Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mefustae on February 27, 2008, 10:50:13 pm
-
The Iraqi Army has decided - entirely by their own volition with no outside influence, obviously - to make the switch from the AK-47 to the M-16 as their standard infantry rifle.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,162878,00.html?wh=wh
In a move that could be the most enduring imprint of U.S. influence in the Arab world, American military officials in Baghdad have begun a crash program to outfit the entire Iraqi army with M-16 rifles.
The initiative marks a sharp break for a culture steeped in the traditions of the Soviet-era AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle, a symbol of revolutionary zeal and third-world simplicity that is ubiquitous among the militaries of the Middle East.
"We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK ... it's more durable," said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who's in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.
"The Iraqis have embraced that ... and the fact that it is U.S. manufactured and supplied. They are very big on U.S.-produced [foreign military sales] materials," he said in an interview with military bloggers this month.
So far, the U.S. military has helped the Iraqi army purchase 43,000 rifles - a mix of full-stock M-16A2s and compact M-4 carbines. Another 50,000 rifles are currently on order, and the objective is to outfit the entire Iraqi army with 165,000 American rifles in a one-for-one replacement of the AK-47.
"Our goal is to give every Iraqi soldier an M-16A2 or an M-4," Scott said. "And as the Iraqi army grows, we will adjust."
Scott added the mass of AK-47s from various manufacturers floating through the Iraqi army's inventory could cause maintenance and reliability problems. Getting both U.S. and Iraqi forces on the same page when it comes to basic weaponry is part of the argument for M-16 outfitting.
"I'm also a fan of AKs," Scott said. "But keep in mind most of these AKs have been sitting around in bunkers or whatnot for 30 or 40 years [and] are in various stages of disrepair."
A variety of U.S. troops, including SEALs, Marines and Soldiers - and even civilian contractors - are training Iraqis on the M-16 and M-4 throughout the country. One civilian trainer told Military.com during a brief interview in Iraq that the Iraqi soldiers are a little behind the average American trooper when it comes to learning the various parts and breakdown of the M-16, but they're enthusiastic and quick learners on the range.
After seeing some of the firing range training himself, Scott added that he "asked the Iraqis how they liked the weapon and they said it was far superior, it was more accurate ... and more reliable."
"I think the transition is almost transparent from those older AKs," he said.
A system that registers each rifle with the individual who receives it using biometric data such as thumb prints and eye scans is meant to address concerns over U.S. weapons winding up in enemy hands. A July 2007 Government Accountability Office report concluded that as many as 190,000 weapons delivered to the Iraqi army were not accounted for and could've wound up in terrorist caches.
That's something Scott isn't going to allow on his watch.
"These Iraqi soldiers know that this weapon becomes part of their person," he said. "And they also know that they are responsible and accountable for that weapon."
And from the looks of it, Iraqi soldiers aren't willing to hand them over to the bad guys.
"Most of the soldiers think they will be just like the Americans, and that is making them very happy," said Capt. Rafaat Mejal Ahmed, the Iraqi 1st Division weapons and ammunition officer, in a Marine Corps release. "They think the modern technology will make them more powerful."
Safe to say, this is going to net Colt a profit in the millions, if not billions, all the while weakening the Iraqi Army in future engagements. If this isn't proof of the US Military-Industrial Complex pulling strings to make a killing (pun intended) from this war, I don't know what is.
-
I don't get it.. how would having superior rifles harm them.. sounds like a win win situation to me.. :wtf:
-
How is it sabotaging the Iraqi army, if I may ask? Other than the fact they're buying it from us, the Iraqis have nothing but to benefit from this. The M16A2's a better rifle, far more accurate, and is quite easier to maintain than the AK. It has one of the most simplistic learning curves of any weapon I have ever fired, meaning the Iraqis will be trained on it in no time.
But I guess the point wasn't that, but rather that an American company will benefit from this. Because hell, upgrading an army to better weaponry is on the same level as sending in Blackwater teams to shoot up the countryside. I almost forgot.
-
If I'm not mistaken, aren't M-16s notorious for requiring constant cleaning, compared to the AK-47, which you can practically drop in mud, then pick it right up and shoot?
I mean, the M-16 is more accurate, but I thought it was pretty much certain that the AK-47 was easier to maintain/produce?
Oh, and Mefustae, seems like you're just trying to find another reason to hate America. So what if it's Colt's weapons - they really are better overall than AK's.
-
No, I think he's commenting on how one cannot help but chuckle at the large contracts that were definitely not our motivation for the invasion of Iraq.
I also can't wait until years from now when the government of the new "free" Iraq is using weapons we sold them to commit new and exciting atrocities and everyone wonders how such a scenario could arise.
-
I can't quote costs per weapon for each, but I know from experience that all you really need to do to maintain an M16 in fighting shape is make sure the barrel is clear of dust and it'll work fine. It's not a bad idea to take the five minutes it takes to fully disassemble the M16 into pieces, give each piece a thorough cleaning, and reassemble whenever given the chance, but it can go two weeks or so without such a cleaning.
So long as you're not pouring sand down the barrel each day, then the weapon works fine.
-
I can't quote costs per weapon for each, but I know from experience that all you really need to do to maintain an M16 in fighting shape is make sure the barrel is clear of dust and it'll work fine. It's not a bad idea to take the five minutes it takes to fully disassemble the M16 into pieces, give each piece a thorough cleaning, and reassemble whenever given the chance, but it can go two weeks or so without such a cleaning.
So long as you're not pouring sand down the barrel each day, the weapon works fine.
-
but it can go two weeks or so without such a cleaning
Just don't tell that to any recruits :p It absolutely must be cleaned twice every day or it will blow up in your hands!!
-
If I'm not mistaken, aren't M-16s notorious for requiring constant cleaning, compared to the AK-47, which you can practically drop in mud, then pick it right up and shoot?
I mean, the M-16 is more accurate, but I thought it was pretty much certain that the AK-47 was easier to maintain/produce?
Actually, the ease of production is somewhat misleading. While the AK is far, far simpler, it was designed with large, Soviet-esque production lines in mind, and isn't perfectly suited to smaller production facilities you would find in nations like Iraq. Moreover, while we're talking about the far more modern and less problematic M16A2 here, the AK-47 has always had the edge in reliability and durability in ****ty conditions, which is exactly where this army is going to be spending 99% of its time.
The fact of the matter is that the M16 is more expensive, less reliable given the conditions, and requires a complete retraining of their entire army to introduce. In essence, this entire move is based on publicity/propaganda and profiteering by the American military-industrial complex. This really is no different than all the other pocket-lining and money-grubbing we've seen in Iraq over the past 4 years, but it's kinda funny to see an Army colonel say the M16 is more durable than the AK.
Oh, and Mefustae, seems like you're just trying to find another reason to hate America. So what if it's Colt's weapons - they really are better overall than AK's.
