Abrams Tank Pushed By Congress Despite Army's Protests

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,578
Likes
7,797
Location
Near Framingham
um, we have drones that can take out tanks. Tanks are old outdated technology.

They were vital during the Iraq war and will be vital in any similar conflict.

The issue with stopping production is that not only will the experienced labor be lost, but the entire supply chain will go away. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and several years to restart production.

Comparing production of WWII tanks to Abrams tanks isn't realistic. Abrams are many times more complex than Sherman tanks.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
36,548
Likes
24,374
Location
PREM
Ya I know what you mean that nothing is fool-proof. But i'd rather be flying the drone from a command center and fire at an enemy tank than to be in a tank, face to face with another tank.

We ought to equip them with an AI and send them out to fight on our behalf. I'm sure it would work out well.


Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,165
Likes
206
Gonna have to agree with this statement.

Generals/Military Bureaucrats may be good at telling our elected officials what they need but lets be honest....their strong suit isn't economics nor is it manufacturing.

Letting our ability to manufacture/service/rebuild these resources means we lose years of time in getting these lines back up and running not to mention loss of manufacturing expertise

Ok so lets keep spending money that we don't have that just GREAT wait wait let me bendover and take alittle more this time I will try to SMILE and say thank you sir can I have another
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
36,548
Likes
24,374
Location
PREM
he actually made a decent point that losing the ability to manufacture this equipment could be a mistake in the long run .

I suspect our society will not maintain its level of high technology forever ...

Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,763
Likes
13,273
Ok so lets keep spending money that we don't have that just GREAT wait wait let me bendover and take alittle more this time I will try to SMILE and say thank you sir can I have another

I'm in complete agreement on spending.

The unfortunate reality is that military spending is but a mere drop in the bucket.

You think we owe 16 trillion? Think again.....our unfunded liabilities associated with medicare/medicaid/social security push that nut north of 100 trillion.

Does that mean we shouldn't cut wasteful spending no matter where it is in gooberment? Of course not.

Cutting our ability to be able to manufacture these resources and the supply/parts chain is not a bright idea.

It might be more productive to ask why the US Army alone is operating nearly 50 facilities/bases in germany alone? Surely we could consolidate ALL branches into 1-3 bases in germany without sacrificing our abilities one bit....in fact it would probably improve security by having to secure fewer bases.

Rinse and repeat across the world and we'll save a whole hell of a lot more in WASTEFUL spending than in preserving our ability to manufacture key resources.

While we're on the topic of spending....anyone else notice last week all the wasteful spending we saw in equipping on the order of 10,000 law enforcement officers to dress up as us army?

From humvees to armored vehicles to the rest of the gear.........I'm all for issueing a helmet and plate carrier for the trunk in an emergency but why do we need a whole other set of uniforms/bdu's etc....
 
Last edited:

falcon123

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,027
Likes
1,830
Location
Central Mass
Id rather them pour the money into a weapon system that is combat proven and WORKS vs billions into programs for equipment that is questionable and gets canceled anyway......see Marine Expeditionary Vehicle. id rather them Upgrade the M1A2s with the longer gun out of the Leapord 2 tank. Now that is an upgrade worth having



BS. The money should be spent on upgraded Obama phones.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,763
Likes
13,273
Especially after we go broke

We're already broke.

100 trillion is more than exists in the entire M3 global money supply.

Default is not a matter of 'If" but rather "When"

And as pointed out previously the major driver of debt is not constitutional spending on military but rather entitlements.

I'll be the first one to take issue with HOW our military is being used but not whether or not we should have a well equipped military ready to DEFEND these 50 states.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,165
Likes
206
Look spending any amount of money that you DO NOT HAVE IS WRONG now with that being said why not sell the old tanks use that money to rebuild the others that you want ( I was laid off I took all the money we had in the bank paid off all bills cut up credit cards sold anything we did not need or use ) yes I would like to buy a new car or new firearm maybe take my 3 grandykids on vacation but I CAN'T why because I don't have the money YOU DON'T SPEND MONEY THATS NOT YOURS TO SPEND O wait I could rise my wifes (husband taxs) after all its only her money that she works for RIGHT
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,763
Likes
13,273
Look spending any amount of money that you DO NOT HAVE IS WRONG now with that being said why not sell the old tanks use that money to rebuild the others that you want ( I was laid off I took all the money we had in the bank paid off all bills cut up credit cards sold anything we did not need or use ) yes I would like to buy a new car or new firearm maybe take my 3 grandykids on vacation but I CAN'T why because I don't have the money YOU DON'T SPEND MONEY THATS NOT YOURS TO SPEND O wait I could rise my wifes (husband taxs) after all its only her money that she works for RIGHT

You're barking up the wrong tree.

