MANUFACTURING THE NEWS: Why We Don't Have Armor

The Question Fairy ^ | 12/09/04 | Becki Snow

[dandelion]

It's a great question: why don't we have enough armor? Kind of like it's great to see a contestant win a lot of money on a game show - but it's a LOT better when it's not manufactured.

Fixed. Staged. Chroreographed.

Whatever you want to call it, the news is always better when the reporter doesn't insert himself into the mix, as Edward Pitts has supposedly done.

According to Drudge:

From: EDWARD LEE PITTS, MILITARY AFFAIRS Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM To: Staffers

Subject: RE: Way to go

I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.

There was this thing, and we called it "journalistic ethics". But enough about ancient history - when the chips go down the press will always say "it doesn't mean the story/question/incident/expense report isn't true". Fair enough, it's a great question and it deserves to go on the editorial page. It does not deserve on the "news" page when a soldier (who was coached by the reporter) is picked by the mic man (who was also coached by the reporter) so other reporters can specifically target an individual with the administration. These Q&A sessions have been held in the past, but always without the Old Media present. This is the reason why.

But on to the great question: yes, they should ask this, and they should get an honest answer. Do you really want to know why we don't have enough armor? Let's find out why Dick Durbin (D, PA) says we don't have any armor...

From the Congressional Record, Feb. 11, 2004. (PDF):

We should do better. I said to the Secretary of the Army: Isn't this a priority? He said: It is our highest priority to build the 8,400 doors for these Humvees. He told me that many will be made in my State at the Rock Island Arsenal . I visited the Rock Island Arsenal and saw the first sets of doors come off for the Humvees, and the workers were so proud. They knew they had done something significant.

I said to the commander at the arsenal : How long will it take us now? We need 8,400 sets and we are also doing them at Anniston. He said: We are going to get these doors built in one year.

One year? In World War II, we were building bombers in 72 hours and ships in 30 and 60 days, and we need 1 year to make the armor-plated doors to protect the Humvees so that fewer of our men and women in uniform will have to go to Walter Reed Hospital for prosthetic devices and medical treatment.

I said: Why is it taking one year? He said: Because there is only one steel-fabricating plant left in America, and it is in Pennsylvania. It makes the steel that we can convert into the armor plating for these doors. We are using everything they produce as fast as they produce it.

So when the issue comes up about loss of manufacturing jobs, and loss of American jobs, and loss of our industrial base, it is more than a cold discussion of statistics; it is a discussion about the reality of our economy and the reality we face. Whether you live in North Carolina, where we have lost textile jobs, or you live in Illinois, where we have lost steel jobs, the fact is, as we lose these jobs, we lose our capacity. When it comes to something as basic as steel, that capacity plays out so that our soldiers in Iraq today are more vulnerable to enemy attack because we cannot produce the steel in America.

What makes this all the more damning is the fact that this information came from a Democrat in the now-dashed hope of making the economy a priority in an election year. Never mind that Durbin never points to the fact that this decimation of American Steel and the manufacturing industry happened as a whole under the Clinton Administration. Obviously, American products should be used to create American Armor, so as to avoid any chance of sabotage or low quality. But now we have to buy the vast majority of our steel from foreign countries, many of whom may disagree with our policies, and to whom we have to pay top dollar. Americans weren't supposed to do that anymore, remember? We were all going to work in those new Hi-Tech industries, we were all going to have cushy high-paying service jobs, so Clinton gave away our manufacturing jobs and all the contracts to foreign governments. Now most of our steel comes from China. Remember?

The real recipient of this question should be ever member of Congress who let American Steel die - NOT Donald Rumsfeld. A real reporter would ask the question of those who are responsible, not send in a stooge to ask it of those they'd like to see blamed for this mess.

Why don't we have armor?

Because we only have ONE American factory that makes steel for our armor, that's why. IF we want more American armor, we need to manufacture more American Steel.

It's really too bad the Old Media doesn't ask this question of those who could do something about it. But it appears they are only interested in manufacturing the news...

