Comments on: 5 Most Expensive U.S. Military Vehicles To Date

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 01:36:07 +0000

The Iowa class of battleships was worth every cent, do some research.

I also think the Nimitz and B-2 are worth their price. Remember there total cost is little compared to Americas economy. Nothing better demonstrates power better.

By: Cam

Cam — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:54:24 +0000

While the Iowa class battleships were darn expensive, I feel it’s important to point out that they lasted 60 years and served in every US war from WW2 to The Gulf War. While they may have cost 1.8 billion each, I can think of many vehicles that cost maybe a quarter of their cost, but were only used by the military for a few years.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:22:13 +0000

Most of your figures were great, but if you dig a little deeper you will find that the B2 is actually between 2.1 and 2.2 BILLION dollars. Also, if you want to cut government spending, let’s look more at the pointless items on the budget rather than reducing the defenses of the little piece of land that every other country wants. Just the opinions of a “silent professional”. Look that one up if you want.

By: Legion

Legion — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:08:07 +0000

So just as an FYI most of these vehicles are useless, war has changed so much since they were commissioned that they can’t live up to their full potential. Also there was a simulation done and after the first battle the Americans got their asses kicked so hard that they made their opponent quit by creating so many rules. In other words these “toys” are useless because the american brass has an over inflated ego… also these vehicles will never be able to stop terrorists, the americans need a new strategy.

By: think

think — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 09:46:04 +0000

“Christ some of the thick skulled arrogance in the above comments is astounding.”
Or…. We can use our fictitious fiat trillions to develop trade and tourism with all countries and develop Peace! We can spend a couple billion on war simulation games instead.
Exoskeletons will be a great way to allow seniors to take the jobs of the owners of these stupid comments left by armchair war heroes that live in their mom’s basement.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 17 May 2010 14:09:18 +0000

. Because, it’s exactly the same as saying ‘we need rapists, murderers and other criminals, otherwise many policemen would lose their jobs’. Policemen are needed _because_ of the existence of criminals. Richard reasons the other way round, he says ‘we need criminals, otherwise we can’t have policemen

By: Syphonaptera

Syphonaptera — Sat, 08 May 2010 06:25:24 +0000

Dude , you are cracking, america attacks countries, not the otherway around, you sick dumb overpatriotic brainwashed warmonging numbskull. I even bet you NEVER was in any army. The terroristic attacks( IF they were not an inside job) were just a reaction for the constant american imperialistic behavior in this world. You paranoid freak. Send more taxdollears to illegal israel and 9-11″ens are getting normal ….you americans are all alike…

By: Xerox

Xerox — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:58:21 +0000

Christ some of the thick skulled arrogance in the above comments is astounding.

If anything 9/11 (which is largely your own bloody fault) should be seen as proof that the US is not protected from the attacks it is most likely to face. Nuclear weapons render the large scale use of conventional weapons for an extended war with another country almost impossible. You’re spending billions on developing weapons (a subject that, admittedly, i find fascinating) and your reasoning is…what? “we’re America and we’re the best and we’re protecting ourselves from the enemy and protecting other countries and these weapons mean i can sit and eat burgers, get fat and be thick in safety” – your reasoning is flawed. The largest country which could, concievably, start a conventional war with you is Iran, and even then it’s more likely to be nuclears.

Now, 9/11 was instigated by a group with no recognised national allegiance. The Taliban are in Afghanistan, not of it. And so your threat of nukes is essentially meaningless, because they’re not a state and you wouldn’t be justified in using them. And so you send over your state of the art tech, starting a war which has cost into trillions, and yet you’re infantry are being bogged down and killed by men with weapons that are 40+ years old (and/or that you sold them) and the expensive vehicles are being defeated by something made in a kitchen somewhere with a pair of plyers.

You want my opinion on what would be a better techmological investment? No? Well you’re getting it.

Spend the money on technological enhancement of the troops on the ground. Armored exoskeletons and the like (just look on Youtube) better guns, more helicopters – oh, and maybe use some of the cash to employ some half decent advisors and strategists.

Then you can go on and spend ridiculous money on a revolutionary microwave to put in your tank or something. It’s not that that bothers me, it’s the reasoning. Defence my arse, deluded people.

By: Nick JDM

Nick JDM — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:33:45 +0000

wow pocket change

By: anand

anand — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:20:44 +0000

These weapons(specially efv,b2,ohio,nimitz) were very necessary to defend usa from al qaida the only enemy that ever reached and attacked usa.
What a waste of money.
Rich nations have so much pain in their a$$ to give money to poor nations to develop, but so easily they spend on waste junk boxes,.!!
Some analysts suggest that costliest type of weapons are designed rather than smart types so as to benefit war mongers and increase further debt on people ,who finally pay for these !!