I see it as blatant profiteering in a war-torn region. Defying logic and common sense in favour of substantial dollar value. That what I hate about America, whereas you're making it out as if i'd like to grab the nearest yank and grind his bones to make my bread...
...Although, I am kind of hungry... *gets wooden club*
-
It's so funny when people start hating based on nationality. I find it worse than racism.
-
I'm going to skip over the part where I pretend to care about demonstrating that no such thing is taking place in this discussion, and proceed directly to the academic question: Why exactly do you find that to be worse than racism?
-
Damn, I kept wondering when this was coming; it seems unreasonable not to expect it. But I think the military-industrial complex has bigger fish to fry - a few years down the road, it wouldn't surprise me if those old Czech T-72s are replaced with M1A2s, Mi-17s with Blackhawks and so on. There's hardly any margin on small arms, especially when you're used to selling big-ticket projects to the US government.
Mind you, I don't necessarily consider this to be a bad thing. One's as good as the other, and probably about as cheap. I have no real love for the Russian government of their state arms corporations.
I see it as blatant profiteering in a war-torn region. Defying logic and common sense in favour of substantial dollar value. That what I hate about America, whereas you're making it out as if i'd like to grab the nearest yank and grind his bones to make my bread...
War-torn regions generally do not lack for weapons, especially rifles and such. If it wasn't Colt, it would be the Pakistanis or Russians or Iranians or Chinese or someone else. Or the good old black market. There hasn't been a war in history where those who wanted weapons couldn't get them from someplace.
-
I'm going to skip over the part where I pretend to care about demonstrating that no such thing is taking place in this discussion, and proceed directly to the academic question: Why exactly do you find that to be worse than racism?
You're not even hating based on something real. You're hating someone for being born on a certain plot of land. That's even less credible than hating someone for the color of their skin.
-
Race is as discursive a phenomenon as national identity. Its basis doesn't make it any more "real"; they're both wrapped in impenetrable layers of arbitrary meaning.
-
The fact of the matter is that the M16 is more expensive, less reliable given the conditions, and requires a complete retraining of their entire army to introduce. In essence, this entire move is based on publicity/propaganda and profiteering by the American military-industrial complex. This really is no different than all the other pocket-lining and money-grubbing we've seen in Iraq over the past 4 years, but it's kinda funny to see an Army colonel say the M16 is more durable than the AK.
Given the age of most of the AKs probably in service with the Iraqis, and how much abuse they've seen already, giving them anything new would probably result in their having more durable weapons. The guns don't exist vacuum-packed, they've gone out and been used for ages now. And the AK's performance degrades much more rapidly. It will still fire long after and M16 has stopped, but as a practical matter, the M16 will be effective longer.
-
Given the age of most of the AKs probably in service with the Iraqis, and how much abuse they've seen already, giving them anything new would probably result in their having more durable weapons. The guns don't exist vacuum-packed, they've gone out and been used for ages now. And the AK's performance degrades much more rapidly. It will still fire long after and M16 has stopped, but as a practical matter, the M16 will be effective longer.
Ah, okay, you've got me there. Didn't quite think of it from that angle. As it stands, the US asking Russia (or anyone who makes knockoffs) for a few thousand AK-47s wouldn't really work politically.
-
American M16's more reliable and durable then the AK-47?? Hah. That is one of the most ridicolous things i have ever heard. Also the acuracy of the Ak-47 is much greater if you know how to shoot it. However the M-16's and the Ak-47 are designed with 2 different ideologies in mind. The ak-47 has its standard fire mode in fullautomatic. While the m-16 if i remember corectly has semi-automatic one-shot at a time tipe of fire.
The ak-47 is more suited for close range combat . Also the ak 47 can actualy puch through a brick wall while the m16 with its little bullets has a hard time getting trough anithing thinker then a standard wooden beam used for construction.
However as far as pick it up shoot it acuracy goes the m-16 wins hand down. However the fact that it has a a much smaller stopping power then the ak-47 and is generaly ore expensive to produce and requires constant manitenence makes it second best if not 3-rd best. And the ak-47 and its variants some of them improved versions with greater range acuracy etc. will continue to be the supreme weapons of choice.
-
I don't get it.. how would having superior rifles harm them.. sounds like a win win situation to me.. :wtf:
the last thing that country needs is MORE guns. :rolleyes:
EDIT: Speaking of which, comments on M-16 and AK-47 from anyone who hasn't used both rifles are meaningless. I feels like a garbage man trying to explain to me why open heart surgery is better than closed one.
-
oh wow, its like handing them toy guns :D
AK 47 is the best gun produced to date.
-
American M16's more reliable and durable then the AK-47?? Hah. That is one of the most ridicolous things i have ever heard. Also the acuracy of the Ak-47 is much greater if you know how to shoot it. However the M-16's and the Ak-47 are designed with 2 different ideologies in mind. The ak-47 has its standard fire mode in fullautomatic. While the m-16 if i remember corectly has semi-automatic one-shot at a time tipe of fire.
The ak-47 is more suited for close range combat . Also the ak 47 can actualy puch through a brick wall while the m16 with its little bullets has a hard time getting trough anithing thinker then a standard wooden beam used for construction.
However as far as pick it up shoot it acuracy goes the m-16 wins hand down. However the fact that it has a a much smaller stopping power then the ak-47 and is generaly ore expensive to produce and requires constant manitenence makes it second best if not 3-rd best. And the ak-47 and its variants some of them improved versions with greater range acuracy etc. will continue to be the supreme weapons of choice.
M16 does have automatic fire. What are you smoking? :pimp:
It's one of the best automatic guns in the world in use in over 50 countries worldwide. But, then again, comparing anything in the hlpbb forums it's very much so around here comparing **** to ****. Everyone will ignore real word reality in here anyway because the ak47 is **** as well as the m16 in this argument.
-
AK 47 is the best gun produced to date.
And how do you know that?
For the record "because everybody knows that" is not a valid answer.
-
American M16's more reliable and durable then the AK-47?? Hah. That is one of the most ridicolous things i have ever heard. Also the acuracy of the Ak-47 is much greater if you know how to shoot it. However the M-16's and the Ak-47 are designed with 2 different ideologies in mind. The ak-47 has its standard fire mode in fullautomatic. While the m-16 if i remember corectly has semi-automatic one-shot at a time tipe of fire.
The ak-47 is more suited for close range combat . Also the ak 47 can actualy puch through a brick wall while the m16 with its little bullets has a hard time getting trough anithing thinker then a standard wooden beam used for construction.
However as far as pick it up shoot it acuracy goes the m-16 wins hand down. However the fact that it has a a much smaller stopping power then the ak-47 and is generaly ore expensive to produce and requires constant manitenence makes it second best if not 3-rd best. And the ak-47 and its variants some of them improved versions with greater range acuracy etc. will continue to be the supreme weapons of choice.
