Maybe we're just getting old, but yes I agree that the old internet surprisingly was the better internet. When sites were written by passionate people instead of for getting the most views/monetary gain.
Yep, we're definitely
getting old. I don't know if there's more sensationalism these days than there used to be, or if in our more advanced ages, we notice it more because we can more easily see through it.
This sensationalism began when news became a for-profit venture with 24H "News Networks" like CNN and Fox.
Probably because Ukraine isn't receiving enough shells for their artillery. Although like any sane person I'm generally against war I can't say I'm against it when a country is defending itself. The solution isn't to roll over and stop shooting back.
America's artillery stockpile isn't as vast as you might imagine. Ukraine is firing 6000-7000 rounds a day which is about a third of what Russia is doing. This is because they need to ration it, not because they wouldn't be able to use more of it. The US can produce 14000 a month, so that stockpile can be depleted really really fast.
Yeah, I didn't realise that Ukraine was using it up that quickly. Now that I do
know, I realise that this is more important than I had originally thought.
Militaries have been busy spending billions on fancy toys but now that there is an actual war and not some underfunded terrorist group they're coming to the conclusion that war hasn't changed all that much and the 'dumb' stuff still works pretty well. Like digging trenches and covering areas in artillery fire. Europe is struggling to provide battle ready tanks as nearly all of them seem to have been neglected and need some serious maintenance and factories all over the world are struggling to keep up with artillery shell production for a war between two countries. Russia is even sourcing them from North Korea of all places.
<- Oh not a American btw.
I completely agree with you. Modern forces are going completely overboard with the military tech and it's because the "defence contractors" (read: arms dealers) like Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics and Raytheon are lobbying the governments and military commanders as hard as they can. They're "convincing" these commanders that they need
only the "latest and best" for their militaries. Back in 1977, the commanders of the RCAF were adamant that the only
suitable replacement for the Voodoos and Starfighters was the F-15 Eagle. Fortunately, we had one of our greatest PMs at the time, Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Justin's father). He was far too smart to believe a word that the RCAF commanders told him. He held an honest and transparent competition and it was discovered that the F/A-18 Hornet was far more suitable for the RCAF than the F-15 (and far less expensive too!).
Like, I was absolutely furious when I heard that my government (Canada) chose the defective and overpriced F-35 bucket over the JAS-39E. The two things that are in shortest supply during war are money and time, the two things that the F-35 consumes faster than anything ever before seen. Meanwhile, the JAS-39E is the exact opposite and is a real A2A fighter, something that would be far more suitable to the RCAF's pricipal mission of "defensive counter-air" than an over-hyped light bomber like the F-35. I've been a military aviation enthusiast since I was 14 years old so I didn't fall for Lockheed's hype and BS marketing like the average person easily could.
All the "know-nothing-know-it-alls" talk about the tech that's in the F-35 but they don't know enough to know that it's about as mature as hardware-accelerated ray-tracing and doesn't properly work yet. They think that more and more tech means better (when it usually means unnecessarily complicated). People just need to get better informed. After all, simplicity and ease of production is far more important than complexity in war.
In WW2, the Wehrmacht's Panzer and Tiger tanks were objectively far more advanced than the American Sherman tank. The Luftwaffe's planes were also objectively more advanced than those used by the allies. The Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1 in the Messerschmitt BF 109 was objectively more advanced than the Rolls-Royce Merlin 45 used in the Supermarine Spitfire (DB 605A-1 was fuel-injected while the Merlin was carbureted) but the Germans still lost because they couldn't keep up with allied production.
The same lesson was learnt about 20 years later when the US Air Force's F-4 Phantom II was objectively more advanced than the Viet Cong's MiG-21 Fishbeds. While the Phantom did have a favourable win/loss ratio against the Fishbed, it didn't matter because the MiG was so much quicker, easier and cheaper to build and maintain and the Viet Cong won.
Of course, I'm being simplistic here because war is far more nuanced than just that, but who won and who lost in those situations cannot be disputed. Fortunately for you and I, we understand what's most important in war and it sure as hell isn't glamour.