US Congress wants to spend $3 billion building tanks the Army doesn't want and won't use
120 replies, posted
[QUOTE=smurfy;37986298]I'm worried that when gunfox finds this thread we are all going to be sons of bitches[/QUOTE]
Huh?
[QUOTE=smurfy;37986511]The fact that it's been allowed to get to a stage where the US has to constantly build tanks or face economic damage is pretty terrible[/QUOTE]
it's pretty much how we got out of the great depression. WWII rolled around and the war industry created tons of jobs.
[QUOTE=Mudkipslol;37986581]Are they planning on rushing someones base?[/QUOTE]
Their planning on siege massing.
I personally think its a waste of vespian gas when they could just train a couple ghosts and call in a nuke on the base
"Hey guys you know whats cool? Abrahms tanks. Fuck yeah! Lets buy 5000 of them"
The session in congress that day.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;37986647]it's pretty much how we got out of the great depression. WWII rolled around and the war industry created tons of jobs.[/QUOTE]
but its not applicable to today's issues. We are no longer on the great crusade
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37986932]"Hey guys you know whats cool? Getting paid to buy Abrahms Tanks with taxpayer dollars. Fuck yeah! Lets buy 5000 of them"
The session in congress that day.[/QUOTE]
fixd
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;37986647]it's pretty much how we got out of the great depression. WWII rolled around and the war industry created tons of jobs.[/QUOTE]
I'd say that was more because of general industry. And tanks were hardly the main factor considering how we produced way more planes than tanks, and planes were about 4-20 times more expensive.
Even the military is sick of the government over funding it.
[QUOTE=smurfy;37986511]The fact that it's been allowed to get to a stage where the US has to constantly build tanks or face economic damage is pretty terrible[/QUOTE]
That sounds pretty Orwellian, perpetual war economy and all that.
we should just buy T80Us from Russia [url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199394/cmhansrd/1994-02-03/Writtens-9.html]like Britain did[/url] (search for T80)
im basically just imagining a large pile of tanks in a warehouse
[editline]10th October 2012[/editline]
[IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/itoldyouabouttanks_copy.jpg[/IMG]
Besides, I'm pretty sure only 1 or 2 Abrams' have ever been disabled or put out of combat.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37987208]we should just buy T80Us from Russia [url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199394/cmhansrd/1994-02-03/Writtens-9.html]like Britain did[/url] (search for T80)[/QUOTE]
they bought one for research and training purposes.
In 1992.
You have enough tanks goddamnit. And what's more important is that you probably don't even need all those 2000 tanks unless we have to fight off some sort of eldritch colossi or megakaiju, neither of which exist. [B]Plus[/B] we're in an era when collateral property damage is FAR from ideal, since destroying buildings with artillery fire is counter-productive if most modern wars involve peacekeeping operations afterwards that involve helping rebuild the country you fucked up. Imagine if in a future World War (non-nuclear, mind), several Chinese cities were heavily-damaged by American artillery fire; if the current attitude of prolonged peacekeeping operations applied to that theoretical Sino-American Conflict, America would need to spend money on helping to rebuild those broken cities, money it probably wouldn't have.
What i'm saying is we need less tanks and missiles and nuclear subs; what we DO need is more research projects involving the growing of convincing vat-meat and safe GM crops, as well as a solution to the crises of clean high-yield energy and clean safe water. Not to mention inventing a technology that allows the reliable preservation of functioning brains-in-jars, and finding a loophole in physics that allows for safe FTL transportation. So many conditions that humanity requires for the future, and yet people are still building useless fucking nukes and war machines, wasting valuable resources that could be used for far superior areas of humanity's tech tree.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37987750]they bought one for research and training purposes.
In 1992.[/QUOTE]
I know... learn to take a joke.
[editline]10th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ironman17;37987811]You have enough tanks goddamnit. And what's more important is that you probably don't even need all those 2000 tanks unless we have to fight off some sort of eldritch colossi or megakaiju, neither of which exist. [B]Plus[/B] we're in an era when collateral property damage is FAR from ideal, since destroying buildings with artillery fire is counter-productive if most modern wars involve peacekeeping operations afterwards that involve helping rebuild the country you fucked up. Imagine if in a future World War (non-nuclear, mind), several Chinese cities were heavily-damaged by American artillery fire; if the current attitude of prolonged peacekeeping operations applied to that theoretical Sino-American Conflict, America would need to spend money on helping to rebuild those broken cities, money it probably wouldn't have.