[Marine_Uncle]

"In the meantime, PRChina's gummint has stolen our nuke secrets with the cooperation of X42, stolen patents from most US firms who are stupid enough to make product over there, priced its currency at way-below-market rates and guaranteed it would stay under the value of the USDollar, and is now working very hard to disable US manufacturing capability.
But we can buy their friendship, right?"

Yea. And it just seems like many do not realize that China will not buy a lot of commodities from the west for their peoples. They will at their pace, determine what, how much and when various things should be allowed to be given to their people, carefully timed so that they gear up to produce like goods at a lower cost, then sell their versions to their peoples. But dont' tell that to an American businessman. It is appears beyond his/her level of understanding. Unless they simply want to attempt to make a quick profit, then the hell with their company afterward.
Sigh. It is all to darn complicated. But surely the turning over of many of our secrets, very high tech processes etc.,
are the worst thing that can happen. You did not mentioned how much we practically gave them free in the way of missile design etc.. So now they are many years ahead in their ICBM technologies then would otherwise have been the case. To my knowledge, not even the Russians where stupid enough to give them ICBM technologies. Then there is the UN deal. As China becomes a dominate force in the world both military and commerical wise, they have yet more control over world events. The gig is up.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Okay, so can't MFN status be revoked?"
YES. All it takes is for the POTUS to say sorry charlie.
Please consider the following site to explain the details:

http://www.wcit.org/resources/publications/issue_briefs/ib_china_mfn_status.htm

Bush could revoke China's MFN status. But why would he?
It would take a very powerful will on his part to say to American busines sorry folks, I have to screw you for the good of the whole country. It may turn out, and I have not followed this issue since day one, that Clinton had the blessings of most demos and republicans on this deal when he signed them up for favors. So I piss and moan how stupid many Americans are, then have to admit I have no background on this issue, as to the hows and why it came to past.

[Former Proud Canadian]

I'm a little more sanguine than you are about this. China needs to revalue their currency. They should also stop threatening their neighbors. I have no doubt that Bush, or any other republican would use MFN status as a lever to get them to behave.

[Paul Ross]

Actually, that was obsoleted by Xlinton in his last year with the PNTR... Permanent Normalization of Trade Relations was passed by the U.S. Senate and signed by Beelzebubba in 2000. The PNTR ended the annual review process...pre-emptively taking the 'carrot and stick' away from the new administration...

Now it would take extraordinary provocation by China for the President to take any emergency action, action he would still require the Congress to approve, and order a recission of the PNTR...and trigger the Smoot-Hawley tariff regime...which (while sadly neglected) is still on the books.

[Paul Ross]

It is no longer a politically viable lever...unless the Prez was willing to "spend some political capital". And I doubt he will have enough...let alone the inclination...to do the job. Hence, he won't even make the attempt. He'll just smile and pretend this is what we always wanted all along.

[Willie Green]

Special Defense Department Briefing on Armored Vehicles ( Text )

Levels 1, 2, 3???
"up-armored"???
Buncha gobbledegook if ya ask me.
There's no doubt that adding armor adds protection,
but I still think the media is stirring up a stink just because a Humvee isn't as heavily armored as an Abrams.
When are they gonna insist that all the troop's uniforms be lined with 23 layers of kevlar bubble-wrap?

[Former Proud Canadian]

Thanks for your post 184. It seems like annual review would have been a MUCH better way to go with the chicoms.

[Paul Ross]

Let us not forget that Regan was a champion of free trade for the most part, and believed in little government control of business etc.. Perhaps Ron would have not been so hasty in giving China most favorable Free trade, based on his inherent feelings on communism etc...

