Printable View
Red, you have made some good points there. Our country can do what is needed once the country makes up its mind to do so. It has done so in the past and can do it again. It might come down to the question of do we have the talent, inovative people to do the job. It appears there could be some doubts when you look at our education systems graduates compared to the rest of the world. By this I mean those in K-12 currently. From the test results I have viewed via the newpaper, I have some doubt.
Pete-
The most striking example of using foreign designations would be the various calibers of ammunition employed by the US. The standard US Service pistol is the BERETTA 92F in 9mm (note: Italian designed). The fabled M16 shoots a 5.56mm cartridge (.223 caliber). Ammunition today is coded in millimeters rather than caliber. Both are of recent manufacture (within the last 40 years).
The US standard Service Rifle during WW2 was the M1 Garand in .30-06. The same cartridge was used in the B-A-R (Browning Automatic Rifle); the M1903 (the Springfield) series'; and the two mainstay machine guns, the water-cooled and air cooled. The US Standard service pistol was the US M1911a1, which used a .45 caliber round. The little M1 Carbine used a .30 caliber Carbine round.
This clearly shows that the US converted their arms to metric dimensions, as is used by the rest of the World, rather than staying with the English system of measurement (ie calibers).
The fact that we call the .223 cal round 5.56 mm does'nt change the fact that we were the first to implement the caliber. You are right, the 9mm Beretta is definately an example of us going along with the rest of NATO. There was definately nothing wrong with the old 1911a1 in .45 ACP.
Just a point, the 9mm was long established for years as such, so changing the designation to inches would be worthless.
However why we went to that cartridge is a mystery. Sure the magazine holds more rounds, You will NEED those extra rounds to stop the bad guys.
Even with what we now have running the country, I should think we are still capable of supplying .45 calibre ammunition to our military, and when you are using FMJ, Bigger is better.
Depends on how you use it... right? Well in this case size was dictated by a large extent because our new women warriors couldn't handle the recoil of the 1911. From the beginning of time it has been the female of the species that defines the term "big."
:lol:
We had large developed oil reserves which by the end were already being depleted. We had something like 15 major auto and truck manufacturers which easily could be converted into making guns, tanks, jeeps trucks and halftracks. We produced most if not all of our steel. Had sources of strategic metals either here or in South America, and a large rural population that could be easily trained and used. There were also many, many really good businessmen and capitalists who knew what to do to succeed. People like Henry Ford who could shift his talents to build airplanes (he had some limited experience) as well as cars and trucks. These people put America on a war footing immediately and converted practically any manufacturer of something into making something needed for the war. More than anything else, this helped to win the war.
Our present government has pitifully few free thinkers or driven individuals. Today impression trumps substance every time. Talented businessmen today know how to turn a quick buck by using and exploiting cheap labor abroad and wall street crooks are applauded as geniuses because they can make money. That is the yardstick for success today; not how well a company performs and endures over the long haul, but how much money one man can make for himself. There is no common goal other than greed. I find it doubtful that we could do WW2 over again if we had to wait until Korea decided to send over more steel, or China could get those army boots and uniforms done on time. We are actually in a position much like that of pre war Japan; dependent on others for success and not at all prepared to ramp up on a big scale. Our existing population is not as well educated as the pre war one was and certainly not as motivated as those post depression kids were. If we got into a shooting war today, the Chinese or Russians would have to sink a dozen nuclear carriers (which they already can), and we would be in a world of hurt.
As for leadership, Obama couldn't hold Roosevelt or Truman's lunch pail.
Bob got it right.
In WWII we built 200,000 airplanes, 15,00 p-51s at $55,00 each, 12,000 B-17s at about $240K .. we launched a Liberty Ship every day, built them faster than the Nazis could sink them. We had a merchant marine to carry men and materiel over ..
My grandmother worked for the Office of War Production which imposed a planned economy on the idle industrial plant of the depression-era US. During that war we developed methods for organizing a command economy that were later adopted by the Soviets - once they had caught up.
Now we have billion-dollar destroyers, we are looking at the F-22, A 500-million dollar plane, our industrial base continues to shrink, we haven't had a merchant marine since Nixon killed it in 1970.
If we had to deal with a modern-day Axis, would we be able to pull it off? War has changed,for sure. I think we could do it as long as we could wipe the enemy out in a few weeks. A protracted war against an enemy with his own indutrial base and naval forces, might be a differnet story.
just a few thougts.
jn
Quote:
Originally Posted by RED
It's BS that women can't handle a .45. But in any case you can always issue them an M16.
We started with a .45, but went to a .38 and learned the hard way it didn't stop people, so we went back to a .45. Apparently the current generation of soldiers is finding out the same lesson again, but it hasn't percolated to the perfumed princes in the pentagon as yet.:rolleyes:
I would be very fearful.
At one time dedicated federal workers would rise above politics & do whatever was necessary to protect the nation, but no longer. The two biggest reasons this changed are 1) elimination of the Civil Service (applies to employees hired > 1/1/84, & 2) affirmative action (technically illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
Most of you who have dealt with the Federal government in recent years know what I mean. Sadly, they no longer try to hire the best & the brightest, but those who are politically connected.
Win a war after attacks on US soil? Not likely.
Myers:
What in the hell are you talking about. The Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) was supplanted by Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) on the date mentioned. Civil Service remains intact. Come to NIH, USDA, FDA, NASA, FBI, NSA etc and we'll show you that meritocracy is VERY ALIVE AND WELL. I am probably one hell of a lot farther up the food chain that you probably were and can tell you that there was never a problem and will never be a problem in hiring good folks for the feds. I have heard the BS about EEO being an impediment but have never found it to be so.