Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Carrier, Oklahoma

Carrier, OK Car Consumer Discussions

What’s Good for G.M. Is Good for the Army

by rockylee on Mon Nov 17 20:10:18 PST 2008

AMERICA'S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the wisdom of Washington's intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative. When President Dwight Eisenhower observed that America's greatest strength wasn't its military, but its economy, he must have had companies like General Motors and Ford in mind. Sitting atop a vast pyramid of tool makers, steel producers, fabricators and component manufacturers, these companies not only produced the tanks and trucks that helped win World War II, but also lent their technology to aircraft and ship manufacturing. The United States truly became the arsenal of democracy. During the 1950s, advances in aviation, missiles, satellites and electronics made Detroit seem a little old-fashioned in dealing with the threat of the Soviet Union. The Army's requests for new trucks and other basic transportation usually came out a loser in budget battles against missile technology and new modifications for the latest supersonic jet fighter. Not only were airplanes far sexier but they also counted as part of our military "tooth," while much of the land forces' needs were "tail." And in those days, "more teeth, less tail" had become a key concept in military spending. But in 1991, the Persian Gulf war demonstrated the awesome utility of American land power, and the Humvee (and its civilian version, the Hummer) became a star. Likewise, the ubiquitous homemade bombs of the current Iraq insurgency have led to the development of innovative armor-protected wheeled vehicles for American forces, as well as improvements in our fleets of Humvees, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, trucks and cargo carriers. In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn't have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met. More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we need a strong industrial base. For years the military has sought better sources of electric power in its vehicles — necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons. In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we really need. Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell production — which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications — depends on a vibrant car industry. To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto industry before paying to keep it alive. And we should insist that Detroit's goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive technology, reducing the emissions of the country's transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad. This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security. Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles. -Rocky

Re: General Wesley Clark Jumps In [Mr_Shiftright]

by cooterbfd on Mon Nov 17 14:07:07 PST 2008

".....What's he saying? That Caterpillar can't make an armored personnel carrier? " What I would take out of it is that a company like that or AM General may not have the capacity to build what is needed for "WW III". Therefore, we would need the manufacturing capacity that these companies offer. GM may not build aircraft engines, but have the space to convert a plant to build them under licence from a GE or Pratt & Whitney.

Re: General Wesley Clark Jumps In [gagrice]

by Mr_Shiftright on Mon Nov 17 11:06:56 PST 2008

Whatever it brings, it seems like tanks and aircraft carriers and even human pilots are fast disappearing into history. There may be a need for 'boots on the ground' but those boots are going to fly in, do the job and go away IMO. The USA can't police the world. Nobody can. I'm sure we'll need weapons and an army for the next XXX years but it won't look anything like it did in 2003 and I don't think the Big Three in anything like its current form will be building it. So the arguments in favor of bail out so far seem to be: 1. If the Big Three goes bankrupt, the US economy will collapse 2. If the Big Three goes bankrupt, our enemies will overrun us I'm not buying either myself. These claims strike me as alarmist and without solid evidence.

Re: General Wesley Clark Jumps In [fezo]

by Mr_Shiftright on Mon Nov 17 10:24:39 PST 2008

Usually Clark is quite cogent. What's he thinking? That the USA is going to be fighting tank battles like the breakout at Normandy or something? Seems to me modern wars are going to be small, dirty and right in with the civilian populations. They'll also be wars for hearts and minds, not territory. If there's any massive industrial power that would be needed for national security in the future, it would be for aircraft, military robotics and law enforcement equipment. Not GMs strong points. What's he saying? That Caterpillar can't make an armored personnel carrier?

Rack Not

by capoany on Fri Nov 14 10:41:57 PST 2008

I had a Honda Pilot, Volvo V70 and now have the MDX. My experience with the Pilot and V70 with rails and crossbars nixed me doing the roof rack on the MDX. Noise increases and gas mileage suffers- both noticeably. I just bought a Thule hitch- mounted bike and ski/ snowboard carrier. Easy to put on, take off and access. Looks like A$$ but very functional, and comes off in 2 minutes. Highly reccomend this solution, although it probably wont work for those who use all year round roof mounted ski carriers as a peacock uses it's plumes!

Re: Quality [cooterbfd]

by kernick on Fri Nov 14 10:04:46 PST 2008

... or can't retool fast enough, Maybe someone can hand them a document concerning the USS Yorktown (fleet aircraft carrier) repair between the Battle of Coral Sea and Midway in 1942. The ship was nearly sunk at Coral Sea with large holes in the flight decks, towed into Pearl, spent only 24 hours there - refueling, rearming, and replaced planes/crews, and joined the Midway battle 2,000 miles away several days later. Or maybe another good read would be how the Russians in 1941-42 picked up entire factories, moved them hundreds of miles east, and had them producing shortly thereafter. I guess in either case they didn't use union rules! :) ... then maybe Honda imports CV joints from a factory that supplies them for their foreign markets, and that is all it takes for that US supplier to go belly up. Maybe. But since the owner of the parts supplier gets $0 if he closes the doors and Honda does not get its parts, the more likely business scenario is that Honda buys the parts supplier for very cheap money getting a bargain, and the former owner gets something rather than $0. And any factories that any of the Big3 own that make good products and are profitable are unlikely to be shuttered for the same reason. If GM were to close tomorrow, plants that make things like the Vette/XLR will be bought and will restart very shortly, albeit with new management/workers/owners possible. The computer industry went thru a huge shakeout 15-20 years ago, poorly managed companies with poor products were replaced, suppliers shifted to new manufacturers.