numbers aren't currently known, in 1994 the US had 20.4 million artillery rounds stockpiled. It has sent about 2 million of the oldest ones to Ukraine (equivalent to about 6 months of Russian production), and it is also selling large numbers to Israel. The army wants to boost artillery shell production because they always do, but the fact is the US does not currently need to match Russia's production rate, as it is not using shells at nearly the same rate. It's also worth noting that many other nations are likewise producing artillery shells to send to Ukraine. The limitation on western aide to Ukraine has been political will, not insufficient materiel.
Can you elaborate?
"China warns on Taiwan, South China Sea at Shangri-La forum" - https://www.voanews.com/a/china-warns-on-taiwan-south-china-...
"Former U.S. President Trump Hints He Wouldn't Defend Taiwan From China" - https://youtu.be/5KEgY8FR51o
The parent's line of logic is sound; the United States has fundamental interests in securing Taiwan's independence. They are one of the very few countries that would receive Israel-levels of international intervention if their sovereignty was threatened, and China knows that. A ground invasion under current conditions would be political and materiel suicide; you have to imagine apocalypse-level global malcontent before NATO would roll over and go ahead with China's reunification strategy.
"The Pentagon Is Freaking Out About a Potential War With China" - https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/09/america-we...
"...But a swift response may not be possible, in large part because of how shrunken the U.S. manufacturing base has become since the Cold War. All of a sudden, Washington is reckoning with the fact that so many parts and pieces of munitions, planes, and ships it needs are being manufactured overseas, including in China. Among the deficiencies: components of solid rocket motors, shell casings, machine tools, fuses and precursor elements to propellants and explosives, many of which are made in China and India..."
"Chinese President Xi Jinping has instructed the Chinese military to be prepared to invade Taiwan by 2027, Adm. John Aquilino, commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, said." - https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15243813
You need to stop reading into sensationalist headlines and actually understand the strategies at-play here. This is about creating sufficient conditions for China to not invade Taiwan, not blowing each other up in a second floating Ukraine. China doesn't want that, Taiwan doesn't want that, and the United States doesn't want that either. The critical difference between posturing and realpolitik is actually doing something; China will refuse to commit to a violent invasion unless globalism fails them (hint: globalism never fails China).
Let me try: From the resplendent shores of freedom, the invincible alliance of the United States and Taiwan stands unbreakable! As waves crash upon the might of our union, China's endeavors will dissolve into the sands of futility....Together, fortified by the treaties of solidarity, we will witness the dawn of triumph over China ambitions over Taiwan. Long live the US Taiwan treaty!
The US does not have any such treaty. First off, the US doesn't have any treaties with Taiwan, because the US does not recognize Taiwan as a country. What the US has is its own national law, the Taiwan Relations Act, which is deliberately ambiguous as to whether the US would actually intervene to defend Taiwan.
As we see in Ukraine, the decision to try and flex military strength can be quite disastrous when you demonstrate your immense military is actually a paper tiger - it generates complaints domestically, and erodes credibility abroad, to say nothing of the various other negative consequences of fighting a prolonged conflict.
China is a land power, always has been, always should be. It has no experience conducting naval operations, exceedingly few foreign bases for supporting long range naval power projection, and it is totally reliant on the maritime status quo. China likely wants to deter anyone from getting ideas about interdicting its shipping, and is probably happy to find a use for its excess steel production, but it would be crazy to pick a fight with the world's dominant naval power, which is coincidentally one of the world's premiere nuclear powers, and geographically unassailable by conventional forces, and there really isn't any naval opponent that isn't allied with one or the other. It's almost certainly intended as a fleet in being, at most an insurance policy in case America becomes isolationist in the next few years and there is a power vacuum.
But even if they were landing people on Mars right now, I don't see how that would be evidence they could win a nuclear war.
Well that escalated quickly! I think in that case, the artillery shell production will be last of our concerns.
I see different and more feasible scenarios: An unsatisfactory peace in Ukraine that will leave neither Russia or Ukraine happy.
Any political weakness or apathy from the US side, will be picked quickly by China as the best opportunity in 50 years...
China will progressively increase their exercises. First as like now to involve 50 airplanes and 20 ships...then 100 planes and 50 ships...then 250 planes and 100 ships, getting closer and closer to the last 20 to 25 miles of Taiwan, until the day the exercise will become an incursion, that goes for directly targeting heads of government. Probably by then hundreds of soldiers disguised as business men already will be in Taiwan.
Even if the US decides to intervene it will arrive days to weeks too late, and will make a big fuss but decide its not worth it. Specially if enough TSMC facilities are already running in the US.
You build a very strong army, either to defend or to attack. Nobody is a threat to China or want's anything from China, so they are not creating an army to defend assets...
Americans have been fed a steady stream of propaganda that they're the best at everything and that no one else in the world even comes close -- especially military stuff.
Some people just cannot conceive of a world where America isn't the best, especially militarily and they cannot conceive of a world where anyone else could ever close the gap.
America spent 20 years grinding down international good will and their armed forces in waste of time conflicts that went no where while China has spent their time fastidiously consolidating economic infrastructure to wage a long term war. What does America have to show for any of it?
Now I think it's definitely likely that America could muster up the strength to fight China, but that won't happen until enough people realize that they're facing legitimate existential threat.
Acknowledging that threat means fixing fundamental flaws in our modern economy and society -- We need wake the fuck up to the rampant corruption and graft in our society and get a manufacturing economy that benefits the little guy and not some grease-bag rent-seeking parasites who contribute nothing to society.
If I were that rent seeking parasite, I would prefer you to focus your attention and rage on China instead...
Checks notes: ....Uyghur camps...Hong Kong...takes whole South China Sea...
Yeap, my notes say it will.
Like think about it, you have an organization like the CCP that exists to exert control over 17% of the world's population and continues to deny them the basic human rights that every human being should be entitled to.
Can anyone seriously tell me that they're content to just do that to 17% of the world's population? Of course not. The fact that they haveb't extended their wretched grasp over the world isn't because they don't want to, it's that they can't do it yet.
The existance of monarchies and autocracies anywhere is a threat to the free world and the concepts of liberal democracy. Not only do we owe it to the people who live under repressive governments to free them but we owe it to ourselves to keep ourselves free.
However, once that dries up, it'll just be 'finance based colonialism' (my term). Pakistan has already fallen, for instance.
This means the US might have to face both China and Russia at the same time.
Wu Qian highlighted that China’s military strength could match all of NATO’s conventional forces, sending a strong message to NATO countries. “
Maybe the iPhone 16 is the last version.