SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (222708)3/7/2005 9:08:44 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) of 1574439
 
"Abrams tanks and heavy bombers have both proved useful in our smaller recent wars."

Abrams are of very limited utility in most of our likely confrontations. They worked out ok in Iraq, which is why I labeled them as marginal. But outside of Europe or possibly China, they probably wouldn't be any use. They need a large airport or a good shipyard to bring them in, and that would be lacking in most of the places we are likely to need tanks. We need something smaller and lighter but with good fire power and speed. Those aren't mutually exclusive parameters. Something like the Abrams is needed if it goes up against another MBT, and almost nobody outside of NATO has them.

The B2 is another story. Yeah, we used them mainly because in Gulf War I a lot of people were wondering why we didn't use them. Our workhorse remains the B52 mainly because it is an appropriate weapon system in the situations we have needed them. No one outside of NATO has the technology to threaten a B52.

Now the B52 needs to be replaced, that has been true for at least 3 decades. But an ultra-expensive stealthed bomber than can fly halfway around the world probably isn't the best choice. For what is needed, a modified 747 would be fine. Not very sexy, but more than adequate.

And so on. We have a lot of ultra-expensive weapon systems that made sense when the Soviets were bleeding themselves white to counter us. They died as a result. In todays world, there isn't anyone who is going to step up to that particular plate for a good 20 years. And even then, that would be China and only if China can navigate through some pretty rough waters and they don't return to their recent traditional model of a patchwork of kingdoms controlled by warlords.We should keep the research going in case we need such systems in the future, but we don't need to field these things. As we have seen in Iraq, we need to be able to put boots on the ground that are well protected and have more teeth than anyone else. We also need to be able to put said boots anywhere in the world on short notice. We can't do that. But we can cruise $100 billion carrier groups that can defend themselves against forces that no longer exist past any coastal point within a matter of days. Fat lot of good that it does...
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News