M16 does have automatic fire. What are you smoking? :pimp:
It's one of the best automatic guns in the world in use in over 50 countries worldwide. But, then again, comparing anything in the hlpbb forums it's very much so around here comparing **** to ****. Everyone will ignore real word reality in here anyway because the ak47 is **** as well as the m16 in this argument.
Well the m16 does have automatic fire i never said it does not. All i said is that they are 2 very different guns. The ak-47 acts more like a machinegun . It also has superior bullet capacity to the m16. Basicly it has more rounds. If you fired and ak-47 you will notice that its default firing mode is automatic like a machine gun. When used in this manner it does not have to be acurate cuz all you need to do is spray a shower of bullets at the direction fo your enemies. While the m-16 has is automatic firing mode set for last if im not mistaken.
Also it is important to note that the ak-47 has a ***** of a recoil. At least older models of it had. since now there is a new variant of the ak-47 hell its not even called ak-47 but something else cand remember its name.
I do believe there is a variant of the ak-47 beeing produced by some arms manufacturer in america. It has all the good qualities of the ak-47 and more. It has improved acuracy and range without any of the shortcomings of the m16.
Also i dare you to try and jam and ak-47 when shooting it on the training course. :)) At least the one i used went through several magazines of ammo one after the other and never missfired or jammed even once. Oh yeah and i dare you to subject the m16 to the same punishment the ak-47 can take and then just fire it. No overhaul no checking it for malfunctions no nothing.
-
While the m-16 if i remember corectly has semi-automatic one-shot at a time tipe of fire.
Why sure you think the m16 is automatic :snipe:
Also i dare you to try and jam and ak-47 when shooting it on the training course. :)) At least the one i used went through several magazines of ammo one after the other and never missfired or jammed even once. Oh yeah and i dare you to subject the m16 to the same punishment the ak-47 can take and then just fire it. No overhaul no checking it for malfunctions no nothing.
OR, you could use a revolver. Clearly the revolver is superior to the ak-47 because it'll never jam :eek:
-
In his the defence, the original M-16A1s isssued in Vietnam were select-fire only. But that's been resolved many decades ago.
The ak-47 acts more like a machinegun . It also has superior bullet capacity to the m16. Basicly it has more rounds.
Nope, it's 30 rounds for each. Now, you can get drum mags for the AK, just like you can for the M-16/M-4, but that's a different story. Also, chances are that the Iraqi army and police would be using the AK-74 and its many variants, which use a 5.45 calibre round, not the older AK-47. Which means that the stopping power is not that much different from an M-16.
-
I'm one to believe semi-automatics are better than full-autos in most situations. I have nothing to back this up other than preference though.
-
Accuracy - the M16's 3 round burst capability occurred after Vietnam, when the US found that it would spend several thousand rounds of ammunition for each enemy killed. Army scientists found that accuracy diminished rapidly after the first three rounds in auto mode, so the gun was limited to that. Afterwards, kill count vs. ammunition spent increased dramatically.
-
Race is as discursive a phenomenon as national identity. Its basis doesn't make it any more "real"; they're both wrapped in impenetrable layers of arbitrary meaning.
Racisim is based, obviously, off of different regional ethnicities. You look at Africans, they have dark skin. Europeans have light skin, etc. This is a tangible difference. While beyond statistics, it doesn't mean anything, you can tell to within the continent (usually) what ethnicity people are by looking at them. Simply put: no; race isn't arbitrary.
Nationality, however, is almost always completely independent of race. You are the same person, whether you are born in Austria or Germany, or Belgium or The Netherlands. Nationality is based off of what nation you are from, and nations are usually not restricted to specific regions or types of regions. They are arbitrary. Look in the Middle East, for example. Great Britain pretty much blindfolded themselves and drew random lines on a map and those were the borders of the countries.
I certainly hope you get what I'm saying.
----
And about the m16 vs AK-47 debates, AFAIK, most of the M-16s are crap because they're unreliable arguments were made based on some of the first models of the rifle, which has come a long way since then.
-
The only real problem I ever had with an M16A2 in sandy conditions was with the buffer spring. Somehow sand had gotten into it but I was still able to fire the weapon with only a few jams. As far as I can remember that was the only time it ever jammed on me. I ran into duds far more often than jams and even those were rare. Now the original M16 had a lot of problems when they were first introduced but the later variants are rock solid. Now I haven't fired the AK-47 but I know that any weapon that spends more than a couple of decades in active service tend to suffer in reliability. I remember trying to qualify on old M-60 machine guns that had been in service since Vietnam back before they were replaced by the M-240. Those things were constantly jamming.
-
The problems with the early M-16s arose mainly from improper maintenance on the part of the soldiers (the M-16 uses gas-operated mechanism which needs more attention than the bolt-action system that boot camp instructors were apparently used to), design errors (which accompany virtually every early-model weapon), and the fact that the propellant manufacturer changed its chemical during the war without bothering to inform the army.
When the XM16E1 reached Vietnam with U.S. troops in 1966, reports of jamming and malfunctions in combat immediately began to surface. Although the M14 had a chrome-lined barrel and chamber to resist corrosion in combat conditions (a danger learned from WWII Pacific theatre combat experience), the M16/XM16E1 had no chrome-lined bore or chamber. Several documented accounts of troops killed by enemy fire with jammed rifles broken-down for cleaning eventually brought a Congressional investigation. Later investigations also cast doubt on the veracity of the original 1962 reports of the alleged stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm bullet, as well as criticism of inadequate penetration (in comparison to the Soviet 7.62x39mm round) when firing at enemy personnel through light cover.
The XM16E1 was soon modified to the M16A1 specification. The revised rifle was finally given a chrome-lined bore and chamber to eliminate corrosion and stuck cartridges, and the rifle's bore and recoil mechanism was re-designed to accommodate Army-issued 5.56 mm ammunition. Rifle cleaning tools and powder solvents/lubricants were issued. The Army ordered 840,000 of this version on February 28, 1967. Intensive training programs in weapons cleaning were instituted, and a comic book style manual was circulated among the troops to demonstrate proper maintenance.[4] The reliability problems of the M16 diminished quickly, although the rifle's reputation continued to suffer.[4] Moreover, complaints about the inadequate penetration and stopping power of the 5.56 mm cartridge persisted throughout the Vietnam conflict.
Sand, however, is something entirely different. The USAF refuses to send its F-22s to Iraq for fear of damage to its electronics. As much fighting takes place in the Middle East, sand is actually very hard on any kind of combat gear. No matter how careful you are, a lot of sand is going to end up in your equipment.
-
Which begs the question: if the US was really seriously about getting the best equipment, why wouldn't they equip the IA with the G36, HK416 or some other weapon more resistant to sand. I would imagine that quite a big issue if you live in y'know, the middle of the desert. But I suppose all those campaign contributions need to be paid back somehow.
