Childress Pledges Ammo to Ukraine

[onlinebiker]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

https://www.si.com/racing/2022/03/02/ric...to-ukraine

He pledges to send a million rounds to Ukraine


Nice sentiment. But - what caliber?  

And - have you tried ordering ammo lately? Where is it going to come from? Here in the US there' s been a big shortage of ALL ammo for the last couple years.

The Ukrainians could use some 7.62 x 39 ammo for their AK47's - but the only people that seem to have plenty is the Russians and the Chinese.... I don' t think that' s going to work....

Ordering and producing the rounds isn’t the issue (Childress is worth a quarter billion and sits on the board of Ammo, Inc), and several American companies make the 7.62x39s.

Not sure how they’re going to deliver it, though.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Uh....  No.

Better google some more there mate....


There IS some American made 7.62 x 39. It is not suitable for warfare.

1. It' s too expensive. Brass case. Box primer. Reloadable. ( unlike Communist bloc produced which is steel case, berdain primer)

2. It is not FMJ. Not "legal" for use by convention.


....

He might be able to score some from the Chinese - but only if they don' t side with the Russians....

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[The Grand Nudger]

The chinese would sell ukraine ammo even as china openly sided with russia, anyway. They come down against our interests all the time and that doesn't stop them from shipping goods. It's likely that people and nations opposed to our interests would very much like for the chinese spigot to run dry, but, obviously, they can pound sand.

[Anomalocaris]

China gets more benefit from trade with the US than the harm caused by American policies the chinese opposes, even one’s directed against china, such as tariff abs embargo against leading chinese tech firms,  except those concerning taiwan, which china considers existential interest.    so on anything short of taiwan, leverage rests with the US.

on taiwan the leverage also rests with the US because of america’s much larger nuclear arsenal.  But using that leverage means china will then react by trying to match the american nuclear arsenal.  which they seem to have taken the first steps to do.

So when i say America has been mad with power, i meant america thinks it is so strong that it has been flippantly, in the sense of driven by emotional idealism and short term gains in prestige and influence and not by careful strategic forethought, undertaking actions that serves to ensure it will face 2 peer nuckear powers in the foreseeable future, as oppose to just 1 during the cold war.

[The Grand Nudger]

We'd be lucky to have to deal with only two, imo, and, fwiw..the bigger threat isn't state actors with nukes, anyway. It's some dipshit extremist with enough money and/or expertise to diy or procure their own. Likely an american.

[Anomalocaris]

i non-state actors can cause mass casualty events.   but state actors can send us back to the stone age.

however, non-state actor’s effects are free for us to amplify,   and we demonstrated how good we are at amplifying it by scoring a series of own goals in the aftermath of 911

[onlinebiker]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]