> The U.S. is low on rockets and artillery shells. Congress is funding a huge arms buying spree, but U.S. factories can't produce munitions fast enough. Price gauging is also a concern.
> Russia's invasion of Ukraine exposed a U.S. national security problem. The country can't make rockets and artillery shells nearly as fast as they get used when two major countries go to war. That's triggered an effort to speed up munitions manufacturing in the United States. Frank Morris of member station KCUR reports.
---
We may be, but at the same time we're realizing that we don't have the capacity for the current rate of use in Ukraine.
The people I know who work in the defense industry seem to think so. That's what I hear. We're gearing up for a big conflict. Take that with a grain of salt, though.
Ever used a computer running an Intel or AMD processor?
Ever worked at a company with Microsoft Windows or enterprise Linux servers (IBM RedHat)?
Ever connected to the internet or a cell tower? They use Cisco, Qualcomm, Broadcom, etc technology.
Almost all large tech companies in the US and tons of smaller startups have active contracts with the DoD/DHS/DoE or with contractors and suppliers for them.
Congratulations, you're part of the defense industry. Last I checked, most of my coworkers and and peers voted blue, like most other people in the Bay Area.
i dont work in the tech industry, so try again. either way your argument is pedantic as i think most people understand defense contractors to be mostly manufacturing and tech related to it. if you want the definition to include people who use computers you do you
Q Anon types lean Tea Party / Trump / America First and are generally anti-war IME. There was a big shift among the Republican base after Bush II. They are more likely to say that the bad guys are in DC than in China / Russia / Afghanistan / whatever, notwithstanding Fox News types trying to corral them back into the fold.
> the bad guys are in DC than in China / Russia / Afghanistan / whatever
Shockingly, same narrative as Russia has been pushing in Ukraine for a long time (except for Kiev rather than DC). Unfortunately, it has worked really well for them and we all know the grim events that followed.
The neocons thought they would get an Iran war long before 2025. Instead they got Beijing brokering peace between Tehran and Riyadh, and an increasingly unstable Tel Aviv.
The Iran-Saudi talks have been overstated in American media. All they really are is the reopening of diplomatic communications between Iran and the KSA (aka a return to the 2014-15 time period) [0][1]. In essence, it's Saudi admitting they lost the War in Yemen [4] (which btw was projected to occur around now years ago) [5]
The core Saudi-Iran national security concerns continue to persist with continued conflicts between both countries partners inside Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. [0][1]
The moment Iran gets the bomb, Saudi and the UAE would readily enter a hot war with Iran. This is a big reason the KSA and UAE are pushing forward defense pacts with Israel [2][3]
That list doesn't have any of the more common type of war that America has fought over the last ~70 years: wars against small countries. What good is a predictive list if it would have excluded wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, Granada, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, etc.?
> The U.S. is low on rockets and artillery shells. Congress is funding a huge arms buying spree, but U.S. factories can't produce munitions fast enough. Price gauging is also a concern.
> Russia's invasion of Ukraine exposed a U.S. national security problem. The country can't make rockets and artillery shells nearly as fast as they get used when two major countries go to war. That's triggered an effort to speed up munitions manufacturing in the United States. Frank Morris of member station KCUR reports.
---
We may be, but at the same time we're realizing that we don't have the capacity for the current rate of use in Ukraine.