-
Racisim is based, obviously, off of different regional ethnicities. You look at Africans, they have dark skin. Europeans have light skin, etc. This is a tangible difference. While beyond statistics, it doesn't mean anything, you can tell to within the continent (usually) what ethnicity people are by looking at them. Simply put: no; race isn't arbitrary.
Nationality, however, is almost always completely independent of race. You are the same person, whether you are born in Austria or Germany, or Belgium or The Netherlands. Nationality is based off of what nation you are from, and nations are usually not restricted to specific regions or types of regions. They are arbitrary. Look in the Middle East, for example. Great Britain pretty much blindfolded themselves and drew random lines on a map and those were the borders of the countries.
Racism is not predicated directly upon physical attributes, but rather upon the identities that are constructed around those physical attributes. In a vacuum, there is nothing logically inevitable about the identity assigned to Africans by Europeans; it is a circumstance that arose from the one actual culmination of causally connected events of many conceivable ones. Don't get me wrong; the empirical distinctions between race and nationality would certainly be of great significance in a discussion that was framed differently. But to assess cultural constructs on the basis of their correspondence with "reality" is to assign far too much significance to the role of our individual (and rather Western, I might add) notions of empirical "truth" in the formation of cultural and historical consciousness. Basically, if you really want to discuss which is worse, appealing to the almighty, classical European External Reality is possibly the worst possible way to go about it.
-
Racisim is based, obviously, off of different regional ethnicities. You look at Africans, they have dark skin. Europeans have light skin, etc. This is a tangible difference. While beyond statistics, it doesn't mean anything, you can tell to within the continent (usually) what ethnicity people are by looking at them. Simply put: no; race isn't arbitrary.
Nationality, however, is almost always completely independent of race. You are the same person, whether you are born in Austria or Germany, or Belgium or The Netherlands. Nationality is based off of what nation you are from, and nations are usually not restricted to specific regions or types of regions. They are arbitrary. Look in the Middle East, for example. Great Britain pretty much blindfolded themselves and drew random lines on a map and those were the borders of the countries.
Racism is not predicated directly upon physical attributes, but rather upon the identities that are constructed around those physical attributes. In a vacuum, there is nothing logically inevitable about the identity assigned to Africans by Europeans; it is a circumstance that arose from the one actual culmination of causally connected events of many conceivable ones. Don't get me wrong; the empirical distinctions between race and nationality would certainly be of great significance in a discussion that was framed differently. But to assess cultural constructs on the basis of their correspondence with "reality" is to assign far too much significance to the role of our individual (and rather Western, I might add) notions of empirical "truth" in the formation of cultural and historical consciousness. Basically, if you really want to discuss which is worse, appealing to the almighty, classical European External Reality is possibly the worst possible way to go about it.
I never said that hating a nationality wasn't "real", I was commenting on how you said that both nationality and race were arbitrary terms.
If, as you say (from what it looks like, at least), racism is based on experiences, then the status isn't arbitrary. And by no means is the racism strictly an issue of empirical issues; doubtlessly, it contributed to it during whenever Europeans started these things, and to a much lesser extent after those periods, but the primary issue in the latter years were the supposed "unconventional physical appearances" that Caucasians regarded not-Caucasians with.
Nationalistic hatreds on the other hand are much more arbitrary than race issues could ever be. Most of the time the only differences in nationalities can be seen from the cultural standpoint, and even then its relationship is closer to region (and to a lesser extent race). In cases such as modern UK vs. modern US, pretty much the only differences are their respective cultures and histories. However in cases such as Ghana vs. US, there are a lot more differences, but nearly all of which can be attributed to regional culture and/or race (the US being the more diverse of the two).
-
Which begs the question: if the US was really seriously about getting the best equipment, why wouldn't they equip the IA with the G36, HK416 or some other weapon more resistant to sand. I would imagine that quite a big issue if you live in y'know, the middle of the desert. But I suppose all those campaign contributions need to be paid back somehow.
Are you sure the Iraqi Army would even be able to get G36 rifles? Last I heard, Germany didn't exactly approve of the war in Iraq.
-
The USAF refuses to send its F-22s to Iraq for fear of damage to its electronics.
Which makes me wonder a few things like why make a war machine so delicate to its environment and why spend almost a billion dollars on stuff that is appearently useless in our current war? Can anyone say "white elephant"?
Which begs the question: if the US was really seriously about getting the best equipment, why wouldn't they equip the IA with the G36, HK416 or some other weapon more resistant to sand.
Two words: Campaign Contributions. Iraq is a goldmine for contractors, and they certainly are doing their best to cash in. Given the obscene corruption in the government/occupation authority, this should be no surprise to anyone.
-
Are you sure the Iraqi Army would even be able to get G36 rifles? Last I heard, Germany didn't exactly approve of the war in Iraq.
Probably. The Iraqis have put out feelers about buying four Type 212 diesel-electric submarine hulls and propulsion systems and equipping them with US gear vintage say 1985 otherwise, and Germany has so far been receptive to the idea. On the other hand, they've also made similar contact with the Brits about possibly buying a pair of Upholders, and even Sweden has indicated a willingness to fulfil a contract for three or four Gotland-class boats.
This would incidentally make them big kid on the block in the Gulf. The Iranians have a few Kilos that rarely ever leave port, but an Upholder would eat all of those Kilos for lunch, and a Type 212 or Gotland would have about an even-money shot at beating all of them. The local navies are long on ASuW capablity but most of them have no ASW capablity worthy of the name, and the only practical limit on the damage a submarine could inflict on all those fast-attack boats would be how long it would take the sub to run out of weapons.
-
I doubt Germany would sell Type 212s to Iraq, or that Iraq would/could buy them. The Powers That Be in Washington are still acutely aware that Iraq is a Shia-majority country with no small number of religious types. And out-classing Saudi and the Gulf states, America's most reliable allies, would be a no-no. As for Iran, I actually think that their Navy is one of their best services. I'm assuming that they don't have great ASW capabilities because, hell, who are they going to fight? Right now they can spank around any other Gulf nation in terms of naval power (aside from, of course, the ever-present 800lb gorilla). And while Putin may not be rushing to sell them Amurs, I'm sure that if an arms-race were initiated they would find a way to stay competitive.
-
Which begs the question: if the US was really seriously about getting the best equipment, why wouldn't they equip the IA with the G36, HK416 or some other weapon more resistant to sand. I would imagine that quite a big issue if you live in y'know, the middle of the desert. But I suppose all those campaign contributions need to be paid back somehow.
Are you sure the Iraqi Army would even be able to get G36 rifles? Last I heard, Germany didn't exactly approve of the war in Iraq.
Lots of countries don't officially approve of allot of things but they go on selling the weapons.
