Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, it is written in a US Army statement, visited the Scranton Ammunition Plant on Sunday, where he met with workers and observed the production of 155 mm artillery shells. The facility, which produces large-caliber metal shells for the U.S. military and its allies, has significantly increased production in recent years to meet warfighting needs, including supplying ammunition to Ukraine.
From 2009 to 2017, the plant produced about 9.000 shells per month, however, since the beginning of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Production increased to 36.000 shells per month.
"Scranton ensures warfighters have the ammunition when and where they need it by continuing to build U.S. stockpiles around the world.", said Lt. Gen. Chris Mohan, deputy commanding general of Army Materiel Command, which oversees munitions production and distribution for the Department of Defense.
The US Army, as confirmed by the commander of the Joint Munitions Command, Brigadier General Ronnie Anderson Jr., has already sent over 125.000 tons of ammunition to Ukraine over the past two years.
To meet growing global demand, the U.S. government has allocated $4 billion to modernize ammunition manufacturing facilities. In Scranton, these funds have been used to upgrade production lines with advanced technologies that have increased the efficiency and quality of ammunition produced.
The modernization of the structure does not only aim to respond to current needs, but to prepare the plant for future challenges. "We are redefining our operations to address an ever-changing landscape", Hansen stressed.
A rhetorical question (reserved for primates with opposable thumbs)
As far as we know, real US investments in the production of ammunition in the next few years would not be "limited" to 4 billion (already a considerable figure) but would involve a value significantly higher (with two zeros and without the initial one). Who will soon be the beneficiary of that mountain of "gunpowder"?
And a little bit of history...
In both world wars, Italy was tragically unprepared in all respects: militarily, economically and politically. Military unpreparedness was not only a matter of lack of resources, but also of strategic and organizational incompetence. The Italian armed forces were ill-equipped and worse trained, with a rigid and ineffective leadership, unable to adapt to the dynamic changes of the battlefield. The conflict was often fought with obsolete tactics, which led to bloody defeats, such as the disastrous one at Caporetto in the First World War and the numerous defeats in North Africa in the Second World War.
Economically, the situation was equally disastrous. In both wars, Italy was severely deprived of strategic resources, such as oil and raw materials, which made it incapable of sustaining a prolonged conflict. Added to this was an inadequate industrial system, unable to compete with that of other powers, aggravated in the Second World War by imperial adventures that further impoverished the country.
Politically, Italy entered both conflicts divided and without a clear vision of the objectives. In the First World War, entry into the war split the country, with a significant part of the population opposed to the conflict. In the Second World War, despite the opposition of the majority of the hierarchs and military leaders, Mussolini dragged Italy into a war for pure opportunism, trusting in a rapid German victory, without any real planning or understanding of the scope of the conflict. Political decisions, characterized by unrealistic ambitions and little consideration of the country's capabilities, condemned Italy to a fate marked - even today, despite the salami slices over its eyes - by defeat.
In the First World War, the victory achieved thanks to the contribution of the allies and a late strategic reorientation, Italy paid a very high human and social price. In the Second World War, the country was overwhelmed in an even more disastrous way, suffering a rapid and humiliating defeat, which not only led to the fall of the government but left Italy devastated, with deep political, social and economic wounds still present today, although - officially and pathetically - denied.
In the third world war, being "unarmed and lazy rowers in a galley" will save us from legitimate lashes and events on the horizon, or a new "Non auro, sed ferro, recuperanda est patria!" (Not with gold, but with iron is the fatherland redeemed!) will allow us to fight with conviction (and standing) for a more just world and perhaps really free and democratic which, willingly or not, will be born from the ashes of the current one?
For the moment, history seems to be repeating itself...
Photo: US Army
