There are multiple reasons. Raw materials or chemicals feature lower profit margins than end-stage weapons. They also leave massive environmental footprints, particularly of nitric and sulphuric acid, which are key to making everything from nitrocellulose to RDX.

[–] sepi@piefed.social 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Oh yeah russia doesn't give two shits if you have some nitrogen compound that makes ugly orange-red fumes all over the place. It's like their hobby.

[–] EstonianGuy@lemm.ee 13 points 1 month ago

Technically it’s not the worst thing in the world, as long as russia is engaged in a war. The offensive side historically takes 3x casualties than the defending side, that includes use of ammunition.

Ie so if ukraine produces 1M shells and russia 2M, ukraine is still better off.

Not that i dont support ukraine getting more ammo, far from it. it’s just that things arent so black and white, producing more doesnt mean you’re winning.

[–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 5 points 1 month ago

Simple. It has not been a priority. If it was, you would see the US invoke the defense priduction act and similarly allocate nearly unlimited funds.