Read a great article about the M-16 on http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ . Not sure if the article is still around but it was a critique of the army and its need for rifles. The M-4 apparently has had a hell of a time of it with the sand and allot of soldiers are fed up with the weapon. M-16 has similar issues but apparently not nearly as bad.
Seems like the M-4/M-16 family is sort of on its way out performance wise but the US Army is standing firm behind Colt.
But yeah Military Industrial Complex always wins out.
-
Here's something else to consider: How much does an M16 or A4 cost compared to a similair weapon (like the AK 47)?
-
Somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 for a new AK-100 series and maybe $800 for an M-4. I'm basically pulling numbers out of my ass, but that's ballpark figures. Multiply that by 100,000 and it's still peanuts to the US military-industrial complex, who are used to using $100 bills as toilet paper (F-22, I'm looking at you). It's more a matter of prestige than money.
-
Probably. The Iraqis have put out feelers about buying four Type 212 diesel-electric submarine hulls and propulsion systems and equipping them with US gear vintage say 1985 otherwise, and Germany has so far been receptive to the idea. On the other hand, they've also made similar contact with the Brits about possibly buying a pair of Upholders, and even Sweden has indicated a willingness to fulfil a contract for three or four Gotland-class boats.
I never realised the reconstruction of Iraq's armed forces was that widespread. Got any links handy you can throw at us? :)
Anyway, back to the M16/AK-47 discussion. Bringing in the M16 to a region where everyone and their grandmother are already familiar with the AK just seems frivolous and obviously politically- and corporately-motivated. They're forcing the entire Iraqi army to retrain with a new rifle for no reason other than good PR and corporate profit. The way Iraq is heading, they might as well change the name of the Iraqi Army to ARVN, because that's exactly where it's all going to end up. :doubt:
-
ARVN? What does that mean?
EDIT: speaking of corruption in the MI complex, I just ran across something interesting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23395826/
WASHINGTON - The Army is ordering a major overhaul of the way it buys supplies for troops in combat zones as the number of criminal investigations into wartime contract fraud nears triple figures.
-
ARVN = Army of the Republic of Vietnam, eg South Vietnamese army.
Remember that the Iraqi army relies heavily on the Americans for logistical support and training, so having a common weapon (the M-16) does help.
-
Somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 for a new AK-100 series and maybe $800 for an M-4. I'm basically pulling numbers out of my ass, but that's ballpark figures. Multiply that by 100,000 and it's still peanuts to the US military-industrial complex, who are used to using $100 bills as toilet paper (F-22, I'm looking at you). It's more a matter of prestige than money.
I'm getting a job in one of those companies. I could use some of that toilet paper :D
-
Some of my thoughts:
-The AK series rifles are a lot more forgiving since they have a lot lower tolerances (and play) on their parts. This makes them cheap (to build and maintain), reliable and quite mediocre as far as accuracy goes.
-The AK series rifles are good for a mass army with low quality training, but a professional army would opt for a rifle with better accuracy with probably burst fire option.
-It is a good rifle for suppression fire and flank maneuvers. If you have a huge army, you can take the casualties and still overwhelm the enemy.
-The M-16 and its other Colt brothers are a mature technology, and they have excellent ergonomics and high accuracy. For a trained gunman who takes care of his rifle it is a better rifle. If only came in a higher caliber....
-There is a reason why many countries still use the AK-47 and new AK-100 series rifles with the "old" 7.62 ammunition. It has very good penetration, making the rifle better at urban fighting than the M-16.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the Galil rifle family: made by Israel, a close (if not closest) US ally. It marries the enduring and forgiving qualities of the AK series with modern materials and better accuracy.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as23-e.htm
To me that seems like the ideal rifle. You have one guess, why it was passed in favor of the M-16.
-
To me that seems like the ideal rifle. You have one guess, why it was passed in favor of the M-16.
I'd love to see the looks on the Iraqis' faces if you suggested that they buy weapons from Israel.:D
-
I could have sworn that the Israeli rifle was a modification to the good-old-RK62.
And, it turns out that it indeed is.
Mika
-
I never realised the reconstruction of Iraq's armed forces was that widespread. Got any links handy you can throw at us? :)
Not that I know of, sorry. It was mentioned in this month's issue of Proceedings (just in time for the International Navies issue they do every year), and I've heard it from people who work for the Navy Department in Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command.
It's true the M-16 is nearing the end of it's useful lifespan, but AFAIK its replacement is already in the works for 2010 or so.
-
I could have sworn that the Israeli rifle was a modification to the good-old-RK62.
And, it turns out that it indeed is.
Mika
Which, in turn, is a modification of RK54 which, in turn, is pretty much a direct copy of... AK-47.
-
oh wow, its like handing them toy guns :D
AK 47 is the best gun produced to date.
Lier! Nothing beats the SIG SG 550 Swiss Army Assault Rifle!
910 m/s muzzle speed, 1700 Joule muzzle energy, three fire modes, 5.6 mm rounds and being the most accurate assault rifle in the darn world can only help.
-
Lier! Nothing beats the SIG SG 550 Swiss Army Assault Rifle!
I'm sorry, but I can't take an army seriously when it has a corkscrew on its knife.
"Men, I understand that many of you have never opened a Chardonnay under enemy fire, but disipline and strength will see you through!"
-
Which, in turn, is a modification of RK54 which, in turn, is pretty much a direct copy of... AK-47.
I thought RK54 is AK47.
My opinion is that people shouldn't discuss about military weapons if they have never served. I was about to write something that I will send a cookie to anyone who first quotes Wikipedia here (since Wikipedia knows it all of course), but it turns out I'm already late.
For the humor side, read the history and what kind of "analyses" were performed before M-16 was developed from Wikipedia. Some of those conclusions remind me of the witch trials...
Other than that, this thread should be pretty much locked if you ask me. The original topic seems to be derailed and this will only continue to "my dad, your dad" debate.
Iraq wants to buy M16s to replace AK47s? It's their call, unless US is pressuring the Iraqi government to go for that decision (which I wouldn't find too hard to believe either). In anycase, the new rifles are quite equal in performance, some of them better than the others in other perspectives and vice versa. Life is life, deal with it and all that sort of things.
Mika
-
Which, in turn, is a modification of RK54 which, in turn, is pretty much a direct copy of... AK-47.
I thought RK54 is AK47.
My opinion is that people shouldn't discuss about military weapons if they have never served. I was about to write something that I will send a cookie to anyone who first quotes Wikipedia here (since Wikipedia knows it all of course), but it turns out I'm already late.
For the humor side, read the history and what kind of "analyses" were performed before M-16 was developed from Wikipedia. Some of those conclusions remind me of the witch trials...
Other than that, this thread should be pretty much locked if you ask me. The original topic seems to be derailed and this will only continue to "my dad, your dad" debate.
