Tracy,
Maybe a good idea but "winners" get to write the rules and the rules usually declare "loser" pays. I worked a contract in the mid 90's writing a Fox 2.5 (revised to 3.0) program that did all the calculations for the U.S.Army's training ammunition requirements. It matched the ammunition requirements by specific item with the force structure(down to individual personnel and items of equipment) and training requirements and calculated the numbers and cost for the whole deal. You could change items of equipment or the number or types of units or number and types of rounds required for a certain training event and recalculate everything for a five year period by DODIC in about 2 minutes on a 386. They called me about 3 years ago looking for source code because they were getting ready to rewrite the programs. I don't know if they were going to do it in VFP or not.

>No war at all is the best solution of course, but when we have troops in combat, personally I want them to have the best that we can give them and as much as they need. I really don't care how much ammo they waste if their lives are on the line. Having said that, there is a clear distinction between 'wasting' ammunition in a fire fight, during live training, and those other times when they are are only firing their weapons for 'fun.'
>
>A big problem is cleanup. Cleanup has not been done ANYWHERE in the world satisfactorily. That should be the responsibility of the winning power. Along with the responsibility to rebuild the country and repair all war damage and the infrasture should also come the responsibility to cleanup the spent ammo, mines, and chemical residue.
>
>
>
>>Terry;
>>
>>My dad was a Marine in the South Pacific, and went through many battles, Okinawa being one of them. He had a commander who decided the men were “wasting ammunition”, so each man had to buy his own! I am a Vietnam vet. Some statistics that interest me.
>>
>>For an American military person to kill one enemy the average number of bullets used was:
>>
>>1. World War II – 400
>>2. Vietnam – 65,000
>>
>>We used a lot of Gatling guns (6000 rounds a minute) and automatic weapons in Vietnam. Memories of “Puff the Magic Dragon”. Enough of that topic – I am starting to think about things I thought I forgot.
>>
>>Your comment about nail guns goes for all types of guns and cameras using film (including developing cost).
>>
>>Now consider the use of Nuclear shells! Lots of big $$$ for someone. The nice thing is you can see what you hit in the dark. Just watch it glow! :)
>>
>>I can see medics in the field carrying Geiger counters. If you find someone hit by a nuclear shell you have to wear protective gear. Seems awkward. How about we call this war thing off. Shooting people is become too complex and cumbersome.
>>
>>Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>>Tracy,
>>>
>>>You are a regular walking "Janes":)
>>>
>>>You're probably right! I thought GE made the Phalanx system.
>>>
>>>I was a "framer" when in school. We used "nail guns". I remeber a salesman telling my crew - "the money is in the nails, not the gun"
>>>
>>>With 4.2 Million Lbs of depleted uranium on the ground (Nuclear Policy Watch), I tried to look up the cost, to the taxpayer, of a 20 mm, 30 mm and 40 mm "gatling" gun round. My guess is that that they may be over 100$ea. You wouldn't happen to have that data available, would you?:)
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Terry,
>>>>
>>>>Are you sure you don't mean General Dynamics (not GE) Combat Systems Group (in Burlington, VT) which manufactures gatling guns for the F-15, F-16, and F-18 aircraft (as well as much more)? Prior to 1992 General Electric owned General Dynamics, but in 1992 it changed hands to Martin-Marietta.
>>>>
>>>>>>I once had a course where my instructor gave the assignment to write a one page paper describing a ping pong ball using only facts. That's all he said. No one passed the test. If you said it was white, he said did you measure it with a spectragraph? If so, what were the results? If you said it was round, you were wrong, becuase it is not. Round describes a two dimensional object, it was spherical - a three dimensional adjective. My point is, newspapers give information, not facts, based on their political leanings. Your sources are filtering the data according to their religious/political/ethnic/etc. perspectives. Don't confuse facts with news.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>Great object summation. Lets tell that to all those lost American's and Iraqis that were forced to depart this world based on facts of WMDs and 9-11 Links from our administration and NYC news services and a willing public. Should we start laundering our "brown shirts"?
>>>>>
>>>>>Fact: GE owns NBC, MSNBC
>>>>>Fact: GE manufactures gatling guns that fire depleted uranium bullets that GE also makes.
>>>>>Fact: Iraq has 4.2 Million pounds (of depleted uranium)laced with her surface soil.
>>>>>Fact: NBC promoted the WMD and 9-11 linkage stories (facilitated the "war").
>>>>>Fact: GE made a lot of money by faciliting a war based on lies their NBC news division sold us.
>>>>>Fact: GE does not have to pay death benefits to survivors of Americans or Iraqis that were killed during the military action.
>>>>>Fact: There are no WMDs or 9-11 links in Iraq
>>>>>Fact: Killing without justification is murder.
>>>>>Fact: American service personal in recent reports and images are looking more like the KKK than professional soldiers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Assumption: Objectivity has failed us.
>>>>>
>>>>>Right now, the 'ole' objectivity card is a joke. Maybe it will work in your neighborhood, but it don't work in mine:). Mind games won't wash the blood off our hands!