M1 Abrams tank: Pentagon doesn't want it; contractors/ lobbyists do

[anatta]

The M1 Abrams tank has survived the Cold War, two conflicts in Iraq and a decade of war in Afghanistan. No wonder – it weighs as much as nine elephants and is fitted with a cannon capable of turning a building to rubble from two and a half miles away.

But now the machine finds itself a target in an unusual battle between the Defense Department and lawmakers who are the beneficiaries of large donations by its manufacturer.


The Pentagon, facing smaller budgets and looking towards a new global strategy, has decided it wants to save as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishment of the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the hulking, clanking vehicle from top to bottom.

ts proposal would idle a large factory in Lima, Ohio, as well as halt work at dozens of subcontractors in Pennsylvania, Michigan and other states.

Opposing the Pentagon’s plans is Abrams manufacturer General Dynamics, a nationwide employer that has pumped millions of dollars into congressional elections over the last decade. The tank’s supporters on Capitol Hill say they are desperate to save jobs in their districts and concerned about undermining America’s military capability.
So far, the contractor is winning the battle, after a well-organized campaign of lobbying and political donations involving the lawmakers on four key committees that will decide the tanks’ fate, according to an analysis of spending and lobbying records by the Center for Public Integrity.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...-the-army-tank-that-could-not-be-stopped?lite

 

[anatta]

the MIC rules DC. The Pentagon wants to hold off for re-design, but the MIC contractors want to make it now.
Congress looks for the MIC to create jobs. Our economy has to have a war machine to survive. blech.

 

[blackascoal]

More evidence of who runs this country. It isn't the president or the American people.

The Founders must be rolling over in their graves.

 

[anatta]

The fouders didn't want entangling alliances ( or at least Washington's words) -we not only have alliances/security treatys all over the world, now we're basing MILITARY aquisition decisions, on how it effects our economy. WTF? Who runs this contry indeed.

 

[/MSG/]

Uhh, I can tell you another group of people who want it; the users. The Abrams is a gas hog (it uses a actual jet turbine for an engine) but it's pretty much indestructible. Only thing that CAN stop it is a proper EFP. And currently there isn't a tank in the world that can top it (though the Brits come close with theres).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The fouders didn't want entangling alliances ( or at least Washington's words) -we not only have alliances/security treatys all over the world, now we're basing MILITARY aquisition decisions, on how it effects our economy. WTF? Who runs this contry indeed.

What was practical when we were a small, geographical isolated country has changed in an increasingly globalized age in which we are the strongest country in the world. Really, I think that we held on to extreme isolationism too long. We should've never sat back while Germany sank the Lusitania, and our refusal to enter WWII until Pearl Harbor significantly endangered us. And if we had returned to isolationism after the war, when we were the only power center left that could really stand against the Soviet Union, we would've simply abandoned the world to their aggressive expansionism.

Sure, some of our actions in the cold war, such as the Vietnam war, and our support of dictatorial regimes, eres dishonorable and unwise. But the most important thing is that we were a force for the Soviets to fear. There were plenty of times that the Soviets backed down from expanding or staging revolutions in other countries because they feared antagonizing us. If we had simply turned inward and said "the world can fuck itself", and the only force left to oppose them were the British or something, they would've had no such fears.

Greece and Turkey, for instance, would've easily fallen to Communism. Stalin would never have told the rebels to back off (he only did so for fear of antagonizing the US), these countries would've never gotten the US military aid to fight them (which was a controversial break from isolationism at the time), and the Soviet union might've even intervened because, after all, who's there to stop them? Stalin would've allowed the French Communist party to go forward with their planned coup (something he put a stop to only because, again, he didn't want to antagonize us). Other countries with large Communist parties, such as Italy, probably would've fallen to coups or revolutions as well. It's important to remember that the central leadership of most Communist parties in the world at this period of time did largely take orders from Moscow, and most only stopped after outrage over the suppression of democratic uprisings in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Communist sphere (the rank and file, however, was largely ignorant of this; I'm not trying to justify the hysterical McCarthyite denunciations of anyone and everyone who ever had associations with the party). And the Soviet Union might have restarted their invasion of Finland. And after such huge victories, the more liberal reformist members of the Communist party likely would've backed down. There would've never been a Krushev or a Gorbachev seeking reconciliation with the west, just one Stalinist after another.

The Korean peninsula would've been reunified by Kim Il-Sung, setting a precedent that such aggressive military action was acceptable and would go unpunished. And with no fear of US reprisals, the now incredibly strong Soviet Union would've likely solved the Sino-Soviet split by invading China and setting up a more friendly regime. I suppose it is also possible that Mao would've acknowledged his weak position in such a state of affairs (without the possibility of US intereference should the SU invade the PRC) and simply never have started the split in the first place. Nixon never would've gone to China, and never would've initiated that fatal blow to the Communist sphere by breaking off their second most powerful member. Deng Xiaping likely never would've gotten into power over the Gang of Four, and never would've initiated his capitalist reforms. Even if he had tried, the Soviet Union would've easily squashed the effort.

In South America, there would've been no US support to democratic regimes trying to fight off Communist rebels. Countries such as Peru (with it's Shining Path rebels) and Colombia (with the FARC) would've had a much tougher time at least, and far from having the crucial US support, the rebels probably would've been getting ample support from a Communist sphere which didn't have to worry about antagonizing the US.