Iraq wants to buy M16s to replace AK47s? It's their call, unless US is pressuring the Iraqi government to go for that decision (which I wouldn't find too hard to believe either). In anycase, the new rifles are quite equal in performance, some of them better than the others in other perspectives and vice versa. Life is life, deal with it and all that sort of things.
Mika
You know quite well that serving does not really give one an idea just how a weapon works or how it compares to other similar designs, at least if you've served in FDF. Rifles are generally movingly similar in their specs.
But that's all besides the point, because what was originally discussed here were not the boring technical specs of rifles, but the politics of weaponry - as you pointed out.
-
I find it amusing that everyone ignored this bit.
A July 2007 Government Accountability Office report concluded that as many as 190,000 weapons delivered to the Iraqi army were not accounted for and could've wound up in terrorist caches.
-
I find it amusing that everyone ignored this bit.
A July 2007 Government Accountability Office report concluded that as many as 190,000 weapons delivered to the Iraqi army were not accounted for and could've wound up in terrorist caches.
If the iraqi army ever finds these weapon caches, then free m16's for all in the army.
-
You know quite well that serving does not really give one an idea just how a weapon works or how it compares to other similar designs, at least if you've served in FDF. Rifles are generally movingly similar in their specs.
???
But regarding business driven by war, it has always been so. Not necessarily for the both sides. The only difference is that now honor is much more valued, while before all the soldiers got their share of the loot. Nowadays soldiers can be rewarded with a medal, whose actual monetary value is small - and they are happy about it.
Mika
-
Nowadays soldiers can be rewarded with a medal, whose actual monetary value is small - and they are happy about it.
No, modern armies still work as mercenaries. Simple hired killers. Try seeing how well a volunteer army would work when they're not getting paid.
Obviously, conscription-based and reactionary armies - ie. guerrilla armies in the face of invasion - work under different principles, but we're only talking about modern, western armies here.
-
Small monetary value?
I get paid 1600/month, full medical/dental, don't pay a cent for food/lodging, and will have so many bonus pays coming it's not even funny.
-
Small monetary value?
I get paid 1600/month, full medical/dental, don't pay a cent for food/lodging, and will have so many bonus pays coming it's not even funny.
Some people wonder why a lot citizens in Hungary fondly reminiscence about the last years of communism: they had free full medical/dental was given free lodging, food was cheap and plentiful and you could even buy a couple of luxuries if you were actually willing to work.
-
Small monetary value?
I get paid 1600/month, full medical/dental, don't pay a cent for food/lodging, and will have so many bonus pays coming it's not even funny.
Yes, that is what I consider small monetary value. But this is only my opinion.
Mika
-
Nowadays soldiers can be rewarded with a medal, whose actual monetary value is small - and they are happy about it.
No, modern armies still work as mercenaries. Simple hired killers. Try seeing how well a volunteer army would work when they're not getting paid.
Obviously, conscription-based and reactionary armies - ie. guerrilla armies in the face of invasion - work under different principles, but we're only talking about modern, western armies here.
The standards of training, honor, and discipline for professional modern armies are far, far higher than mercenary groups like Blackwater. There are elements of loyalty, pride, and the fact that you actually represent the nation you're fighting for that make real soldiers far more effective and reliable than true mercenaries. A mercenary will fight for whomever gives him a fat contract. A soldier is bound to his nation and its objectives. A soldier is also accountable to his nation and people--Lynndie England, one of the Abu Ghraib scumbags, spent almost two years in prison and is facing a dishonorable discharge on top of her felony conviction that will pretty much **** up her life forever. Another, Charles Graner, got 10 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if the "contractors" in Iraq committed five times the human rights violations per capita than American soldiers (and no army substituted in the US Army's place would have zero human rights violations, to imagine otherwise is fantasy). I dislike mercenary groups intensely and think the US should expel them from Iraq.
-
I find the amount of ignorance and over-stated opinions in this thread to be disheartening. Most of the people here are simply spouting opinions with little fact or experience behind them. I know that it's like that everywhere, and I'm not surprised, I'm just pointing it out so the undecided can take everything with a grain of salt.
Not aiming that at you Woolie Wool, I'm just tossing it out there.
-
what i find surprising is the fact that the conquered country in this case Irak decides all of a sudden to buy guns after "carefull" considerations from all points especialy an economical point guns form the conquering army in this case the USArmy. Now if that is not political pressure and a puppet gouverment then i dont know what is. Also im wondering exactly where the hell did Irak get the money to reequip its army since well that country was under a heavy embargo and it was more or less backrupt. Well they can always pay in OIL . and we know who actualy get theyr greedy little hand on all that oil. But anywai i honestly believe that purchasing m16's is a very grave mistake on the part of the Irak army. They would of been a hell of a better off with ak74 or ak103. Much more cheaper much more realiaber better hitting power and a good range and acuracy.
-
You know quite well that serving does not really give one an idea just how a weapon works or how it compares to other similar designs, at least if you've served in FDF. Rifles are generally movingly similar in their specs.
???
But regarding business driven by war, it has always been so. Not necessarily for the both sides. The only difference is that now honor is much more valued, while before all the soldiers got their share of the loot. Nowadays soldiers can be rewarded with a medal, whose actual monetary value is small - and they are happy about it.
Mika
Even in the good old 1500s, looting was often severely discouraged and in many cases looters were executed. And the ancient methods often don't even know what looting is. Greek warfare wasn't looting either. After Rome fell, most wars were long and boring marches through pretty much empty landscape, and battles in and around cities were a remarkable expection.
Of course, the armies had to stay alive, and they sacked the rural areas for... food. No one - expect the high-ranking officers, ubiquitous thieves, smugglers, black market salesmen, whores, bandits and other assorted fine folk! - got rich. The idea of soldiers going to war and coming back rich is a romantic thought, but it's not very realistic.
A medal is a symbolic reward, something which is surprisingly valued high in militaries. I find it pretty funny - you can get killed, you rarely get rich when you dig a trench or shoot the other bad guys, but A MEDAL apparently proves something. Just what, I do not know for sure, but it definitely is something that is not for sale. A well-paid voluntary soldier who doesn't have to pay for his living often values the medal much more than the sparse luxuries he can afford.
No, modern armies still work as mercenaries. Simple hired killers. Try seeing how well a volunteer army would work when they're not getting paid.
Obviously, conscription-based and reactionary armies - ie. guerrilla armies in the face of invasion - work under different principles, but we're only talking about modern, western armies here.
There are western armies with conscription still in place today and voluntary armies that are not western, though. Post-Cold War NATO armies in Europe are a very, very, very very veeery small part of armies throughout history.
I find the amount of ignorance and over-stated opinions in this thread to be disheartening. Most of the people here are simply spouting opinions with little fact or experience behind them. I know that it's like that everywhere, and I'm not surprised, I'm just pointing it out so the undecided can take everything with a grain of salt.
