We'll run out of ammo before we run out of Chinese...UH OH BIG problem!

[LynnTheDem]

I totally forgot...TAIWAN produces our ammo. Damn, maybe shouldn'ta outsourced that, eh bush?

OOPS.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2005/January/theworld_January168.xml§ion=theworld&col=

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001317.html

Just how incompetent can rightwingnuts be? Yer seeing it.

[democracyindanger]

1. There was a story late last year

about US troops being given ammo that dated as far back as WWII.

[D_Master]

2. What???!!!

how much ammo could have we stockpiled during WW2? I mean we faught 2 major wars in Korea and Vietnam, the later lasting almost a decade. Also we faught minor wars all over the world, I can't discount the story, I just find it hard to believe that we would have any left over, let alone that was compatible with weapons made today.

[Posteritatis]

10. WW2 was really, really, really, really, really huge

Korea and even Vietnam were slap-fights compared to the Second World War.

It's difficult to overstate the scale of that war. Nothing - nothing - of that scale had ever happened before or since. (Nothing of its scale likely will ever happen, either.) The United States had more than sixteen million people under arms by the end of the war, and that number was showing no signs of peaking by the time Germany surrendered. Sixteen million! They were kept in food, water, medicine and ammunition surprisingly well, given the sheer number of people. Until Japan went down, people were expecting the war to last into the late forties or maybe even 1950, and were planning accordingly.

If you have enough weaponry to arm sixteen million troops through some of the most intense fighting in human history, you're going to have a surplus for a long, long time, especially for things like small-arms ammunition.

[liam_laddie]

16. Yeah, and few if any computers

All this was accomplished with paper, phones and competent individuals:
the armed forces, managers, even some politicians. Okay, there *were*
some mechanical computers and early radar, etc, but I'm talking about
managing a massive enterprise...just amazing!
Are we now witnessing a retrogression of capability in Washington?
Why, how could that be? :yoiks:

[jeff30997]

3. Next thing you know...

They will be equipped with Flintlock guns!

[LuCifer]

15. Or muskets

Or how about pee-shooters?

[LynnTheDem]

5. It wasn't WWII stockpiled ammo, it was type of ammo not used since WWII.

I'll look see if I have the link still...

[democracyindanger]

8. Found the story

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood110105.html

It's specifically .50 cal, and it's tested before being sent off. Still, it's troubling.

[sendero]

6. Ammo...

... properly stored, will last almost indefinitely. I suggest stocking up :)

[Raydawg1234]

14. Doesn't make sense, the assault rifles use different smaller rounds.

The service pistol has changed from the colt to the NATO standard 9mm Baretta. I'm no expert, but I think WW2 ammo would be useless, and has probably outlasted it's shelf life anyway.

[KyuzoGator]

18. Ironically, German WW2 ammo would probably be more useful today.

At least the 9mm Luger round.

[Deja Q]

4. I'm not surprised. We've been a "service economy" for 20-some years.

[Wilber_Stool]

7. When you divide the number of rounds fired

by the number of killed, it come out to 250,000 rounds per kill. Yeah, really.

[LSK]

9. dont worry, if China foreclosed on us, we couldnt AFFORD a bullet

[Jensen]

11. Keep feeding the Dragon....

soon it will goble us up! Nice going Repugs!

[Raydawg1234]

12. U.S. would use tactical Nukes against China.

[SmokingJacket]

13. Hm, I dunno, Taiwan might be needing that ammo pretty soon. nt

[Up2Late]

17. Something many didn't hear, the British went into Iraq with 5 rounds each!

So, why did they NOT have a bunch of "collateral damage" or "friendly fire" incidents? They couldn't afford to waste any bullets.:crazy: