That is an interesting observation. The implication is that Japan had that US technology – presumably because Japanese companies either made the propellors or made the custom-designed machines which made the propellors. It is hardly surprising that someone who holds something valuable will chose to sell it.
If Japan was essential to that manufacturing capacity, that is a powerful argument for keeping the capacity to manufacture important items in the US – and damn those MBAs who say it is cheaper to have someone else do it, and double damn those Greenies who don’t want any manufacturing to take place on US soil.
Russian economist Vladislav Inozemtsev calculates that the family of a 35-year-old man who fights for a year and is then killed on the battlefield would receive around 14.5 million rubles, equivalent to $150,000, from his soldier’s salary and death compensation. That is more than he would have earned cumulatively working as a civilian until the age of 60 in some regions. Families are eligible for other bonuses and insurance payouts, too.
“Going to the front and being killed a year later is economically more profitable than a man’s further life,” Inozemtsev said, a phenomenon he calls “deathonomics.”
Isn’t that the way things ought to be? The family of the man (what, no women?) who dies for his country should be at least as well compensated for his service as those who work in “some regions”.
It sounds a whole lot better than having veterans sleeping in the streets – which happens in some other countries.
The story about Russia paying dead soldiers the equivalent of their lifetime earnings (“in some districts”) somehow triggered a recollection of a tale about Lee Iacocca – back in the days when there still was a significant US-owned automobile industry.
Iacocca took charge of ailing Chrysler at the princely salary of $1 per year. One of his early acts was to provide extended warranties on all Chrysler vehicles. His rationale was that the costs of warranty repairs had a profoundly negative impact on the bonuses of Chrylser’s executives. By extending the warranty period, he thus gave every executive an incentive to focus harder on initial build quality.
If Russia is charging military budgets for the lifetime incomes of soldiers who die in the line of duty, that gives Russian officers an even stronger incentive to minimize Russian casualties. While the Usual Suspects mock the slow Russian progress against Zelensky’s conscripts, there are many sources emphasizing that Russian officers are giving priority to keeping their soldiers alive versus making rapid advances. Perhaps such payouts to the families of dead soldiers will be adopted by other countries – just as Iacocca’s extended warranties became an industry standard?
On the other hand, we should never underestimate the capacity of bureaucrats to undermine any policy – especially in a country as famous for corruption as the Ukraine. There have been many reports from the Ukrainian side that commanding officers, ensconced comfortably far behind the front, fail to report the deaths of their soldiers to HQ. Instead, the officers continue to draw the dead soldiers’ salaries and slide them into their own pockets. Apparently, this contributes to the unrealistically low estimates of casualties in Zelensky’s forces.
karlof1 has the text of the announcement President Putin made about the attack on a post-Soviet Ukrainian arms factory. Interesting extract:
"I repeat: we are testing the Oreshnik missile system in combat conditions in response to the aggressive actions of NATO countries against Russia. The question of further deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will be decided by us depending on the actions of the United States and its satellites. The targets to be hit during further tests of our newest missile systems will be determined by us based on threats to the security of the Russian Federation. We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow Ukraine to use their weapons against our facilities, and in the event of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond just as decisively and in a mirror image. I recommend that the ruling elites of those countries that have plans to use their military contingents against Russia also think about this seriously.
"Of course, if necessary and as a response, we will choose objects to be hit by such systems as the Oreshnik on the territory of Ukraine, we will offer civilians in advance, as well as ask citizens of friendly states who are there to leave dangerous zones. We will do this for humanitarian reasons-openly, publicly, without fear of opposition from the enemy, who also receives this information.
"Why no worries? Because today there are no means of countering such weapons. Missiles attack targets at a speed of Mach 10 – that’s 2.5-3 kilometers per second. Modern air defense systems available in the world and missile defense systems created by the Americans in Europe do not intercept such missiles, this is excluded.
“I would like to emphasize once again that it is not Russia, but the United States that has destroyed the international security system and continuing to fight and cling to its hegemony, is pushing the whole world towards a global conflict. We have always preferred and are now ready to resolve all disputes by peaceful means, but we are also ready for any development of events.”
An interesting report suggesting that His Majesty’s (English version, not Danish) Navy is finally coming to terms with the rather obvious reality that the aircraft carrier is following the battleship and the castle into the realm of military assets that no longer make sense.
"On November 15th, The Times published a remarkable report, revealing serious “questions” are being asked about the viability of Britain’s two flagship aircraft carriers, at the highest levels of London’s defence establishment. Such perspectives would have been unmentionable mere months ago. Yet, subsequent reporting seemingly confirms the vessels are for the chop. Should that come to pass, it will represent an absolutely crushing, historic defeat for the Royal Navy - and the US Empire in turn - without a single shot being fired. …
… Fast forward to today however, and British ministers and military chiefs are, per The Times , “under immense pressure to make billions of pounds’ worth of savings,” with major “casualties” certain. Resultantly, senior Ministry of Defence and Treasury officials are considering scrapping at least one of the carriers, if not both. The reason is simple - “in most war games, the carriers get sunk,” and are “particularly vulnerable to missiles.” As such, the pair are now widely perceived as the “Royal Navy’s weak link.”
Japan and India would love to get their hands on those carriers. IIRC, although they are STOVL carriers, they were made with allowance to be converted to STOBAR or CATOBAR.
Meanwhile Falkland Islanders are studying Spanish.
Yeah, this ain’t the 1980’s (don’t think the crazy-ass war mongers got that memo yet). And…even back then (as I understand it) the UK won just by the skin of their teeth…caught a couple of lucky breaks and had a good poker face. Nobody is minding the freaking store!!!
What Melei (actually his spokesman) actually said is that Argentina wants to have negotiations concerning sovereignty over the island. The article claims that Milei believe the solution must be a diplomatic one. The spokesman went on to say that Argentina wishes to maintain a mature (whatever that means) relationship with the United Kingdom.
It hardly sounds like Argentina is looking to make war on the UK. Unlike the morons at Reason Magazine, I am capable of understanding Spanish. One thing the morons left off was Milei’s praise of Margaret Thatcher as a great leader (in the article in El Clarín).