Not aiming that at you Woolie Wool, I'm just tossing it out there.
Well, what are those over-stated opinions and where's the ignorance? Give us samples!
-
Do you honestly want me to start finger pointing at people?
-
the high-ranking officers, ubiquitous thieves, smugglers, black market salesmen, whores, bandits and other assorted fine folk!
Which is pretty much the composition of any war time troops, excluding whores. And I think I don't have too romantic pictures of war times nor do I try to sugar coat my opinions about them. But, looking back the time I spent in the military, it was a good and worthwile experience about people themselves and organisation, all the good and the bad stuff together.
So I actually recommend military service for all men (I'm not sure if the Army is a good place for women), but I don't recommend staying in the army for too long. The mentioned 1600/month with additional bonuses is poor if you compare it to salaries of mid level company executives. But it is the soldier who is risking his life.
Nevertheless, war is almost always driven by the need of geopolitical resources or assets, which are then looted from the target nation. The soldier who do the dirty job will never see the total amounts of wealth they accomplished in transferring. It is no wonder some old soldier feel that they were betrayed, giving all they could to the country, and the country rewarding them with so little. If I'm not wrong, the same applies to firemen and police also, their salaries don't seem to high either for the job they are doing.
The medal thing I have found strange, medals are quite valued in military, but it bears very little meaning to civil life. You don't get food or money for the good stuff you have done, instead they hand you a little piece of metal. Again, it is money or food that keeps the soldier alive in later civil life, not a piece of metal. Maybe it has something to do with being paid too much of killing a bunch of bad guys, and making it too obvious? But army is army, it will not change. It has thousands of years of tradition, and these things tend to stay as they are.
All the people who have served are authorised (and that's an order!) to shoot down all the bull**** I have written.
Mika
-
Medals only use in civilian life is that they can be put on a resume to help spice up the bit about military service. I'm not exactly certain how effective it is at earning one a job but they do help add to the experience section of the resume.
Medals are more symbolic then anything else, A soldier will look at those pieces of metal and remember the events that lead to them being awarded. A good deal of these are positive and reinforce the reasons behind their actions but others can be negative. I remember a young private who was given a medal for risking his life attempting to save one of our buddies trapped in a flooded vehicle. Had he been successful he would have been proud to have been awarded the medal but since our buddy died all it will remind him of is failure.
-
I find the amount of ignorance and over-stated opinions in this thread to be disheartening. Most of the people here are simply spouting opinions with little fact or experience behind them. I know that it's like that everywhere, and I'm not surprised, I'm just pointing it out so the undecided can take everything with a grain of salt.
Not aiming that at you Woolie Wool, I'm just tossing it out there.
And thats better than watching the news? :)
I'd say most of us know more than are given credit for but everyone should certainly do their own reading and come to their own conclusions. Taking everything with a grain of salt is a very good thing.
-
Military service isn't just about the pay or the experience with other people. The technical training most soldiers, sailors, and airmen get in the US can lead to getting very well-paying jobs in the civilian world. Mention on a resume you were trained in Arabic at DLI and spent two tours in the Middle East, and you're nearly guaranteed an edge over the ordinary college grad. Same goes for pilots, radar operators, crew chiefs, flight engineers...pretty much every military career field except infantry will get you some pretty good jobs after separation from service.
-
Do you honestly want me to start finger pointing at people?
Well, if you make such overarching statements as "thread is full of BS" then samples would be good, otherwise how could the people in question learn from their mistakes?
-
I find the amount of ignorance and over-stated opinions in this thread to be disheartening. Most of the people here are simply spouting opinions with little fact or experience behind them. I know that it's like that everywhere, and I'm not surprised, I'm just pointing it out so the undecided can take everything with a grain of salt.
Not aiming that at you Woolie Wool, I'm just tossing it out there.
And thats better than watching the news? :)
I'd say most of us know more than are given credit for but everyone should certainly do their own reading and come to their own conclusions. Taking everything with a grain of salt is a very good thing.
I don't watch the news, I generally read Yahoo news blurbs, Wikipedia, independent blogs, and Digg.
Well, if you make such overarching statements as "thread is full of BS" then samples would be good, otherwise how could the people in question learn from their mistakes?
Except they wouldn't learn because what I said was a relatively inflammatory comment - so they would take it as such (rightfully so, which is why I didn't name names), and a flame fest would probably ensue.
-
Military service isn't just about the pay or the experience with other people. The technical training most soldiers, sailors, and airmen get in the US can lead to getting very well-paying jobs in the civilian world. Mention on a resume you were trained in Arabic at DLI and spent two tours in the Middle East, and you're nearly guaranteed an edge over the ordinary college grad. Same goes for pilots, radar operators, crew chiefs, flight engineers...pretty much every military career field except infantry will get you some pretty good jobs after separation from service.
Ah, here I see where we differ. I always think things from the infantry perspective since that is where I served. Infantry is still the majority of people in Army, while nearly all personnel needed to operate an air base are and will always be specialists for me. They get higher salaries, but are not so much in the direct risk of getting shot at.
Unfortunately, military experience and training meant nothing in the University. I got no compensation at all and I haven't heard of faculty that would give any kind of compensation of that. My current working place didn't care either if I had a rank a little bit above the common private - they were more interested in how good I was in Physics. Nor have the people who served in UN forces (that I know off) got any compensation from the university.
And about the AK47 and M16 rifles. It doesn't really matter which one they take since the new rifles are quite equivalent in many terms. For logistical simplicity it would be better to use rifles that use 5-point-something mm ammunition since Americans import quite a lot of that. AK exists with both calibers, and with the smaller one it is performance wise close enough to M16. It might not so accurate to longer distances nor there might be so many additional gizmos, but well, good enough. But again, it is Iraqian call.
About missing rifles, I have some difficulties to swallow those numbers. 190000 lost guns is a huge number from the logistical point of view and it sounds quite incredible to be true. 190000 to-be-trained Iraqians have deserted?
Mika
-
It's Iraqis, and they didn't desert, it was just the gun shipment that went missing AFAIK.
And Mika, I know that the US has a college called Spartan or something that retrains military personnel to get an equivalent civvy rating for whatever they did in the military (although that may only be for specialists and whatnot - I don't know what your average "grunt' would do).
-
I find the amount of ignorance and over-stated opinions in this thread to be disheartening. Most of the people here are simply spouting opinions with little fact or experience behind them. I know that it's like that everywhere, and I'm not surprised, I'm just pointing it out so the undecided can take everything with a grain of salt.
Not aiming that at you Woolie Wool, I'm just tossing it out there.
And thats better than watching the news? :)
I'd say most of us know more than are given credit for but everyone should certainly do their own reading and come to their own conclusions. Taking everything with a grain of salt is a very good thing.
I don't watch the news, I generally read Yahoo news blurbs, Wikipedia, independent blogs, and Digg.