Personally, I think the US should move away from bilateral treaties (besides to a few select allies, such as the UK) and towards promoting a system of international law. However, those very isolationist idea present in the US often conflict with this. The US demanded permanent membership in the UN security council and a veto on all attempts to combat aggressive wars because isolationist sentiment in the US was worried about having to get into wars in which we had no direct interest. Naturally, other great powers demanded vetos as well. And the result of all of this was a worthless UN that simply gave carte blanche to certain special countries to act with all the aggression they wished. Law is the method by which the weak combine their strength to force the strong to act justly. And, of course, the strong oppose this.

Again, a return to an isolationist US is totally impractical in the modern world. It would, at best, be an abandonment of the concept of justice. And, in any case, it's not like our enemies are going to be like "Oh, they're isolationist now, we should just ignore them". Instead, they're going to use it as an oppurtunity to take advantage of us. It's just completely and totally naive to think otherwise.

 

[anatta]

Uhh, I can tell you another group of people who want it; the users. The Abrams is a gas hog (it uses a actual jet turbine for an engine) but it's pretty much indestructible. Only thing that CAN stop it is a proper EFP. And currently there isn't a tank in the world that can top it (though the Brits come close with theres).

Pentagon doesnt want to stop Abrams - wants to redesign it fron it's huge profile, i would imagine hardening , better design.
It's not being stoped but it's suposed to be reworked to fit out with less weight, but still capable. Congres doesn't want to stop production during redesign.

That's dumb.

 

[anatta]

What was practical when we were a small, geographical isolated country has changed in an increasingly globalized age in which we are the strongest country in the world. Really, I think that we held on to extreme isolationism too long. We should've never sat back while Germany sank the Lusitania, and our refusal to enter WWII until Pearl Harbor significantly endangered us. And if we had returned to isolationism after the war, when we were the only power center left that could really stand against the Soviet Union, we would've simply abandoned the world to their aggressive expansionism.

Sure, some of our actions in the cold war, such as the Vietnam war, and our support of dictatorial regimes, eres dishonorable and unwise. But the most important thing is that we were a force for the Soviets to fear. There were plenty of times that the Soviets backed down from expanding or staging revolutions in other countries because they feared antagonizing us. If we had simply turned inward and said "the world can fuck itself", and the only force left to oppose them were the British or something, they would've had no such fears.

Greece and Turkey, for instance, would've easily fallen to Communism. Stalin would never have told the rebels to back off (he only did so for fear of antagonizing the US), these countries would've never gotten the US military aid to fight them (which was a controversial break from isolationism at the time), and the Soviet union might've even intervened because, after all, who's there to stop them? Stalin would've allowed the French Communist party to go forward with their planned coup (something he put a stop to only because, again, he didn't want to antagonize us). Other countries with large Communist parties, such as Italy, probably would've fallen to coups or revolutions as well. It's important to remember that the central leadership of most Communist parties in the world at this period of time did largely take orders from Moscow, and most only stopped after outrage over the suppression of democratic uprisings in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Communist sphere (the rank and file, however, was largely ignorant of this; I'm not trying to justify the hysterical McCarthyite denunciations of anyone and everyone who ever had associations with the party). And the Soviet Union might have restarted their invasion of Finland. And after such huge victories, the more liberal reformist members of the Communist party likely would've backed down. There would've never been a Krushev or a Gorbachev seeking reconciliation with the west, just one Stalinist after another.

The Korean peninsula would've been reunified by Kim Il-Sung, setting a precedent that such aggressive military action was acceptable and would go unpunished. And with no fear of US reprisals, the now incredibly strong Soviet Union would've likely solved the Sino-Soviet split by invading China and setting up a more friendly regime. I suppose it is also possible that Mao would've acknowledged his weak position in such a state of affairs (without the possibility of US intereference should the SU invade the PRC) and simply never have started the split in the first place. Nixon never would've gone to China, and never would've initiated that fatal blow to the Communist sphere by breaking off their second most powerful member. Deng Xiaping likely never would've gotten into power over the Gang of Four, and never would've initiated his capitalist reforms. Even if he had tried, the Soviet Union would've easily squashed the effort.

In South America, there would've been no US support to democratic regimes trying to fight off Communist rebels. Countries such as Peru (with it's Shining Path rebels) and Colombia (with the FARC) would've had a much tougher time at least, and far from having the crucial US support, the rebels probably would've been getting ample support from a Communist sphere which didn't have to worry about antagonizing the US.

Personally, I think the US should move away from bilateral treaties (besides to a few select allies, such as the UK) and towards promoting a system of international law. However, those very isolationist idea present in the US often conflict with this. The US demanded permanent membership in the UN security council and a veto on all attempts to combat aggressive wars because isolationist sentiment in the US was worried about having to get into wars in which we had no direct interest. Naturally, other great powers demanded vetos as well. And the result of all of this was a worthless UN that simply gave carte blanche to certain special countries to act with all the aggression they wished. Law is the method by which the weak combine their strength to force the strong to act justly. And, of course, the strong oppose this.

Again, a return to an isolationist US is totally impractical in the modern world. It would, at best, be an abandonment of the concept of justice. And, in any case, it's not like our enemies are going to be like "Oh, they're isolationist now, we should just ignore them". Instead, they're going to use it as an oppurtunity to take advantage of us. It's just completely and totally naive to think otherwise.

Interesting info -thank you!! Agree the US does still carry the weight of security: sea lanes, nukes, a navy being out bult long term by China,,but US technology has what has given us the advantage. We need to stay ourt of wars of agression though - that includes Syria. That's a foreign civil war, not up to us to inject US power, anymore then Libya.