Malcolm Alexander

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@Phormio_Lake That was at the peak of the war, unsuprisingly during peacetime in 1939 nobody was mobilizing tens of millions of people. 1939 Europe could probably mobilize people more easily than 2026 but it would still take a lot of time to get those troops trained and equipped.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@maquisardberet @ChuckLynchlich The combined standing armed forces of Europe in 1939 were about 5 million. More could be drafted over time, sure, but that applies to both sides and would take months. So it really wouldn't be that relevant in the first few months of fighting.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@Scottish_Anglo @ChuckLynchlich Also even in cases where this might be true and a missile couldn't take advantage of weaker deck armor or hit critical vulnerabilities torpedos are still a very reliable way of dealing with battleships at ranges they couldn't respond at.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@Scottish_Anglo @ChuckLynchlich There are countless cases in WW2 where a single well aimed bomb cripples a ship. The problem is not how big the warhead is, it's how reliably can you hit a critical system. In this field modern guided weapons have a huge advantage.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@Scottish_Anglo @ChuckLynchlich Modern anti-submarine systems on the Charles de Gaulle could probably kill any submarine attack by themselves. WW2 submarines are powerless against tracking, heat-seeking torpedos. Torpedos which modern subs could also use against surface ships.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@Scottish_Anglo @ChuckLynchlich Fun fact those ships are also loaded with massive amounts of explosive fuel that will literally rip the ship apart if it gets hit. There absolutely are many critical points that can one shot a ship, and the protections against them only protect against weapons of the time.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@Scottish_Anglo @ChuckLynchlich Also naval guns are so outranged by modern systems that they would never get a chance to fire, so any ability to penetrate would be irrelevant.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@ChuckLynchlich The only real risk is running out of munitions before production can ramp up, but current munitions stocks would last for long enough to annihiliate any armored formations on the 1939 side and force them back into infantry warfare.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@ChuckLynchlich Only carriers pose any threat and they would be easy targets for missiles or drone strikes.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@ChuckLynchlich The Royal Navy of 1939 would be eliminated by the modern French Navy just using their drone and missile capabilities, modern naval ships can engage at such insane ranges that a modern destroyer could destroy multiple WW2 capital ships without being in range of their guns.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@Justin96221068 @BelfMoneyMovers @KiddSpade1 Egypt has factories set up to manufacture western equipment. They literally have plants that can manufacture Abrams over there. Even if they couldn't they have such a large stockpile that they could keep fighting for years just by cannibalizing the surplus.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@Cuman31088145 @RegimerIlan Egypt alone is sitting on a stockpile of thousands of tanks and massive amounts of munitions, it's gonna take a pretty long time to attrition through that.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@starmkommando Unfortunately you have picked the one major European country this is NOT true for.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@fermatastheorem @SkyeSharkie Also people saw being served by a human as more fancy, so when consumer purchasing power rose after WW2 people decided to go for restaurants with human servers rather than the working class automats associated with the urban working class.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@fermatastheorem @SkyeSharkie Inflation meant that charging a nickle for food became unprofitable, and upgrading the restaurants for new denominations was a massive capital cost. Plus it's far harder to make a machine that checks whether 10 or 15 cents were inserted than one that just sees if a coin fell in.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@onceinfiume @PraxeoJay @dfyzator_15 @Lopariro @user3927818 @Drewniuk_UwU Indeed, which is why there is a lack of certainty, which incentivizes firms to avoid the risk.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@PraxeoJay @dfyzator_15 @Lopariro @onceinfiume @user3927818 @Drewniuk_UwU For high risks and low rewards you need astronomical probabilities which the uncertainties of an anarchic world do NOT guarantee.

[Malcolm Alexander @MalcolmAle84895]

@PraxeoJay @dfyzator_15 @Lopariro @onceinfiume @user3927818 @Drewniuk_UwU Put simply would you risk a ten percent chance of losing 1 million dollars just to earn an extra 10k a month? The answer is likely no, and the same holds true for the companies.