For sure his anti-communism would have prevented anything as egregious as Xlinton's treacherous fiddling-while-Rome-burned-conduct. But besides that, he really practiced something quite different from "globalist" Free Trade...where national interest was completely ignored. He was an sincere patriot. He believed in Fair Trade:

US Department of State Bulletin > Oct, 1986 >

International trade - Ronald Reagan's August 2 address to the nation

International Trade It's sometimes said that if you put three economists together in a room and ask them a question, you're liable to get more than three answers. It's true, economists don't often agree; but there is one issue on which almost all responsible economists, whatever their political persuasion, are unanimous. They agree that free and fair trade brings growth and opportunity and creates jobs. And they all warn that high trade barriers, what is often called protectionism, undermines economic growth and destroys jobs. I don't call it protectionism; I call it destructionism.

That's why our motto is: free and fair trade with free and fair traders. Now, we've seen that governments sometimes don't play by the rules. They keep exports out of subsidy--or subsidize, I should say, industries, giving them an unfair advantage. Well, our patience with unfair trade isn't endless, and we're taking action to bring other nations back in line to ensure that free trade remains fair trade. We're aggressively using existing trade laws to pry open foreign markets and force others to play by the rules.

This week, for instance, we signed a breakthrough trade agreement that'll open up Japanese markets to U.S. semiconductors and prevent the Japanese from dumping semiconductors in our markets. And last month, after intensive negotiations in response to a deadline I set, the European Community agreed to keep its market open to U.S. farm exports.

These agreements are examples of positive, result-oriented trade action. Instead of closing markets at home, we've opened markets to U.S. products abroad, thus helping to create more American jobs. Instead of erecting destructionist import barriers, we're tearing down foreign barriers to make trade freer and fairer for all. Because, believe me, when Americans are competing on a level playing field, they can outproduce and outsell anyone, anywhere in the world.

We've been tough with those nations who've been unfair in their trading practices, and that toughness has produced results. And with hard-pressed industries like textiles and apparel that have gone through difficult times, we've taken strong action to help. We renegotiated agreements with Taiwan and Hong Kong over a year early to expand product coverage and tighten controls of imports from those countries. We are pursuing negotiations with Korea to tighten restraints on their exports to us and improve opportunities for our producers in their market. And just this week we completed a tough, new multifiber arrangement with our trading partners that will include products not previously covered and which gives us tools to prevent damaging import surges. This is result-oriented action. ....

You know, the Europeans talk about the "American miracle" of economic growth and job creation. Well, I'm going to do everything I can to keep that miracle of hope alive, creating jobs and opportunities for all Americans.

COPYRIGHT 1986 U.S. Government Printing Office

[Marine_Uncle]

"I'm a little more sanguine than you are about this. China needs to revalue their currency. They should also stop threatening their neighbors. I have no doubt that Bush, or any other republican would use MFN status as a lever to get them to behave."
Surely I agree with your statement. But China will do what China wants to do. Unlike the Islamic world, they have the means to dominate much of the worlds markets if they play their cards right. What you and I would have them do, may not be in their best interests, lets remember, by "their" I am not speaking for the civilian population of China but those in power. It is at best a real sticky deal. I don't have the answers as what course should be plotted for the future on this issue.

[snopercod]

Frankly, I find it incredible that there is no company in the U.S. that can build the kind of furnaces required to make the ceramic armor. There has to be more to that story.

I suspect the EPA is the reason.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Actually, that was obsoleted by Xlinton in his last year with the PNTR... Permanent Normalization of Trade Relations was passed by the U.S. Senate and signed by Beelzebubba in 2000. The PNTR ended the annual review process...pre-emptively taking the 'carrot and stick' away from the new administration...

Now it would take extraordinary provocation by China for the President to take any emergency action, action he would still require the Congress to approve, and order a recission of the PNTR...and trigger the Smoot-Hawley tariff regime...which (while sadly neglected) is still on the books."

