• Neuromancer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    You have a cite for that. That goes against every news article and statement from the White House and pentagon.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Your cite says nothing about his claim. His claim is we have plenty of ammunition to send. We don’t.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s a matter of what ammunition, not ammunition in general. Ukraine uses a quarter of a million artillery shells a month. The US doesn’t have facilities to build them that fast because we would never need to use that many. We would absolutely own the sky over both the battlefield and Russia itself, reducing the utility of artillery and increasing it’s effectiveness. The benefits of combined arms and force multiplication can’t be overstated.

          We could very quickly build out capacity to produce the shells Ukraine needs, but it’s a problem of economics. Those facilities are expensive, and wouldn’t be required long enough to provide suppliers a return on investment. We would have to pay a massive premium on those shells and, this far, there hasn’t been the will to do that.