First consider the US Constitution and the constitutional role of the fed gov.

Sorry, but most of us are not going to suggest that the fed gov abdicate its constitutional obligation to provide for defense.

You want to make a difference and cut spending then start cutting unconstitutional sections of gov like welfare, dept of education, EPA, dept of energy, HHS, DHS, TSA etc etc etc....

I'm all for selling old tanks....I'd love to snap one up and put it in the driveway.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,165
Likes
206
You're barking up the wrong tree.

First consider the US Constitution and the constitutional role of the fed gov.

Sorry, but most of us are not going to suggest that the fed gov abdicate its constitutional obligation to provide for defense.

You want to make a difference and cut spending then start cutting unconstitutional sections of gov like welfare, dept of education, EPA, dept of energy, HHS, DHS, TSA etc etc etc....

I'm all for selling old tanks....I'd love to snap one up and put it in the driveway.
Sorry didn't mean to be that stuped But I can't find the part of the CONSTITUTION that said buy more tanks that the ARMY said we DO NOT want or need

2) You are 100% right about spending
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,165
Likes
206
I don't understand. Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy these tanks in China?


No it would cost half the price to rebuild them in china But our gov would still pay China full price for them just like ford dodge chevy ect ect LOL
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,763
Likes
13,273
Sorry didn't mean to be that stuped But I can't find the part of the CONSTITUTION that said buy more tanks that the ARMY said we DO NOT want or need

2) You are 100% right about spending

CONUS also doesn't say anything about muskets, m4's or f-22's but they fall squarely within the realm of defense and raising an army/navy

- - - Updated - - -

No it would cost half the price to rebuild them in china But our gov would still pay China full price for them just like ford dodge chevy ect ect LOL

Yes, and we could have them built with "Chinesium" and come with malcode pre-installed.

Wouldn't that be an effective use of taxpayer dollars?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,165
Likes
206
CONUS also doesn't say anything about muskets, m4's or f-22's but they fall squarely within the realm of defense and raising an army/navy

True and I would not spend 1 dime on any of it till we start to control speeding
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,763
Likes
13,273
True and I would not spend 1 dime on any of it till we start to control speeding

Thats as effective a strategy as refusing to control our borders until spending is under control and how is that working out for us?

You're biting off your nose to spite your face
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,165
Likes
206
Thats as effective a strategy as refusing to control our borders until spending is under control and how is that working out for us?

You're biting off your nose to spite your face
Not at all

You talking apples to oranges (we have to many tanks)now but as for the borders if you control the borders would would be cutting down on speeding (welfare)
2) stop sending money to ME 3) shut down the UN 4) make all gov.employee pay for there own lunch ,cars,ins, gas, ect ect ect thats how you start to control speeding it's a small step but still a step
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,763
Likes
13,273
Not at all

You talking apples to oranges (we have to many tanks)now but as for the borders if you control the borders would would be cutting down on speeding (welfare)
2) stop sending money to ME 3) shut down the UN 4) make all gov.employee pay for there own lunch ,cars,ins, gas, ect ect ect thats how you start to control speeding it's a small step but still a step

You don't understand and don't want to understand.

No point in argueing why maintaining our ability to build/maintain tanks is valuable

Best of luck
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,165
Likes
206
You don't understand and don't want to understand.

No point in argueing why maintaining our ability to build/maintain tanks is valuable

Best of luck

Thanks for argueing with me it was fun BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU DON'T SPEND MONEY JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN !!!

