Robotic tanks and campaign ads

 Georgia is a swing state, so my neighbors and I are bombarded by political ads. The ads are rehashing the culture wars. I’m baffled that anyone would think I might care.

Instead, I’d like to see ads — pro and con — about the Army’s Robotic Combat Vehicle Program.

The Army’s main battle tank, the Abrams, was introduced in 1980. Its main armored infantry carrier, the Bradley, followed three years later. Both vehicles have been upgraded. But putting new gear into ancient designs is a bit like putting a new sound system in an ’58 Edsel and expecting consumers to be enchanted. The Army has said bluntly that its equipment is outdated.

After the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Army changed the way it was organized. It shifted to smaller, more mobile units that could respond quickly threats from guerrilla forces fielded by quasi-governments. The threat was ISIS, not China, not Russia, not states that might have the capacity to wage a world war.

Rhe world has changed. As China, especially, came to be seen as greater threat, the U.S. Army started to reorganize to regain the capacity to fight against an economic peer. The Robotic Combat Vehicle Program was part of that shift in thinking. Instead of armored vehicles dating from the Cold War, the Army wanted a manned armored vehicle that could command a herd of drone tanks and missile launchers.

The Army went through a competitive process for defense contractors. Textron won. You can see videos on the Internet of the company’s prototypes running around the testing grounds.

The technology was developed and tested. Then, a few months into the new administration, the program was canceled.

I am not an expert on weapons systems. Perhaps drone tanks are not the way of the future. Perhaps the military analysts who think we ought to be prepared for a war against China are so far off base they should be fired. Maybe the Army just has a better idea.

But it’s also possible that the program was canceled because it didn’t benefit the right companies, owned by the right stockholders and the right donors. Whatever else this administration stands for, it’s unapologetically for personal enrichment.

I’ve watched the news to get a sense of how this administration is addressing the threats that military analysts are talking about, and I’ve come to this: I don’t trust it.

I don’t think this administration is capable of developing anything as complex as a weapons system.

But there are two sides to most stories and I would like to hear what the opposing candidates have to say about the canceled program and similar contracts. I’d like to hear whether candidates think that we face the same threats we did in 2001 or whether we ought to be preparing for something else.

I also want to know if anyone thinks that the people we have in power are competent and should be trusted to ensure the nation’s defense.

Those are the kinds of things I’d like to hear about. I’m told that millions in ads are coming my way. With that kind of money, you’d think someone might go out on a limb and talk about something interesting.