American Military Bases (and other Spending)

[fireheart17]

The reason for a base in Australia is in part due to the ANZUS treaty IIRC (really it should be the AUS treaty since NZ backed out in the 70's-80's). There are two in Ausland, both of which deal with communications. (we also have New Zealand and Singapore bases in Australia). Australia does not have any overseas bases though (from memory).

[crashhelmet]

Fun facts: You're paying the premium price for product that meets military specifications. Sure, there are probably commercial equivalents that will meet those specifications as well, but they won't carry the guarantee that mil-spec product does.

Also, as often as not, that price will cover things other than just the price to produce the item. I know that some of the orders we get have the cost of shipping rolled into the price of the item because they have the budget for the part but aren't allowed to pay for freight separately.

^-.-^

I've worked government contracts with government provided tools because I was not permitted to bring anything into the room with me. Outside of appearance, they are no different than what I buy and use myself. They serve the exact same functionality, but cost 4-5 times as much as what I'd pay. And they buy in bulk!

[wraiths_crono]

I was watching a documentary on this topic before. I think it was the world without US, the worst option would be: if we pulled all those bases we would get a stronger US defense border, but most of our allies would be wiped off the planet by the ones that hate them with in a year at the most. China would probably attack Taiwan, and Japan. N Korea would destroy the south, Isreal would be taken out by anyone around them that hates them.. and so on. mostly Germany, France and the UK would be safe thanks to their own military..

[crashhelmet]

From CNN, Thanks But No Tanks

This is another place where money can be cut

[insertNameHere]

I'm North of Lima, OH where they make the tanks, people been freaking out what will happen to the economy if that place closes. Not to mention how bad Detroit is with auto industry. As a county we really need to start producing something people want and with the military cuts they have been making as of late, unless we get into a major war it only going to keep getting lower.

[s_stabeler]

just on an unrelated note- Lima, Ohio? isn't that where Glee is set? for that matter, wasn't general dynamics the company in eureka?

Seriously, though, when the army is telling Congress to stop buying or repairing tanks for three years, that sounds like a massive surplus of tanks, not merely sufficient. The army is saying that they can replace losses of vehicles from the existing fleet w/o repairing tanks. for three years. this from people inclined to ask for more than they strictly need. This, ultimately, is why you need to be careful abut protecting budgets. Sure, $3 billion isn't going to fix the deficit, but when it's essentially wasted...

[mikoyan29]

there is one case where I would see the need for a new tank and that's mainly to keep the production line going because tank building is something that can be lost and would be hard to recover if we really need to. the same could be said for shipbuilding.

[daleduke17]

there is one case where I would see the need for a new tank and that's mainly to keep the production line going because tank building is something that can be lost and would be hard to recover if we really need to. the same could be said for shipbuilding.

At one time the Caterpillar factories around where I live could move from making bulldozers to tanks in ~48 hours. A tank is just a bulldozer with a gun barrel on it. The reason for the 48 hours was to get gun barrels into the factories.

I'm going to guess two things: 1 - the factories can still be converted in that time and 2 - John Deere, International Harvester and Kumatsu can all be moved over in about the same time frame.

If it were to happen, I know some Cat people would be making some wicked nice OT probably.

[s_stabeler]

there is one case where I would see the need for a new tank and that's mainly to keep the production line going because tank building is something that can be lost and would be hard to recover if we really need to. the same could be said for shipbuilding.

No, actually on the shipbuilding- there is generally plenty of civilian shipbuilding or repair going on at any one time so the skills would likely not be lost. As for tankbuilding, the production line would need to be redone for a new tank anyway, and the army have said they have enough tanks to last until the next generation of tanks is brought into service without repairing any, from my read of what the army are saying. That's insane.

[mikoyan29]

At one time the Caterpillar factories around where I live could move from making bulldozers to tanks in ~48 hours. A tank is just a bulldozer with a gun barrel on it. The reason for the 48 hours was to get gun barrels into the factories.

I'm going to guess two things: 1 - the factories can still be converted in that time and 2 - John Deere, International Harvester and Kumatsu can all be moved over in about the same time frame.

If it were to happen, I know some Cat people would be making some wicked nice OT probably.

the M-1 Abrams has some pretty exotic materials though.

The tractor to tank may have been true through the M-60, but not so sure about the Abrams.

[wolfie]

No, actually on the shipbuilding- there is generally plenty of civilian shipbuilding or repair going on at any one time so the skills would likely not be lost.

One of the reasons the Jones Act requires ships traveling between U.S. ports to be U.S. registered (which also requires that they be U.S. built). This ensures that there is enough civilian shipbuilding in the U.S. that the skills won't be lost, and will therefore be available for military shipbuilding. The Jones Act is why cruises to Alaska leave from Vancouver, B.C. rather than Seattle WA, and NEVER visit more than one port in Alaska.

the M-1 Abrams has some pretty exotic materials though.

The tractor to tank may have been true through the M-60, but not so sure about the Abrams.

I'd say it wouldn't apply to the Abrams. Older tanks (with diesel engines) had a lot in common with tractors, but switching to a turbine engine (as in the Abrams) reduced the commonality.