Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe end of the tank? The Army says it doesn’t need it, but industry wants to keep building it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.htmlThe end of the tank? The Army says it doesnt need it, but industry wants to keep building it.
By Marjorie Censer, Published: January 31
YORK, PA. When an armored vehicle pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the Iraq War, it triggered a wave of pride here at the BAE Systems plant where that rig was built. The Marines who rolled to glory in it even showed up to pay their regards to the factory workers.
That bond between the machinists and tradesmen supporting the war effort at home and those fighting on the front lines has held tight for generations as long as the tank has served as a symbol of military might.
Now that representation of U.S. power is rolling into another sort of morass: the emotional debates playing out as Congress, the military and the defense industry adapt to stark new realities in modern warfare and in the nations finances.
Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Armys chief of staff, made its case before Congress in 2012. We dont need the tanks, he said. Our tank fleet is 2-1/2 years old average now. Were in good shape, and these are additional tanks that we dont need.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1138 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The end of the tank? The Army says it doesn’t need it, but industry wants to keep building it. (Original Post)
jsr
Feb 2014
OP
Isn't this where we hear about the need to keep building for when we do need them?
Savannahmann
Feb 2014
#1
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)1. Isn't this where we hear about the need to keep building for when we do need them?
That was the excuse for Aircraft Carriers. If we stop building them we won't remember how to build them when we do need to build one.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)2. They make excellent targets. nt
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)3. It's Congress, not just industry
Large end items like tanks and cargo planes are close to perfect government projects in that they have parts made in hundreds of congressional districts. (The perfct government project has parts made in all 435 congressional districts, which won't ever happen.) When they find a near-perfect project it never dies because no congressman wants "he voted to eliminate 250 jobs in our district" in the papers.
This has gone on for decades...the USAF got 10 C-130s every year Newt was in office because they're bolted together in his district.