But thanks and you have a nice day
 

JuergenG

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,336
Likes
1,035
Location
3,660 miles East of Beantown
It might be more productive to ask why the US Army alone is operating nearly 50 facilities/bases in germany alone? Surely we could consolidate ALL branches into 1-3 bases in germany without sacrificing our abilities one bit....in fact it would probably improve security by having to secure fewer bases.

The U.S. Army is actually in the process of reducing forces in Germany BIG TIME, and they do it for several years now.
IIRC the last armored (as in tanks) unit is gone already, leaving some training facilities and one Stryker Brigade (2nd Cav
in Grafenwoehr).
Just in my vicinity an entire Armored Division (3rd "Spearhead") has left some years ago and has subsequently been
inactivated, along with V Corps Commandin Frankfurt. 1st Armor "Old Ironsides" has been relocated to Ft. Bliss and
2nd Armor "Hell on Wheels" is history, too.
Not sure of what Infantry units are left, but it can't be much. IMHO most of the facilities left are training, support
and supply - they're closer to the sandbox or A'stan than the 'ole U.S. of A. are.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,165
Likes
206
The U.S. Army is actually in the process of reducing forces in Germany BIG TIME, and they do it for several years now.
IIRC the last armored (as in tanks) unit is gone already, leaving some training facilities and one Stryker Brigade (2nd Cav
in Grafenwoehr).
Just in my vicinity an entire Armored Division (3rd "Spearhead") has left some years ago and has subsequently been
inactivated, along with V Corps Commandin Frankfurt. 1st Armor "Old Ironsides" has been relocated to Ft. Bliss and
2nd Armor "Hell on Wheels" is history, too.


Not sure of what Infantry units are left, but it can't be much. IMHO most of the facilities left are training, support
and supply - they're closer to the sandbox or A'stan than the 'ole U.S. of A. are.

The point I was making is this if you need to speeding more money on tanks then you need to stop speeding money on DHS ,Welfare, cars, ins, lunchs,gas, anything but something and it must be for the same amount .You can speeding 436 Million and only cut 40,000
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
7,658
Likes
750
Location
Live Free or Die
We don't need them, along with 80% of the military infrastructure we have. Our military is sized and geared for invading and "democracy building", not mainland defense. Let's go back to doing just mainland defense, with a big bowl of popcorn to watch what happens over there. No one can touch us over here with a military assault if we do that, and everyone knows it.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
3,008
Likes
668
Location
Near Worcester
We don't need them, along with 80% of the military infrastructure we have. Our military is sized and geared for invading and "democracy building", not mainland defense. Let's go back to doing just mainland defense, with a big bowl of popcorn to watch what happens over there. No one can touch us over here with a military assault if we do that, and everyone knows it.

Hey everyone is entitled to their own opinion so I respect yours. However I tend to disagree this is the exact kind of isolationist attitude that I think gets you into trouble.

We should be against tyranny and evil wherever it exists.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
727
Likes
12
Location
Attleboro, MA
We don't need them, along with 80% of the military infrastructure we have. Our military is sized and geared for invading and "democracy building", not mainland defense. Let's go back to doing just mainland defense, with a big bowl of popcorn to watch what happens over there. No one can touch us over here with a military assault if we do that, and everyone knows it.

The days when a vast ocean protected anything ceased 100's of yrs ago.

You want reduce our forces to what, nukes? A weapon that half the country doesn't think we should even have, and would never allow its use.

If what happened on the other side of the planet stayed there, things would be different.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,165
Likes
206
The days when a vast ocean protected anything ceased 100's of yrs ago.

You want reduce our forces to what, nukes? A weapon that half the country doesn't think we should even have, and would never allow its use.

If what happened on the other side of the planet stayed there, things would be different.[/QUOTE]

True but we are not the worlds police or the worlds bank
 

mav

NES Member
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
1,708
Likes
937
Location
Southeastern Mass
True but we are not the worlds police or the worlds bank

Actually, given we spend more on our military than the next 10 nations combined, given the US pays for 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget, and given the US dollar is the GLOBAL RESERVE CURRENCY, I'd say we have firmly planted ourselves in the position of both global financier and global police force.

TEAM AMERICA **** YEAH!
 
Top Bottom