US forced to import bullets from Israel!

L

leon_corterly

#1
US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.... (continued)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 30, 2005
1,358
0
0
40
Deployed to Iraq
#2
leon_corterly said:
US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.... (continued)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314944.ece
I'm not too sure about that 250,000 bullets per insurgent killed, but yes, we are buying ammo from foreign suppliers, to be used in training so that American made ammo can be used in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't see this as a big deal. People would have raised hell in the 90s if we'd bought enough ammo to keep more ammo production alive in the US.
 

Nocturnal

Americana
Premium
Mar 27, 2003
13,662
115
0
Jacksonville
#4
leon_corterly said:
US forced to import bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every rebel killed
I bolded the problem with that statement, we aren't forced to do anything. Just like we aren't "forced" to buy sneakers from china.
 
Feb 2, 2004
2,503
81
0
Visit site
#5
Ok, lets get to the real reason this is happening.
1. Our manufacturing base is gone. All we do have is just a very small fraction of the original base.
2. Bullets are made using screw machines. The machines we are using now in the US were made in the 40's and the companies that make ammo for the US, like ATK, are cheap asses that don't have any forward thinking people in management. Their idea of running a company is bleed it dry to the point that you spend nothing to produce the bare minimum. And most of the times, they fuck up that bare minimum they do make.
3. So why Israel? Because Israel is one of the largest producers of maching equipment in the world. And since we don't have a company here that can still make a screw machine, we have to rely on them.
 
L

leon_corterly

#8
Why don't we discuss the 900 lb gorilla...

Asbestos Crayon said:
Ok, lets get to the real reason this is happening.
1. Our manufacturing base is gone. All we do have is just a very small fraction of the original base.
2. Bullets are made using screw machines. The machines we are using now in the US were made in the 40's and the companies that make ammo for the US, like ATK, are cheap asses that don't have any forward thinking people in management. Their idea of running a company is bleed it dry to the point that you spend nothing to produce the bare minimum. And most of the times, they fuck up that bare minimum they do make.
3. So why Israel? Because Israel is one of the largest producers of maching equipment in the world. And since we don't have a company here that can still make a screw machine, we have to rely on them.
We didn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan for WMDs or Oil...

The real reason why to defend Israel from a potential threat, NOT the United States!

However, it is not at all PC to talk about this... Now why would that be? :rolleyes:


See source: MICHAEL MOORE'S FAHRENHEIT 9/11 IGNORES
MOST OBVIOUS REASON FOR IRAQ WAR
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/iraq5.html

Alistair McConnachie writes: Michael Moore may be an entertaining journalist and his new film, Fahrenheit 9/11 raises some important issues, but like many people, Moore has his own biases, and his own interpretations, which often ignore obvious realities. For example, Moore promotes the idea that George W. Bush has personal ties to Saudi interests and the Saudi government. Maybe so. But President Bush and his Administration is also tied to Israeli interests and the Israeli government far more publicly, politically and obviously.

For example, see his remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on 18 May 2004, where he stated clearly: "The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state." Yet, for Moore, this doesn't appear to be an issue!

Fahrenheit 9/11 completely ignores the most obvious reason for the Iraq War. As Simon Jenkins states below, "The war had more to do with neocon support for Israel, of which Moore makes no mention, and with the nature of Saddam's regime, which he also ignores". Jenkins draws attention to the new book by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke entitled America Alone. It points out that the "Iraq war is not about oil but about the agenda of a small group of Washington ideologues" whose "first commitment was to the defence of Israel."

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 30, 2005
1,358
0
0
40
Deployed to Iraq
#9
Incidentally, we're also buying ammo from the Brits right now. That's what Army units in Europe are using for training this year. No big deal, it's more or less the same as the ammo made in the US.

As for companies in the US not investing in new equipment, where would the motivation for that be? Prior to 9/11 the US hadn't fought a protracted war for thirty years, and the capacity they had was meeting demand.
 
Aug 30, 2005
1,358
0
0
40
Deployed to Iraq
#11
clutch-monkey said:
it sounds about right, but idk how they measure it.
remember in WW2 for every casualty 55 tons of ordnance was expended.
Our training and weapons have improved significantly though. In WW2 guys didn't even zero sights on their weapons. I'm not saying we don't use a lot of rounds, somewhere in the 100s probably, but 250,000 is enormous.

A double basic load for a rifleman is somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 rounds. Anyways, I'm curious how they determined the number of 250,000. Just sounds high.
 

bergshadow

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,280
48
0
#12
It isn't just bullets. The offshoring and outsourcing that has moved so much US manufacturing overseas has created foreign dependency for stuff from body armor to missile guidance modules.

As for companies in the US not investing in new equipment, where would the motivation for that be?
In theory, companies that did not modernize would lose their military supply contracts to more competitive companies. That would require clean, non-corrupt military procurement agencies and contractual oversight, plus a well-governed (competitive) market.

With so much of the US economy tied to the military, corruption and inefficiency in military procurement has widespread influence.
 
Aug 30, 2005
1,358
0
0
40
Deployed to Iraq
#14
bergshadow said:
It isn't just bullets. The offshoring and outsourcing that has moved so much US manufacturing overseas has created foreign dependency for stuff from body armor to missile guidance modules.

In theory, companies that did not modernize would lose their military supply contracts to more competitive companies. That would require clean, non-corrupt military procurement agencies and contractual oversight, plus a well-governed (competitive) market.

With so much of the US economy tied to the military, corruption and inefficiency in military procurement has widespread influence.
I won't argue that our procurement system is all kinds of screwed up, there's plenty of evidence for that. My point was that in the specific area of rifle ammunition, we've fairly consistently bought the same amount of ammo every year for thirty years. If a company had the production capability to meet that demand, there is little incentive to modernize, unless new technology comes along that allows you to produce the product with lower overhead. I don't think that's the case with ammunition, though I don't know for sure. I just don't see a good business case prior to 9/11 for an ammo company to expand their production, especiallly for 5.56mm ammo.
 
S

StinkyFinger

#16
The way the number 250,000 is reached is by taking the total amount of 'rounds fired, and dividing it by the total estimated insurgents/enemy killed. Just like in Nam, that number is a joke. So kids, when looking at these so-called numbers about enemy kill ratios and 'rounds, take it with a grain of salt. :rolleyes:
 
T

TacticalVirus

#17
Is there a reason it's going to training and not being used in Iraq? I mean, it's not like the rounds made in the U.S. are particularly high quality. We're actually told not to use U.S. rounds unless we absoloutly have to because they're weaker and dirtier.
 
S

StinkyFinger

#18
How is the 5.56 NATO weaker than any other 5.56 NATO. The grain count is exactly the same. :wtf:
 
T

TacticalVirus

#19
According to our weapons tech the 5.56 Nato made in Canada has a higher quality powder or something. It's supposed to burn cleaner/better. Then again that could be complete patriotic B.S.
 

clutch-monkey

momentum
Premium
Aug 11, 2005
8,892
202
0
33
Brisbane
#20
TacticalVirus said:
According to our weapons tech the 5.56 Nato made in Canada has a higher quality powder or something. It's supposed to burn cleaner/better. Then again that could be complete patriotic B.S.
well, think about how many people the canadians have to supply compared to america. can you blame the US for cutting a few minor corners here and there? :) surely it wouldn't matter too much, the current bullet weighs 62 gr right?
i know if australia was invaded by indonesia, they have more people than we have bullets :D