Military vs. Civilian Spending

Think what might happen with just a few fewer tanks...


-->

Over 8,800 M1 and M1A1 tanks have been produced for the US Army and Marine Corps, (and a relative few for the armies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) at a cost of US $2.35–$4.30 million per unit, depending on the variant. (“top-of-the-line” = $4.3 million) The M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank is made by General Dynamics Land Systems.

Supporting the Abrams is a Tank Recovery Vehicle. The United States Army requirement is for 595 M88A2 HERCULES recovery vehicles, the Marine Corps requirement was originally for 60 vehicles (now 66).The US Army has fielded 157 HERCULES and the US Marine Corps all its planned HERCULES. Unitary Cost: USD
$2.0 million. The Hercules is made by BAE Systems (AirBus, etc.).

Both vehicles are totally paid for with taxpayer dollars.

The top-of-the-line combine John Deere offers is the 9870 STS.Manufacturer's suggested list price: $0.337 million. About one third of one million. These are typically paid for by farmers and farming companies; only partially (tax breaks) with taxpayer money.

So, for the same money you can buy…

(One)

OR…

(Twelve)





And if you want something to put you upright after you take a turn a little fast…

(One)

OR…

(Six)

Which do you think are the more productive expenditures?

...And I mean in terms of national security, international relations, positive productivity, contribution to the U.S. economy. And esthetics. The "military/industrial complex" might think "tanks." And if you are not careful, and do not think about it critically, you might think "tanks" too. Or if, after thinking critically, you still think "tanks," then we have an ideological difference.