So sir, the gig is up. We have been truly sold down the tubes. Thank you for this very bad news.........really.
At least more of us now understand we are in the real deep
of it. Perhaps I can find a job in China town cleaning toilets. Interestingly, I bet if Big John Kerry had been elected he would not do a damn thing to try to pursuade congress to write a new bill to overriding the existing one.
There are just to many trillions of dollars involved to get a fairer trade policy going at this point. Surely it is now
beyond Clintons concerns about human rights, which was just a bunch of bull shit in my opinion. You don't try to bribe communists countries with commercial deals to stop human rights offenses. It was a lame excuse he and others used to begin with. Now they take over and still can throw their peasants an occasional fish head. Nothing changes in Washington. The jerks sold us out once more.

[ninenot]

That is the FIRST time I've heard that we did Iraq because SH was an ally of PRChina.

[ninenot]

Let us not forget that Regan was a champion of free trade

Not to be too picky--but Ron Reagan believed in FAIR trade.

The FreeTraitors are the ones who have determined that PRChina's friendship can be bought with dollars--and at the cost of over 3 million manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years.

THEY think that the entire purpose of humanity is dollar-denominated.

It's a false god, of course...

[ninenot]

Kevlar is available to the troops, and some buy their own. But it has to be Class 3 (the heaviest) to stop AK-47 slugs.

[Willie Green]

Frankly, I find it incredible that there is no company in the U.S. that can build the kind of furnaces required to make the ceramic armor. There has to be more to that story.
I suspect the EPA is the reason.

Well I'd love to blame the EPA as well, but I suspect the true reason is more mundane.

With a somewhat "exotic" material like ceramic armor, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they use some kind of multi-stage furnace that's custom designed to match the exact process formula needed to make the stuff. I don't know much specifically about ceramics, but I'll take a guess that the stages might be something like: preheat, heat, hold at temperature, slow cooldown, reheat for stress relief, and final cooldown. Each stage has different time/temperature requirements; maybe even different types of heating: gas fired in some, microwave in another, maybe infrared radiation in others. One stage might require an argon atmosphere while the next is performed under vacuum. And the whole thing has some kind of conveyor system to move the material from one stage to the next. So you can quickly see how it can become a highly-specialized furnace.

So yeah, there probably ARE industrial furnace manufacturers in the US who could possibly make a special furnace like this. But if the ceramic armor was originally developed in some country like Israel, it becomes naturally easier to just go to whatever furnace manufacturer who made the first one when the process was originally developed. Then it becomes a simple matter of telling 'em: "make us another furnace just like the one you made for us 10 years ago, but change/upgrade it here, here and here, but not there."

Simple matter of not having to go to somebody else who would have to "reinvent the wheel".

Of course I'm just speculating, but as a manufacturing engineer, I've also been involved with the purchase of a lot of custom-designed equipment over the years. That's the kind of crap ya gotta go through.

[A. Pole]

The new producers were cheaper because they were more productive labor-wise since they weren't locked into old time labor contracts and were not burdened with costly health and pension payments.

So the lowering the costs is to be based on the lowering the wages, reducing/eliminating the health expenses and retirement.

Is it the freemarketeers idea of progress? What about the progress based on technological improvement?

[Marine_Uncle]

"Let us not forget that Regan was a champion of free trade
Not to be too picky--but Ron Reagan believed in FAIR trade.
The FreeTraitors are the ones who have determined that PRChina's friendship can be bought with dollars--and at the cost of over 3 million manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years.
THEY think that the entire purpose of humanity is dollar-denominated. It's a false god, of course..."

That sir is on the line I have made mention of in this post and another recent one. The bottom line is regardless of our ideologies, sides of the bench, examples over the past few hundred years of how commerce has evolved etc..
America continues to lose it's manufacturing base across the whole spectrum of products we at one time reined supreme in.
We as a nation (government and business) are selling ourselves out. Many of us have touched on some of the issues, and in some cases make rather disturbing comments that cannot be simply scuffed away. We have put ourselves in a real jam. I do realize the main issue was the real state of affairs with our suppposed inability to manufacture the required armor plating of our military's transportation type vehicles. I and a few others drifted off the key subject.
Perhaps we should have stayed focused on just that issue.
But obviously the underlining health of our current steel industries's health triggered issues that beg challenging our nations current philosophy regarding procurment of raw materials and perhaps pre-fabricated goods that effect our ability to equip our armed services as once was possible almost on the fly.
This topic has been quite informative for me. It has helped me better put together some things I knew and many new angles and facts I was totally ignorant on, mostly in how our government has sold us down the tubes (pit if you like) regarding recent trade agreements with China etc..
So I for one have learned from what people have contributed.
Thanks all.

