http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/0 ... ?hpt=hp_c1
I think what you are seeing here is rapacious pork by lawmakers who want money coming into their districts at any cost so they won't get tossed out by their constituents and just good old fashioned vote buying from the affected industries' lobbyists.HERLONG, California (CNN) - If you need an example of why it is hard to cut the budget in Washington look no further than this Army depot in the shadow of the Sierra Nevada range.
CNN was allowed rare access to what amounts to a parking lot for more than 2,000 M-1 Abrams tanks. Here, about an hour's drive north of Reno, Nevada, the tanks have been collecting dust in the hot California desert because of a tiff between the Army and Congress.
The U.S. has more than enough combat tanks in the field to meet the nation's defense needs - so there's no sense in making repairs to these now, the Army's chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress earlier this year.
If the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new tanks for three years until new technologies are developed, the Army says it can save taxpayers as much as $3 billion.
That may seem like a lot of money, but it's a tiny sacrifice for a Defense Department that will cut $500 billion from its budget over the next decade and may be forced to cut a further $500 billion if a deficit cutting deal is not reached by Congress.
Why is this a big deal? For one, the U.S. hasn't stopped producing tanks since before World War II, according to lawmakers.
Plus, from its point of view the Army would prefer to decide what it needs and doesn't need to keep America strong while making tough economic cuts elsewhere.
"When a relatively conservative institution like the U.S. military, which doesn't like to take risks because risks get people killed, says it has enough tanks, I think generally civilians should be inclined to believe them," said Travis Sharp a fellow at the defense think tank, New American Security.
But guess which group of civilians isn't inclined to agree with the generals on this point?
Congress.
To be exact, 173 House members - Democrats and Republicans - sent a letter April 20 to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, urging him to continue supporting their decision to produce more tanks.
That's right. Lawmakers who frequently and loudly proclaim that presidents should listen to generals when it comes to battlefield decisions are refusing to take its own advice.
If the U.S. pauses tank production and refurbishment it will hurt the nation's industrial economy, lawmakers say.
The military wastes a ton of money and never met a toy they didn't want so when they are saying "we have enough" they got a s*** ton. if they are telling you you are going too far, you are going WAY too far."General Dynamics is not the industrial base," Pease said. "It is small vendors."
But General Dynamics certainly has a stake in the battle of the tanks and is making sure its investment is protected, according to research done by The Center for Public Integrity, a journalism watchdog group.
What its reporters found was General Dynamics campaign contributions given to lawmakers at key times, such as around congressional hearings, on whether or not to build more tanks.
"We aren't saying there's vote buying" said Aaron Metha, one of the report's authors. "We are saying it's true in pretty much all aspects of politics - but especially the defense industry. It's almost impossible to separate out the money that is going into elections and the special interests. And what we found was the direct spike in the giving around certain important dates that were tied to votes."
So, wait, the Army is right? Look folks. I think the festivities in the Persian Gulf region keenly illustrated that there is not a mechanized force rolling across this earth that can stop an Army tank brigade scorned. This fantasy that we will be behind the curve in three years and it will somehow affect our national security is a bunch of marketing s***. The only people with tanks in the same class, arguably slightly better than ours are countries that, first, are freinds of ours, and second, if they combined their collective tank assets together in one place would get stomped by sheer numbers of Abrams.But General Dynamics said it will cost a lot less to keep the plant open. Pease said the Army hasn't factored in the huge costs of closing the plant and the potential loss of skilled workers who will be needed come 2017 when the Army plans to remodel the Abrams tank.
"It's not whether they need those tanks, it's how much it costs to restart it," said Pease. General Dynamics, he said, will survive with or without refurbishing tanks over the next three years.
Additionally, the evolution of warfare is such that tanks fill an increasingly shinking role on the modern battlefield. They are not totally irrelevant, but the main battle tank is much like the battleship was, a dated system that is really only useful in open conflict across large areas that allow maneuve battle. If you are in an enemy tank, the Abrams should the last of your worries. You don't want to see one of these loitering around.
Don't worry. You probably won't see it, you will be dead before you know it's even there. Kind of unfair, I know.
f*** you General Dynamics. Show us how you can survive without the business.
We are f*** ING BROKE WASHINGTON! Get with the goddamned program and start living within your means.
^ Very sweet indeed!