[SauronOfMordor]

You can shoot at me, but only after I get to shoot .50 cal rounds at you first while you are sitting in a Hummer. For the truth is we are not replacing tanks with Strykers, we are replacing Hummer-equiped combat units with Strykers. Therefore the question is not are you better protected in an M1 or an M2/M3 than in a Stryker, but are you better protected in an Stryker than in a Hummer or a truck.

A Styker costs considerably more than a hummer. The article states "The Army plans to buy 2,100 vehicles, enough to put about 300 in each brigade. Mr. O'Reilly says it will cost between $12 billion and $15 billion to equip six brigades". This translates into between $6 MILLION to $7 MILLION PER STRYKER

In a time of finite budgets, which would you rather have for your $6 million: ONE Stryker, or a DOZEN Hummers ( @ $100K each), fully equipped with TOW missiles and 20mm cannon, controlling a few Hellfire-equipped Predator drones?

[1stFreedom]

I'd rather be in a Stryker instead of a Hummer ANY day of the week.

[Proud Legions]

Some good points, but one key fact missing. Eveyone on this thread is getting hung up on the Stryker vehicle. It is actually just a small piece of the concept of an SBCT, and only a part of the money. Much of that money is going for non-Stryker equipment, especially information technology. Having said that, I do not deny the Sytrker is expensive.