[Paul Ross]

I bet if Big John Kerry had been elected he would not do a damn thing to try to pursuade congress to write a new bill to overriding the existing one.

I don't think you could get anybody here to take that bet!

John Kerry's entire political career has been one detrimental to the peace and prosperity of the U.S. and one of communist-nation-currying self-aggrandizement. He is perhaps the biggest proponent of Globalization on the Hill.

Kerry was firmly backing all of the Xlinton schemes: The Xlinton-Altered NAFTA Language (an Albright cave-in to the Mexicans, highly adverse to the U.S.); Xlinton-Altered WTO language in its formation; Xlinton-cave-ins on U.S. interest in the Kyoto Treaty (which gives China extraordinarily disparate advantage, and although was not signed by the U.S. and would not pass the Senate...is now in force among many Western signatory countries...and may be a back door to a Global Governmental Tax Regime); Xlinton-concessions on Chinese being granted MFN-status with PNTR passage in 2000; and Xlinton-conessions on WTO-Admission, which GWB only slightly modified so as to require joint-admission of China and Taiwan which then happened on November 11th, 2001. In all of these, Kerry is not just on record as voting for these U.S.-endangering moves, he is a strong supporter. Globalism uber alles. Just like he wants United Nations control over our military.

And it is only too true the campaign rhetoric about Heniz 57 -- Heinz production being outsourced to 57 Countries. Kerry would demigogically pander against outsourcing, but then, do precisely the opposite of what is required to stop any outsourcing. His tax proposals were just tepid and silly...an puny corporate income tax incentive cannot countervail against a 5-fold production cost advantage in China. His next steps would have been equally inane Probably just create a federal regulatory bureaucracy...which would then chase out still more U.S. industry and investment. Typical Globalist Democrat thinking.

As far as the "gig" being up, well, there is still the possibility of

(a) Divine intervention (which we should be fervently praying for non-stop...and that the disinformer's mouths cease) and/or the

(b)"Nautilus Solution": i.e., a rogue "mad" USN attack-submarine captain who wipes out the Chinese-industrial-assault-force...its ENTIRE merchant marine brimming with junk-filled containers. It would take China a decade to recover...and allow the U.S. to do likewise in the interim.

[Marine_Uncle]

Ahhhhaaaa! I knew there was a logical answer as to why the ship does not have a grinding wheel mounted vertically on the top. It has been replaced with launch tubes.

Yes. You named a number of really outstanding things BJFK has been responsible for supporting. Some of which I was not aware of. Thanks. The man is very very dangerous. Unlike someone such as Teddy hickup Kennedy who may very well fell of the stump on a few occasions, Lurch truly has a way to mis-inform masses of people on issues. Like a spider he has brought to a high level the art of weaving clever half truths into what appear to be a geniune set of facts.
When he was screaming about our troops not being "fully protected" with better body armor and armored vehicles, he if you remember, brought up the idea that if he was elected he would immediately "assemble" 40,000 "new" Special Forces personel. Had I been in possesion of an empty wiskey bottle I am sure my mom's boob tube would now be in-operative.
Perhaps the best thing our country could experience currently as to have fat boy Moore hire underwater cameramen to film Big John Kerry being keel holed on your special Nautilis. Thanks for the additonal info on BJFK.

[DugwayDuke]

"Finally, your gratuitous and un-informed remark about "protectionism" demonstrates that you either don't understand FAIR trade, or you don't wish to."

Oh, I understand 'FAIR trade'. It's where a group of workers use the power of government to set artificial HIGH prices in order to take the hard earned wealth from their fellow citizens. Did I leave something out?