How many M-1 Abrams tanks would it take to build a better bridge?

Question

Take the cost of one tank: 4.3 million dollars. So what would a new bridge over the Mississippi in Mineappolis/St. Paul cost? Divide by 4.3 million and that's how many tanks to build it.
Would it have been wise to spend less on tanks and more on bridges HUH?

The plant has made over 8000 Abrams tanks at costs of 2.3 - 4.3 million each dudes. A few sacrificed for a bridge or two isn't gonna harm our military capacity.
Heck the terrorists didn't need to do a thing in the case of the I-35W bridge- we destroyed it ourselves with lack of funding!

toddmcon- My Dad was enlisted in the Army in WWII. His unit went to the Battle of the Bulge. I myself am a History buff with a particular bent towards WWII and the Civil War. Cutting back on tanks and guns to supply money for infrastructure is common sense , not a lack of support for military spending NOR is it a lack of "patriotism". It is far past time that Necons AND Liberals stop looking at every issue with one point of view.
BTW it would take 1,721 Abrams tanks to cover the requested 9.4 billion needed to fix the country's bridges as requested by the Society of Civil Engingeers. This assumes each tank cost 4.3 million. We've built more than 8,000 of these tanks! Cut them back and an aircraft carrier and ya got the kind of infrastructure the USA SHOULD have.....

Answer 1

for some reason our government thinks that protect Iraqi borders is more important than protecting our own. That building the infrastructure of Iraq is more important than building our own infrastructure.

I like GW's comment that the bridge is a local matter, what is iraq certainly not a local matter.

whether we go/stay in iraq or not, our infrastructure will still have to be fixed,

New Orleans will flood again, but nobody in government had the guts to say, if we rebuild it it will flood out again, guess what you guys are moving.

Where is the logic in Government.

Answer 2

Yeah, lets stop spending money on military so we can't defend ourselves from people who want to do us harm...

Though I don't know how much a bridge would cost, I think we should equally split the money for military and infrastructure.

Edit: You make a very good point that sacrificing a few tanks wouldn't hurt our military...but, I wouldn't solve the problem...there are 70,000-80,000 physically impaired bridges in America...and that is a lot of money. I think this issue has been overlooked by both republicans and democrats. They are too concerned with the events happening outside of our country than what is going on inside of it...and I think that is one major points that is going to be addressed in the upcoming election...to bad it took the deaths of several people to get that point across though.

Answer 3

Sure, you can build more bridges, but without military hardware, what's stopping the Islamic Fascists coming over here to blow them up, your choice.

Like I was saying, it's your choice if you want to view things through rose colored glasses, but don't gripe at all when there is a terrorsist attack in your back yard, you can't have it both ways. I am all for putting more into homeland defense and less overseas, but you have to take the good with the bad, they will follow us over here and committ horrible acts, you can count on it. The last time I checked they killed 3000 people when we were not even over there. What would it take for you to defend yourself without blind hatred for bush....I bet if Clinton did it, which he did attack Iraq several times, it would be no problem with you.

Answer 4

Yes, you should be concerned -especially if the cat isn't licensed. Don't think the M-1 Abrams tank would be considered "street legal".

Answer 5

You don't use tanks to build a bridge. You use Bailey Bridge sections to move tanks over a waterway.

Answer 6

3, if I do my math correctly. And besides, 3 is a magic number!