Come on now, you can't debate on facts so resort to this kind of nonsense?
WTF kind of references are those? Esquire magazine, schoolfoodfocus.org and occupy democrats?
Is it even possible to be even less credible? How about an image showing the benefits of pedophilia by NAMBLA?
Just because the thing comes from a shitty site doesn't mean they're wrong.
The end of the tank? The Army says it doesn?t need it, but industry wants to keep building it. - The Washington Post
Carlyle group, I'm sure there's something I've heard about them. Ah well, better drop that; after all, a tank in the hand is worth two in the Bush.
Gen. Raymond Odierno, the ArmyÂ’s chief of staff, made its case before Congress in 2012.
“We don’t need the tanks,” he said. “Our tank fleet is 21 / 2 years old average now. We’re in good shape, and these are additional tanks that we don’t need.”
That looks after that but, in case some loon tells me the Washington post is a left wing mouthpiece, have Fox.
Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists | Fox News
Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams
But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."
It seems the idea of the arms industry bribing politicians may well be true.
That or they're even more stupid that people think.
Bribing lol. Gah you people fail so badly at definitions. It's not a bride dude, if the politician in question is getting tax payers yelling at him to keep jobs in their state.
That's not bribe, anymore than you calling up your politicians to get a road built in your state.
Now of course the companies making those tanks want to keep making tanks, just as much as those tax payers want the tank plant in their state open, just as much as the employees of the tank plant want to keep their jobs.
“sadness that somebody that has worked here 35 years and is close to retirement is getting laid off,” said Alice Conner, a manufacturing executive at the factory. “There’s also some frustration from management and my engineering staff as we see the skills erode, because we know one day we’re going to be asked to bring these back, and it’s going to be very difficult.”
That's from the link you posted. So people losing their jobs want politicians to keep their jobs? Duh..... This isn't rocket science. Nor is 'bribing'.
Good grief people.... get a dictionary.
Now that said....
I get two things from this discussion.
First, I can't even begin to count the number of times that people have told me how the big evil military complex is demanding more of everything.
Fail! Clearly the military is not asking for more tanks, if they don't think they need them. This stupidity from the left, that the DOD is just blowing money on every random thing under the sun, is clearly clearly proven false right here right now.
Now of course the widget makers want to sell more widgets, that's obvious. But this 50 year long BS that the DOD just demand everything and more, is hereby proven false in my mind. I'll never give any credibility to that claim again.
Second....
I think the DOD is correct.... .right now. I also think that the tanks makers are correct in the long run. Yes we don't need tanks today. But I would easily wager we will in the future.
Nevertheless, I think shutting down tank production for now, is the right move.
The problem today, is that the vast majority of our engagements have been in urban areas, against un-armored foes. A tanks primary use is against heavy armored targets. Right now, we haven't really engaged any heavy armored targets. We've been dealing with .50 cals bolted to the back of a pickup truck, and people hiding in caves.
Facing guerrilla warfare requires more speed and agility, and brute force.
Additionally, in urban areas with proper roads, rubber tires on pavement is faster, cheaper, and more efficient than a heavy tank treads. Just making a turn on treads instead of tires, is vastly more difficult.
Now, as things stand in todays world, the US military is being asked to deal with the above conditions. Under those conditions, they are correct. We don't need more tanks.
But... that assumes that these conditions will remain. I'm not convinced of this. They might...... but.... they might not.
We've just seen that Putin and Russia, are not the dormant benign bear that we thought. He is perfectly willing to drive his forces into a foriegn country, and outright claim it for himself.
If we don't stand up to Russia today, we most certainly will in the future. When that time comes, rubber wheeled, light armor vehicles are not going to stand up to the pounding a real military heavy armor would give it. We will most definitely need tanks in the future. No question in my mind at all.
So in the that respect, the company guys are right.
I think both sides of this have a valid case to be made.
But 'bribing'? lol.... seriously.... no. no no.
