Swedish defence economist and researcher tweeting about... you guessed it, defence, economics and research!
Stockholm, Sverige
Joined January 2017
- Tweets820
- Following117
- Followers506
- Likes2.1K
Tidigare citerat IFRs rapport och måste rätta mig efter deras revision! Kina har inte lika hög robotäthet som man tidigare trott! Endast 166 jämfört med USAs 307, däremot är ökningstakten betydande.
Update: looks like the IFR revised down their density numbers for China! They now match my estimate of around 166 robots / 10,000 manufacturing workers, placing China 22nd in global robot density. therobotreport.com/ifr-repor…
129
Per Olsson retweeted
Kloke kollegan @anhornedal stod nyss i SvT:s Aktuellt och förklarade lugnt och kunnigt hur Irans Shaheed 136-drönare fungerar och hur Ukraina bekämpar dem - kunskaper som just nu är livligt efterfrågade av Gulfländer med pengar. @FOIresearch
Interesting watching all of these online experts making 100 percent certain statements and predictions about an ongoing conflict where misinformation is rife from every side. An analyst must remain calm and steady at these times!
1
134
Hör Aron Lund om hans bedömning av hög krigsrisk mellan USA och Iran. svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/analy…
115
Kommenterade Kinas humaniora robotar och robotisering i allmänhet i @sr_ekot @FOIresearch sverigesradio.se/artikel/kin…
Per Olsson retweeted
"Italy’s outlay on the design and development of the tri-nation GCAP fighter has tripled from €6 billion to €18.6 billion..."
What are the odds that initial government communication of anticipated costs happened to have been wildly optimistic... 😉
defensenews.com/global/europ…
Per Olsson retweeted
Yes I know, I post this one too often, but it could be worse, I'm managing to keep myself from posting it every day.
Per Olsson retweeted
Can the growth trend in 🇰🇷South Korea’s arms industry last?
Learn more about the combination of domestic drivers and international circumstances that have enabled the South Korean arms industry’s rapid growth, and the challenges that lie ahead ➡️ bit.ly/4oOcf1a
Per Olsson retweeted
Europe isn't losing the race for next-generation combat aircraft because it's poor or incompetent but because of ego, paranoia, and national pride. European defence is being crippled from the inside by allies who refuse to share power, technology, or trust.
Both flagship sixth-generation fighter programs are stuck in the same swamp. In the GCAP project, Italy openly accuses the UK of hoarding critical know-how. In FCAS, France, Germany, and Spain are so busy fighting over control and intellectual property that they're effectively designing parallel aircraft under the same label. That's not cooperation, that's sabotage.
Europe has the money, the engineers, and the strategic urgency. What it lacks is the political maturity to act like a single power. If this continues, Europe won't just fall behind, it will lock itself into long-term dependence on foreign aircraft, surrendering both military autonomy and technological leadership.
Europeans can’t live on the whims of whoever occupies the White House! We should work together as allies when we can, but should be able to act alone when we must!🇪🇺🇸🇪
4
177
Per Olsson retweeted
Trump: “After the war, we gave Greenland back to Denmark. How stupid were we to do that? But we did it. But how ungrateful are they now?"
Per Olsson retweeted
LIVE: from the World Economic Forum • EN DIRECT : au Forum économique mondial xitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1BRJjgnLV…
Almost amusing to see how truly smart people are trying to rationalise Trump’s Greenland plans with security concerns, trying to find a way to adress them without any transfer of land. This was never about security, its about one mans ego. Rationality won’t work!
4
124
Per Olsson retweeted
JUST IN: Trump says he will impose a 10% tariff on on goods sent to the U.S. from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland on Feb. 1, rising to 25% on June 1, “until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”
Trump’s lust for Greenland isn’t about security (its part of NATO, the US can defend it now). It isn’t even about money, resources are difficult to exploit (but if the US wanted they could likely strike a deal for exploitation today). But its about ego! Trump wants to add land!
He wants to go down in history as a President who expanded US territory, because he things that’s what great presidents do. This is also why rational arguments doesn’t work! However, a firm stance from Denmark and Allies might persuade people around Trump that its not worth it!
1
2
68