Allocating funds is not the solution when you lack industrial capacity to convert those funds into actual weapons and ammunition. Here's what actually happens in a scenario where you allocate funds and supply of a commodity is limited:

In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,171) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,489.60).

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/

[–] Name@feddit.nu 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The reasoning is that arms manufacturers are not willing to "take the risk" with expanding their industrial capacity, hence their demand for long term contracts. When they start supplying the war will end and their profits will diminish.

Exactly, they're taking all the chances to earn more money on the war.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So far, there's been very little actual expansion of military production. There's been a bit in the US and practically none in the EU. The reality is that even if companies committed to this, it can't be done overnight. You need trained workers skilled in trades, you need to build factories, you need secure supply chains, and so on. All of that takes years to implement. Real life isn't like video games.

[–] Name@feddit.nu 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah lol. Our ammunition manufacturer could potentially triple their output with a small additional building, but they "lack the economy" to do so. Other arms manufacturers here gives the same reason. The issue is apparently not labour but profit and as you said, supply chains. They European shells manufacturing takes place in several different countries and they have issues cooperating. At least the explosives aren't scare as that would make it by far more difficult to solve

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

😂