7 ms·
One of the few things I actually want the government doing. We have weapons to give to foreign countries though.
by user3939382 2y ago
One of the few things I actually want the government doing. We have weapons to give to foreign countries though.
- JackYoustra 2y agoI don't think you can use tanks, missiles, shells, and drones to clean trails
- FredPret 2y agoAt least, you really shouldn’t
- javajosh 2y agoYou could certainly use military drones to map out trails and mark sections for cleaning. Beating milspec drones into plowdrones, etc.
- defrost 2y agoSure. Although it's literally cheaper to use a crop duster with LIDAR mounted, civilian hand held drones, etc. We (an air geophysics crowd I worked with) used to take contracts to map vegetation height and density under power lines in Australian bush.
- ceejayoz 2y agoChallenge accepted. (Hilariously, the USFS does use artillery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forest_Service#/media/File:106mm_Recoilless_Rifle.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forest_Service#/...)
- JackYoustra 2y agolmao ok maybe we should keep a few shells for avalanche stuff
- jandrewrogers 2y agoThey literally use tanks to keep avalanches off roads. Here is a video near Seattle of the Dept of Transportation using a couple M-60 Sherman tanks to launch artillery into the snowpack in an effort to control avalanches along the Highway 2 corridor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA
- fallingsquirrel 2y agoInteresting fact, but is it really necessary to go to those lengths? Surely something like a handgun or detonated explosive would be cheaper and just as effective (though less fun). I don't think this use case needs the vehicle to be armored.
- ceejayoz 2y agoHandguns don't have the range or power. Explosives are used, but you have to get them up there, which means either schleping up the mountain or using a helicopter, which is wildly more expensive. Artillery works great.
- rpeden 2y agoAlaska recently starting experimenting with using drones to drop explosives on snowpacks, so that's another relatively cost-effective option.
- jandrewrogers 2y agoA pistol would be hilariously inadequate. As for "detonating explosives", what do you think they are doing? They are shooting high-explosive artillery rounds from a tank that detonate on impact. As for "why artillery", how do you plan on getting explosives into the snowpack, especially under conditions of severe avalanche risk? Those areas of the mountains are inaccessible by vehicle even in the summertime. A tank can drive on a road and deliver the explosives where needed. They often target 20+ separate snowfields so being able to do it in a timely and efficient manner matters. While the armor doesn't contribute much, it happens to be what the artillery gun is attached to. It would cost far more to rig some special-purpose vehicle. Sherman tanks are free, the government has loads of them lying around waiting to be scrapped, you just pay for fuel and upkeep.
- iancmceachern 2y agoYou can use the Army Corps of Engineers....
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- anonzzzies 2y agoThis is a drop in the bucket compared to military spending; apparently no one cares?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- slantedview 2y agoIn a political system shaped by lobbyists, those without lobbyists go without.
- MrLeap 2y agoStartup idea: like reddit, but upvoting costs money and all the posts are tickets for paid staff lobbyists. Trust/transparency would be the tricky problems.
- tptacek 2y agoNon-defense US federal spending dwarfs defense spending, for whatever it's worth. The US is essentially a benefits management firm with a standing army.
- iancmceachern 2y agoI dont know how we can know this. My understanding is that the pentagon has an unknown total budget. Once you wrap up all the CIA, NSA type stuff too I'm not sure how we can know this?
- tptacek 2y agoThe DoD has a "black budget", but that's money you don't get a breakdown of, not money you don't know about: it's voted in by Congress as a blind total. Total spending is profoundly tilted towards non-defense spending (even more so if you include state and local government spending, but that's not germane to the Forest Service) --- the amount of "secret" money going to defense, if it existed, would have to be economy-breaking to alter the balance.
- nerdponx 2y agoAs I understand it, Ukraine is mostly getting old outdated equipment, and Israel is actually buying weapons, not just receiving them as gifts.
- jrochkind1 2y agoThe US normally gives Israel around $3 billion dollars a year to buy our weapons -- they are in fact required to spend it on buying weapons from US defense industry. It's kind of an, um, gift certificate. This year they gave Israel $18 billion, so much more than usual. In one sense, all of this is actually a jobs program for the US defense industry, since all that money is required to turn around as weapons purchases from US companies. Even $18 billion is less than 1% of the US non-military budget, this isn't the reason we "can't afford" the USFS, or the reason to stop giving weapons to Israel -- the US certainly can afford both. (The reason to stop supplying Israel is that those weapons are actually destabilizing the region and encouraging violence and gross human rights violations). But, no, Israel "buys" US weapons with US money, they are indeed a gift. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/USspendingIsrael https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/USspendingIs...
- nerdponx 2y agoGood to know and thanks for that link. I am curious why this was downvoted, is that not a trustworthy resource?
- ImPostingOnHN 2y agoIt's not downvoted.
- jrochkind1 2y agoIt prob got initially downvoted and then later up-voted just cause it's so political, and i mentioned my personal support for ending US weapons supply to Israel, and people vote based on their political agreement or disagreement with sentiments, explicit or implied, but here I was explicit.
- 2y ago
- bearjaws 2y agoWe can spend money on both, but we have one party making up issues to be outraged about.
- willcipriano 2y agoThere is more than two things to spend money on.
- MiguelX413 2y agoLike both.
- willcipriano 2y agoSocialized medicine for Israel, nothing for Americans. A bold plan. Let's see how the American people feel about this in 12 days.
- MiguelX413 2y agoNobody said that.
- willcipriano 2y agoActions speak louder than words.
- speakfreely 2y agoIt's not clear which party you think is doing this because both of them do it so frequently.
- intended 2y agoHave to say, there’s no more apt moment to point that this is missing the forest for trees.
- renewiltord 2y agoDamn, we should send the USFS HIMARS. I bet that will help.
- bflesch 2y agoThat's a stupid pro-russian propaganda talking point. Try harder.
- potato3732842 2y agoHow do you know he's not talking about Isreal? Or about whichever side of the dumpster fire in Yemen that the CIA is undoubtably helping out? We absolutely play world police way more than we ought to for our own good.