12,500 new guns costing $30,000 each!

Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:01 am » by **Samkenman**

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/sc ... fghanistan

:hell:

The Pentagon plans to purchase at least 12,500 of the guns -- at a price tag of 25,000 to 30,000 dollars each -- beginning next year, enough for one in each Infantry squad and Special Forces team. :bang;

I know it's Yahoo....but last I checked...aren't we pretty much broke??? Where is the money coming from?? And couldn't we think of a better way of using said money than to build more weapons of death??
Anyone got any other info/opinion on this??

Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:12 am » by **Epicfailure**

samkenman wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/sc_afp/usmilitaryweaponsafghanistan

The Pentagon plans to purchase at least 12,500 of the guns -- at a price tag of 25,000 to 30,000 dollars each -- beginning next year, enough for one in each Infantry squad and Special Forces team.

I know it's Yahoo....but last I checked...aren't we pretty much broke??? Where is the money coming from?? And couldn't we think of a better way of using said money than to build more weapons of death??
Anyone got any other info/opinion on this??

375,000,000
375 Million

I was looking at other articles and this could buy less than 1 entire school with federal budgeting, however this could have been a good booster to some education supplies.

but the military just NEEDS those guns ya know!

Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:16 am » by **Cia212**

It's cheaper than the cost of deploying more troops and it increases the survivability of troops already on the ground.

The major problem with this weapon is durability. They may have fixed the problems but early reports showed the ranging system to be unreliable and require frequent calibration. And it's a little redundant since existing AA-12s can fire HEAB rounds with laser ranging.

Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:18 am » by **sockpuppet**

Can someone buy me a house, please? There's 3 of us, so I guess I should get about $90,000?

Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:24 am » by **Constabul**

black budget shit,

is accounting the money to be spent, or already spent, for stuff we are not to know about.
they don't want to say 375 mil to be spend on research and development of cloaking suits or the like.

Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:29 am » by **Epicfailure**

cia212 wrote:It's cheaper than the cost of deploying more troops and it increases the survivability of troops already on the ground.

The major problem with this weapon is durability. They may have fixed the problems but early reports showed the ranging system to be unreliable and require frequent calibration. And it's a little redundant since existing AA-12s can fire HEAB rounds with laser ranging.

Fair Point made but we shouldn't be their in the first place.

but now we are, and look we are spending a little over a third of a billion dollars on rifles.

so now we have troops which cost money, and new guns that cost money too for a war that isn't being won ever, or never should have been inducted in the first place.

judging by your response they shouldn't be buying them if they seem to have prototype problems.

Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:58 am » by **Cia212**

epicfailure wrote:judging by your response they shouldn't be buying them if they seem to have prototype problems.

No they shouldn't. The only real advantage this system has over other laser-ranged HEAB systems is better range...since it's throwing from a rifle rather than shotgun or other launcher. It's unusual to make such a large purchase before any real combat experience, unless they've been tested for a while without being reported. In either case, I hope it works famously well!!

Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:18 pm » by **Samkenman**

I just can't see how they can spend that much on more weapons when our economy in in the tank................Russia and China dumping the dollar, housing market still not recovered, joblessness still very high...and my friend (single Mom) can't get help to pay her ridiculous $300 gas bill to keep her home warm...
.We can give a trooper a $30,000 un-proven gun to take to a war that we shouldn't be participating in in the first place, but I still can't get a home loan or land loan from a federally funded bank for $15,000....

Seems a little backwards too me....If we can't take care of business here at home, then we have no business doing it else where....

Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:21 pm » by **Kenny**

the seeds of war can be spilt across the feild but my judgement can only bear one fruit and what a great dross that will be when all are gathered for the harvest of man.

Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:26 pm » by **Jeckk**

epicfailure wrote:
samkenman wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/sc_afp/usmilitaryweaponsafghanistan

The Pentagon plans to purchase at least 12,500 of the guns -- at a price tag of 25,000 to 30,000 dollars each -- beginning next year, enough for one in each Infantry squad and Special Forces team.

I know it's Yahoo....but last I checked...aren't we pretty much broke??? Where is the money coming from?? And couldn't we think of a better way of using said money than to build more weapons of death??
Anyone got any other info/opinion on this??

375,000,000
375 Million

I was looking at other articles and this could buy less than 1 entire school with federal budgeting, however this could have been a good booster to some education supplies.

but the military just NEEDS those guns ya know!

With 375 million dollars I could educate every person on this planet to college level in under 5 years.