Slashdot Mirror
Army Plans Overhaul of Infantry Gear
nxg125 writes "Wired is running an article about a seven-year, $250 million revamping of the US Army's uniforms. One of the major obstacles is going to be how to power all the electronic devices that the soldiers will use. 'They have at least one idea, though. "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems," a recent memo on the subject directed. FFW is going open source. Cleaner software needs less energy to run.'"
...which already has some open source ties.
For example, the Vishnu planning engine (source code and project site here) is being used as part of FCS logistics planning.
The Army reading list
It's a similar way too forward-looking military thing. The plan is that by 2020, every soldier will have an IP address.
The US only observes the Geneva Convention when it's convenient or they think the media isn't looking. Look at the prisoners in Cuba: the US government made up new definitions in attempt to thumb its nose at the Geneva Convention and thus bypass it. It sounds like hypocrasy to me.
Maybe we could forgo the technology that we don't need and have longer enlistments for infantry with more Special Forces type training, i.e. winning hearts and minds. Make it a lifestyle choice with more and better training, higher physical standards, better pay.
Go ahead and shoot me down but I'm going off of 8 years of Marine Corps Infantry.
Some of the new technology is great like the new ACOG 4x scope for the battle rifles. You can use them with both eyes open. My little brother is deploying to Iraq as a Marine Scout Sniper and bought his own (out of his pocket!) Eotech 552 scope. You can see from the link provided that it can be used even when half the lens is damaged.
In keeping in line with my comment about the rifle scopes/sights, the basic gear still needs to be revamped. Tear away chest harnesses are in high demand with most Marines choosign to buy them out of their own pockets rather than use the issue gear. The Marine Corps is still trying to deal with their mistake of using the MOLLE gear system. The MOLLE's plastic pack frame was breaking left and right in Afganistan and now the Marine Corps is replacing the pack with a new design.
So stop fantasizing about the choice of OS on pie in the sky dreams/future projects and get the grunts gear that works.
This guy is way out there
There are many errors in your post. Also, your conclusion is wrong.
There are a long series of Geneva conventions that most countries have signed and ratified.
There were four Geneva Conventions, not "a long series." One hundred and ninety countries have signed or ratified (not necessarily both) some part of the Conventions (not necessarily all).
In the United States when international law is ratified it holds the same legal standing as the Constitution.
There's no such thing as "international law." That's just a figure of speech. What you're talking about is a treaty. Treaties, when signed by the president and ratified by the Senate, take on the force of federal law. They do not have the same legal standing as the Constitution. Treaties, like all laws, are subject to the constraints of the Constitution. A treaty which violates any provision of the Constitution is not valid.
(That's why, incidentally, the United States could not have ratified the Rome Treaty if it had wanted to. The International Criminal Court would have completely violated the Constitution's protection of our rights of due process, equal protection, and freedom from self-incrimination.)
Now, let's talk about law for a second. Law is legitimate only to the extent that it arises from the collective will of the people. The rules of war, such as the Geneva Conventions, are agreements made between governments without the involvement of the people. Therefore the rules of war do not comprise a body of law. They're legally equivalent to a handshake.
(So, incidentally, is the UN Charter.)
I write in my journal
Actually, despite the fact that our public schools are miserable failures of education these days,
Interstingly, the US Military has one of the most effective teaching systems in the world. The sudden dramatic expansion of the US Military in WW2 pretty much required that they learn how to teach pretty much anyone anything, quickly.
And a long service professional military helps there too.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
But before that, I believe it was said by none other than Winston Churchill.
And all that stuff I listed, that's just for people classified as prisoners of war. If you're not part of the armed forces of a nation... well, the rules are considerably looser.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Absolutly true. The Air Force deals with Lat/Long because the earth is curved and the area they cover is large enough that computing distances and heading over a curved surface is computationally easier using degrees and minutes.
The Army, on the other hand, deals in distances much smaller, where the curvature of the earth is not a factor. The Army uses a system called the Military Grid Reference System (MGRS ).
This system suits the Army well because it is simple, accurate, and works in meters instead of nautical miles.
Army pilots, like myself, have to use both systems constantly. And we always have to convert between the two. Although when errors are made, it often deals with using different datums rather than computational error. The DOD is in the process of fixing this though by using a single datum for all maps. (WGS84)
You have 5 Moderator Points! Use 'em or lose 'em! They will expire before any good stories are posted.