Re: [OT]Wither Canada? And Australias Abrahms

 
 
In a message dated 2/5/05 7:41:08 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
laranzu@ozemail.com.au writes:

<snip>
Our intended purchase of the Abrams instead of the  Leopard
may be politically motivated, but it can still be right!

For  defending Australia, the Leopard should be better
because it's lighter and  thus less likely to crush our
bridges, better fuel efficiency and range,  etc. One
could probably argue the same about Eurofighters instead
of the	F-35 JSF, or maybe British destroyers instead of
Aegis. (I'm not disputing  the quality of US equipment,
only that it's real expensive and we're a  small country.)

Glenn: A very  frequently overlooked point by most of the third world. 
But 
the issue of  keeping it running is the killer that is ALWAYS overlooked
(but 
given lip  service) -- at least in S. E. Asia.	

On the other hand, the United States is the only country
that  *could* launch any kind of serious invasion of us
this decade. And if the  US did decide to invade, the kind
of tank we had wouldn't make much  difference. So if our
army buying the Abrams makes us popular with the  US,
we're decreasing the risk of invasion :-)
 
LOL!  I  think Indonesia still has delusions of grandeur there ... but
it's a 
long way  from the IC of  the Tuffleyverse...

cheers,
Hugh

Gracias,

Glenn  "warbeads"