You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
There’s been some talk lately about US dependence on Taiwanese semiconductors or Chinese rare earth metals which could be interrupted if things go bad. An interesting question is to ask how many countries could fight a modern war in the face of total trade isolation.
Could say, once mighty Germany? 1/4th of Germany’s World War II gasoline was produced synthetically, another 1/4th just from Ploesti. If the entire army had to be mechanized (no horses) competition with the US or USSR would have been impossible even then (c. 1950).
World War II can be conceptualized in grand historical terms as the last stand of the medium sized country. Germany and Japan started wars with traditional enemies, only to discover that the demands of modern armaments required more invasions until self-sufficiency was reached.
When Albert Speer become Hitler's armaments chief he learned that Germany's war effort was critically dependent on the import of obscure natural resources. Speer believed the weakest link was chromium ore: under no circumstances could Germany have continued past January 1946:pic.twitter.com/QaPhPqxDdT
During the war every leader became an industrial chemistry expert: Hitler insisted on fighting desperate battles for Nikopol and Lapland in order to secure supplies of magnesium; the British made a serious play to buy up all of Spain’s tungsten ore:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_Crisis …
Germany’s resource demands were much lower in WWI, the primary problem being acquiring enough nitrate to both crops and produce explosives. Had Fritz Haber not solved the problem on the eve of war Germany would have needed to sue for peace at the end of 1914.pic.twitter.com/O5a7PYDEXQ
I’ve never heard this stated explicitly, but in retrospect Germany’s desperate dash through Belgium must have been predicated on this resource constraint. By 1914 though the problem was gone, meaning they would been much better off playing nice and keeping Britain out of the war
Worthwhile article on Western/Chinese competition over rare earths, and how it ties into the "Green Economy"https://unherd.com/2021/02/the-rise-of-green-imperialism/ …
I think the threat is overrated, what matters isn’t meeting the national demand, but just military demand, and I’m assuming the U.S keeps stockpiles of necessary components, so it only becomes a problem in a prolonged war.
I would certainly not assume any US preparedness I had not checked for myself, given the last year or so
This argument is often heard from peaceniks: by creating deep trade links and an interdependent world, we can make it too difficult to mount wars. In answer to your question: Russia? Sheer size means it must have more resources than most.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
