[theFIRMbss]

>The most flexible and effective weapon in our arsenal is a well-trained soldier on the ground--operates in any terrain, weather, or climate against any enemy. Can kill or capture, can separate bad guys from civilians, can use one shot to kill the sniper in the mosque, and unlike a high tech gizmo--a soldier can adapt to completely new or unforeseen circumstances.

I don't disagree
with that one bit! I'm saying,
however, we have

many proven means
of getting troops here to there.
To my eyes it seems

smarter to budget
money to build deep reserves
of vehicles that

have proven themselves
rather than invest in new
programs. (In regards

to well defined things
like troop-moving and such.) That's
all I was saying.

[mark502inf]

it seems smarter to budget money to build deep reserves of vehicles that have proven themselves rather than invest in new programs.

Agree. We're doing a pretty good job of that with the B-52 & C130; sure seems like we could have done the same thing with a few upgrades to the M113 instead of a whole new vehicle. Not slamming the Stryker, just seems the M113 would have provided a roughly equivalent (and "proven" as you say) capability faster & in greater numbers & at less cost.

[SauronOfMordor]

To my eyes it seems smarter to budget money to build deep reserves of vehicles that have proven themselves rather than invest in new programs. (In regards to well defined things like troop-moving and such.)

If the Stryker won't resist .50 cal AP, there's little to recommend it over a stretched version of the Hummer with a TOW launcher on top. At least we can transport lots of those by air, and they have good cross-country capabilities