What i'm saying is we need less tanks and missiles and nuclear subs; what we DO need is more research projects involving the growing of convincing vat-meat and safe GM crops, as well as a solution to the crises of clean high-yield energy and clean safe water. Not to mention inventing a technology that allows the reliable preservation of functioning brains-in-jars, and finding a loophole in physics that allows for safe FTL transportation. So many conditions that humanity requires for the future, and yet people are still building useless fucking nukes and war machines, wasting valuable resources that could be used for far superior areas of humanity's tech tree.[/QUOTE]
or we could put that focus onto promising areas of armor development like electric armor.
[QUOTE=Nikota;37987106]I'd say that was more because of general industry. And tanks were hardly the main factor considering how we produced way more planes than tanks, and planes were about 4-20 times more expensive.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't saying it was specificly tanks that brought us out of the depression, from building tractors to send to Europe to clear dirt, to building B-17's to bomb Germany and Japan, it was the mass production of munitions, weapons, and vehicles that helped bring us out of the depression.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;37987019]but its not applicable to today's issues. We are no longer on the great crusade[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it is or should be.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37987814]I know... learn to take a joke.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. usually jokes don't post sources
[QUOTE=Nikota;37986299]Ah yes. Because we can obviously use tanks in mountain warfare.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think tanks have treads and not wheels?
Murray does this shit for Washington all the time.
This is a good example of how inefficient and corrupt governments become.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;37988077]Why do you think tanks have treads and not wheels?[/QUOTE]
Weight distribution and easier to armor?
Why not put it into DARPA. At least the stuff they build can potentially have practical uses.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;37988077]Why do you think tanks have treads and not wheels?[/QUOTE]
It seems like you and the military have very different definition on what mountains are.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;37988478]Why not put it into DARPA. At least the stuff they build can potentially have practical uses.[/QUOTE]
Cheaper [URL="http://www.mattracks.com/"]Matt-tracks[/URL]
plz.
Can you imagine what it would be like if we were ever invaded and we rolled them all out as well as scrambling all our planes that we have in storage.
[img]http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/add160490e7e9ec11bfc67ef96094ce5fb38d9e5.jpg[/img]
It is insane how many military vehicles we have ready to go at a moments notice.
[QUOTE=imptastick;37988590]Can you imagine what it would be like if we were ever invaded and we rolled them all out as well as scrambling all our planes that we have in storage.
[img]http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/add160490e7e9ec11bfc67ef96094ce5fb38d9e5.jpg[/img]
It is insane how many military vehicles we have ready to go at a moments notice.[/QUOTE]
I imagine they would have to be fuelled up, taken to a runway and paired with a pilot first
[QUOTE=smurfy;37988711]I imagine they would have to be fuelled up, taken to a runway and paired with a pilot first[/QUOTE]
Still even then it is ridiculous, I dont think many other countries hold on to every vehicle like we do (I could be wrong though). I mean we keep churning out new ones without decommissioning the old ones.
[QUOTE=imptastick;37988590]Can you imagine what it would be like if we were ever invaded and we rolled them all out as well as scrambling all our planes that we have in storage.
[img]http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/add160490e7e9ec11bfc67ef96094ce5fb38d9e5.jpg[/img]
It is insane how many military vehicles we have ready to go at a moments notice.[/QUOTE]
Jesus fucking Christ.
We could have the worlds largest Air Force at a moments notice, and knock every other plane in the world out of the sky if we wanted to. That's an absolutely fucking [b]INSANE[/b] notion, and the fact that Congress wants to shell out by buying more tanks in one round than most of NATO combined is just disturbing, to say the least. We are literally the best/most-armed nation in the world, with not the budget, the money, nor the population to support it.
It's top-heavy, with too much equipment for too small a fighting force, with no tangible enemy to fight against, and with not enough money to keep it rolling. This is a fucking recipe for disaster, and Romney wants to increase the budget of the military? It's a fucking recipe for disaster.
[editline]10th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=smurfy;37988711]I imagine they would have to be fuelled up, taken to a runway and paired with a pilot first[/QUOTE]
Easily done. I'll bet you that the military has (similar to Russia) massive fuel storages with the capacity to put most (if not all) of those birds in the air.
With pilots, during WWII we would chunk out an entire squadron or eight of pilots in a few weeks.
Calm down Congress, the Cold War's over. You won't be having to face the Warsaw Pact anymore, just let go of the notion and move on.
Congress is trying to force 3bn in tanks but PBS costs too much.
Do we use tanks in the field? I haven't seen any other than in Iraq.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37988041]Sorry. usually jokes don't post sources[/QUOTE]
the notion that the US Army would field a Soviet piece of equipment for anything other than adversary training is just too absurd not to be a joke.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.