Why do we destroy weapons caches?

[Fezmid]

I'm sure there's a good reason, so hopefully someone here can explain. I just don't understand why, when we find a large cache of weapons and ammo in Iraq (or wherever), instead of USING them, we just blow 'em up. Couldn't we use those bullets and grenades and such so that we don't have to pay for our own? It's not like these people are hand-making their own bullets as far as I know. I just don't get it, but there has to be a good reason.

 

Anyone?

 

CW

[Beerball]

I'm sure there's a good reason, so hopefully someone here can explain.  I just don't understand why, when we find a large cache of weapons and ammo in Iraq (or wherever), instead of USING them, we just blow 'em up.  Couldn't we use those bullets and grenades and such so that we don't have to pay for our own?  It's not like these people are hand-making their own bullets as far as I know.  I just don't get it, but there has to be a good reason.

 

Anyone?

 

CW

351908[/snapback]

They are not FDA approved?

[CoachChuckDickerson]

I'm sure there's a good reason, so hopefully someone here can explain.  I just don't understand why, when we find a large cache of weapons and ammo in Iraq (or wherever), instead of USING them, we just blow 'em up.  Couldn't we use those bullets and grenades and such so that we don't have to pay for our own?  It's not like these people are hand-making their own bullets as far as I know.  I just don't get it, but there has to be a good reason.

 

Anyone?

 

CW

351908[/snapback]

 

Because typically these caches are made up of whatever weapons they could get their hands on. Old technology. Should we retrain our reservists to use a 20 year old AK-47 because we located 50,000 rounds of ammunition for it? Or use a russian made gernade that is 10 years old because it is there? That is why our military is #1. We have the supplies, we have the training, and we have the technology.

[USMCBillsFan]

Because typically these caches are made up of whatever weapons they could get their hands on. Old technology. Should we retrain our reservists to use a 20 year old AK-47 because we located 50,000 rounds of ammunition for it? Or use a russian made gernade that is 10 years old because it is there? That is why our military is #1. We have the supplies, we have the training, and we have the technology.

351918[/snapback]

 

That's pretty much right on. Most of the ammo we find is old and unstable. That's why it's destroyed. The rounds don't match with our weaponry.

[The Warden]

I'm sure there's a good reason, so hopefully someone here can explain.  I just don't understand why, when we find a large cache of weapons and ammo in Iraq (or wherever), instead of USING them, we just blow 'em up.  Couldn't we use those bullets and grenades and such so that we don't have to pay for our own?  It's not like these people are hand-making their own bullets as far as I know.  I just don't get it, but there has to be a good reason.

 

Anyone?

 

CW

351908[/snapback]

 

Old expolsives - particularly those stored in the ground are unstable and prone to going off at the wrong time.

[stuckincincy]

I'm sure there's a good reason, so hopefully someone here can explain.  I just don't understand why, when we find a large cache of weapons and ammo in Iraq (or wherever), instead of USING them, we just blow 'em up.  Couldn't we use those bullets and grenades and such so that we don't have to pay for our own?  It's not like these people are hand-making their own bullets as far as I know.  I just don't get it, but there has to be a good reason.

 

Anyone?

 

CW

351908[/snapback]

 

Other than the occasional use of the inaccurate AK-47's, the US military has little use for the arms sold to the Iraqis by the Europeans, Russians, Chinese etc.

 

The amount of weapons still in that nation is huge. The new government has all the arms, and then some, that they would ever need.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

There seem to be a range of reasons:

 

1. War is tough on weapons and even with good arms there can be misfires, duds and sudden explosions. Any captured weapons which have been stored for months and had uncertain care would need to be inspected carefully before use and stll would suspect. Better to render them unusable.

 

2. Like any global corporation use of an individual tool may be more productive for an individual, but standardization is actually more profitable for the organization as a whole. We have SOPs and folks trained to maintain and keep M-16s and our weapons. If we were going to also do this for Kalishnikovs and a range of foreign ordinance this means training and developing practices and standards for a bunch of different types of weaponry. It may bring better performance for the individual soldier to use a AK-47 to fight rather than an army entrenching tool (a shovel) but its is more cost effective as a whole for us to be set-up to service each individual weapon rather than a standard US issue.

 

3. Its hard enough to keep track of all the US equipment issued, and would be impossible to keep track of captured weapons if we cleaned them off and sent them out. Likely many of these weapons if not destroyed would simply end up sold to the black market and perhaps back in the hands of a terrorist using them on the US troops.

 

4. We could simply give these captured weapons to the Iraqi army so we did not have to spend money giving them US weapons, but quite frankly we'd rather have them used to using our stuff and dependent on the US for spare bullets and parts than addicted to old Eastern equipment. It gives us better future control and potentially future money if they rebuild the country and can buy replacements from US companies to have them dependent on our stuff.

 

Destroying captured ordanance is the smart thing to do.

[Fezmid]

I guess that makes sense. I guess I assumed that bullets from one assault rifle would work in any assault rifle. Can you tell I don't know much about weaponry?

 

Thanks all.

 

CW

[The Poojer]

just ask old mr arzt about old explosives!!!

 

Old expolsives - particularly those stored in the ground are unstable and prone to going off at the wrong time.

351924[/snapback]

[eSJayDee]

Since most people are pointing out that it doesn't pay for our military to use them, I'll add to the discussion that it probably doesn't pay to 'salvage' them.

Yes, they're worth something, but presumably not worth the expense (& undertaking the apparent underlying risk) for transporting them.

[Surfmeister]

They can't be trusted. So ... we blow them up.

[Pete]

for fun?

[Formerly Allan in MD]

The only captured weapons that might be useful are major weapons platforms, such as tanks and aircraft. But you really need to capture a lot of them to make the cost of upgrading and otherwise modifying them, and training on them. worthwhile. The perfect example of this was when the Israelis captured hundreds upon hundreds of Egyptian tanks during the Six Day War. It was worth the cost to upgrade and modify them so they could be deployed with front-line units.

[ch19079]

That is why our military is #1. We have the supplies, we have the training, and we have the technology.

351918[/snapback]

 

never underestimate the power of experience.

[Alaska Darin]

The only weapons we ever consider reusing are from the French. Mostly because they've never been fired and only dropped once.

[ch19079]

The only weapons we ever consider reusing are from the French.  Mostly because they've never been fired and only dropped once.

352305[/snapback]

got to love the french jokes..

 

Q: You are approached by three men while walking down a dark city street. One British, one American, one French. They all seem intent on mugging you. However, you have a gun, but alas, only two bullets. What do you do?

 

 

 

 

A: Shoot the Frenchman twice. Good day!

 

Q: What’s the new French flag look like?

 

 

 

 

A: A white cross emblazoned on a white background!

[OBXBILLSFAN]

They can't be trusted.  So ... we blow them up.

352024[/snapback]

Before they blow up in one of our soldiers' faces.