Well, if you make such overarching statements as "thread is full of BS" then samples would be good, otherwise how could the people in question learn from their mistakes?
Except they wouldn't learn because what I said was a relatively inflammatory comment - so they would take it as such (rightfully so, which is why I didn't name names), and a flame fest would probably ensue.
So what you should have done was not be inflammatory and have a good look at some of the stuff that might be wrong. Get a good discussion going. If you're up on the defense industry stuff I've been reading a pretty interesting site here: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/
Seems like a good source to see the raw stuff...contracts, controversies, politics...they even mention contracts for things like uniforms. I never considered before but a huge part of the whole military industrial complex are things that aren't tanks, guns, and ships. Stuff like field rations, uniforms, clothing, and countless other more mundane things are there too. I wasn't always thinking about stuff like that but its all on that site. Worth a quick read now and again.
-
About missing rifles, I have some difficulties to swallow those numbers. 190000 lost guns is a huge number from the logistical point of view and it sounds quite incredible to be true. 190000 to-be-trained Iraqians have deserted?
Mika
And to think they put my unit on lock down for a week because a pair of night vision goggles disappeared from the arms room. This seems a lot worse by comparison.
-
About missing rifles, I have some difficulties to swallow those numbers. 190000 lost guns is a huge number from the logistical point of view and it sounds quite incredible to be true. 190000 to-be-trained Iraqians have deserted?
It does sound a bit high, to be honest. But considering that the country is awash in small arms (every household is allowed one fully automatic rifle), it wouldn't surprise me. The government and military are notoriously corrupt, both individually and institutionally, especially in the years immediately following the invasion. I think maybe the worst excesses have been reigned in by now, but considering some of the stories I've heard*, 200,000 rifles is within the realm of possibility.
*such as $100,000 trucks being torched because a $100 tire needed changing, then charging the military for a new truck.
-
First thing to notice is that it is some department in Pentagon who is missing 190000 guns, ie. not located in Iraq. This makes me think that someone in the supply has been sloppy with the pencil work. 190000 guns simply do not disappear, because of the volume they occupy for starters.
I seriously doubt about the new truck example also - there is hell a lot of unconfirmed rumors in the Army - the original reason might be totally different than the stated one. Especially infantry is under tight budget frame all the time, and I suspect that it is so in all armies, so it sounds quite strange again.
And to think they put my unit on lock down for a week because a pair of night vision goggles disappeared from the arms room. This seems a lot worse by comparison.
Exactly. I don't want to calculate how many hours we spend in a forest searching for a certain ammo belt, and, god damnit, an old rusted axe! That was already Bad Stuff if somebody lost something like that! Anything even slightly related to the weapons was under much more strict control.
Mika
-
First thing to notice is that it is some department in Pentagon who is missing 190000 guns, ie. not located in Iraq. This makes me think that someone in the supply has been sloppy with the pencil work. 190000 guns simply do not disappear, because of the volume they occupy for starters.
Or they simply never existed in real life in the first place and the funding was diverted to a black project.
-
I seem to recall the US Navy lost a cruiser in Paperwork once, I'll have to check that out though....
-
Man, if that really did happen then I think it's safe to say the US military really is a financial black hole.
-
Man, if that really did happen then I think it's safe to say the US military really is a financial black hole.
Considering the US Military gets twice as much money poured into it than the entire European Union combined, I don't think they're in danger of running out of cash any time soon.
Christ on crutches, if only they'd put that sort of dedication into funding education or healthcare, y'know, actually helping their population instead of maintaining the status quo. Don't get me wrong, the F-22 Raptor is the closest thing we've seen to an X-Wing for crying out loud, but how can anyone justify spending $62 billion developing a warplane while even a single person starves within your borders?
-
You can't seriously believe that diverting any of that 62 billion would actually have helped that one person? I mean, sure, whine about the funding all you want, but the alternatives don't really exist. And for that matter, how much is getting spent proportionally on the military vs. every other damn thing? Has anyone ever looked before complaining?
-
How much is being spent on the military versus "every other thing"? Let's look at it another way. How long can America continue to pay off its increasing upkeep on debt?
-
You can't seriously believe that diverting any of that 62 billion would actually have helped that one person? I mean, sure, whine about the funding all you want, but the alternatives don't really exist. And for that matter, how much is getting spent proportionally on the military vs. every other damn thing? Has anyone ever looked before complaining?
True, that was just a knee-jerk response when I looked it up and saw it was roughly $650 billion annually. Still, do they really need to spend something like 5% of their entire GDP on the military? All i'm saying is that the Cold War is ****ing over, how about they take some of the money spent on nuclear missile polish (TM) and spend it on something like, I don't know, ending the homeless problem?
I know, I know. I'm being naive, simplistic, and downright preachy. But c'mon. Hell, just trimming the fat and getting rid of all the overflows, extra expenditures, skimming and downright corruption would free a good $50 billion from the military budget without having to get rid of anything. Of course, this links right back to the core issue from the start of the thread: The military-industrial complex. They've got their fingers everywhere, and you can be damn sure they'd fight tooth and nail to stop any attempt at either scaling back defense expenditure or even just fighting the corruption and bureaucracy that can lead to the "misplacement" of 190,000 rifles.
-
You can't seriously believe that diverting any of that 62 billion would actually have helped that one person? I mean, sure, whine about the funding all you want, but the alternatives don't really exist. And for that matter, how much is getting spent proportionally on the military vs. every other damn thing? Has anyone ever looked before complaining?
With the total spent on our military being more like $750+ billion, I somehow think we're spending more on that than anything else. It doesn't appear that way immediately because of shady accounting tricks.
-
First thing to notice is that it is some department in Pentagon who is missing 190000 guns, ie. not located in Iraq. This makes me think that someone in the supply has been sloppy with the pencil work. 190000 guns simply do not disappear, because of the volume they occupy for starters.
A July 2007 Government Accountability Office report concluded that as many as 190,000 weapons delivered to the Iraqi army were not accounted for and could've wound up in terrorist caches.
Terrorists that can get into the Pentagon? Well I know they managed it once but they weren't in any condition to pick up 190,000 guns at the time.
-
A July 2007 Government Accountability Office report concluded that as many as 190,000 weapons delivered to the Iraqi army were not accounted for and could've wound up in terrorist caches.
Read it correctly. Conditional is used to signify that this may or may not have happened. The sentence doesn't automatically mean they have been lost. It could be a reason to justify the existence of the whole office, some over enthusiastic bureaucrate candidate finding a serious error in the supply deliveries book and making a big fuss about it, even though nothing like that has REALLY happened in the ground level in Iraq. Besides, that would sound a lot more like the army I know.
Otherwise, some 190000 to-be-trained Iraqis have defected and taken their personal weapon with them. While it certainly has happened, at this scale? I don't believe it.
Mika