zlacker

All time high as of producing small amount of very expensive stuff won't be good if can't produce huge amount of basic stuff.

Is USA capable of producing huge number of electric motors? Other "not profitable enough to produce here" stuff?

Remember how the west wasn't able to deliver enough artillery shells simply because it can't produce enough? Now it might be ramping up in the shells department but there's so many things that the west can't make anymore in large quantities.

>>mrtksn+(OP)
> All time high as of producing small amount of very expensive stuff

You’ve made a series of wrong, uncited claims. This is another one.

> Is USA capable of producing huge number of electric motors?

Siemens is the world’s largest manufacturer of electric motors. They have massive plants in Germany, Ohio and Missouri [1][2]. Toshiba, the second largest, in Houston and Canada [3]. ABB, third largest, with plants across 8 states, directed from Arkansas, as well as in India [4].

China has cheaper labour and laxer environmental laws than America. But we have some of the world’s cheapest and most-abundant energy. Motor manufacturing isn’t dirty or labour intensive. I’m not sure where your obsession with electric motors comes from, because it’s an example of Allied manufacturing vastly outstripping China.

> Remember how the west wasn't able to deliver enough artillery shells simply because it can't produce enough?

Yes, in part because we want to maintain reserves. We matched Ukraine’s military budget to the entirety of Russia’s [5]. As a side project.

[1] https://www.siemens.com/us/en/company/about/siemens-in-the-u...

[2] https://www.siemens.com/us/en/products/drives/electric-motor...

[3] https://www.toshiba.com/tic/inside-toshiba/manufacturing-ser...

[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABB_Motors_and_Mechanical

[5] https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/w...

>>JumpCr+j6
Again, spending a lot is not the same as having large number of machinery produced. Dollar bills don't blow up BTRs, cheap energy is cool but Russia too has cheap energy. They also have cheap people who can use that cheap energy to build huge numbers of cheap stuff that blow up expensive things.

It's like India going to the moon at cost that would be considered pocket change in the USA.

Ping me when Ukrainian drones are made by US/European parts and not Chinese.

>>mrtksn+Ka
> spending a lot is not the same as having large number of machinery produced

You’ve made a series of wrong, uncited claims. This is another one. (And the last one I’m responding to. You are not arguing in good faith.)

You called out electric motors. By mass and production volume, China is outstripped by Allied production.

> cheap energy is cool but Russia too has cheap energy

Much less than America production-wise. We’re counting volumes and mass, right?

> like India going to the moon at cost that would be considered pocket change in the USA

You really keep picking terrible examples to spitball on.

The SSLV’s launch cost per kg is over 3x Falcon 9’s [1][2]. American access to space is orders of magnitude cheaper and more extensive than India, Russia and China’s combined, despite massively higher labour costs and design requirements.

That said, India actually got to the Moon. Can’t say as much about Russia [3].

[1] https://www.newspace.im/launchers/isro

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competit...

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_25

>>mrtksn+Ka
At this point you're just trolling. It's honestly tiresome. The US could easily produce cheap electronic motors if it wanted to in record time, particularly in a war effort. It would be child's play. The whole reason this stuff is offshored to developing nations is because anyone can do it, so you might as well hire the cheapest labor—or so the reasoning goes.

Check your own biases at the door next time you're looking to engage in intelligent discussion, lest you come across as quibbling in bad faith.