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.'"

51 of 829 comments (clear)

  1. One way street... by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    "Once you're in an urban environment, it strips out a lot of (America's) technology advantages," he said. "It puts you in a fair fight. And you don't want to be in a fair fight."

    So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded? The side at a disadvantage uses any and all means at their disposal to help make the fight more "fair". This fellow seems to back that up, unless having a lopsided fight is only sporting when it's his team doing the slaughtering.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:One way street... by The+Other+White+Boy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      its always unfair when used against you, especially if you tried it first. just like gradeschool recess games/sports.

    2. Re:One way street... by Uhlek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's only the press you really see that in. Most soldiers and military planners accept the fact that guerilla tactics are and always will be the only effective way an inferior force can respond to a superior one. Hell, the American revolutionaries did it to the British. It's not always an issue of fighting to the finish...sometimes its possible to just make it so costly for your enemies to hold on to your territory that they just give up and leave.

      Fact is, America hasn't been in a "fair fight" since Vietnam. Vietnam wasn't even technically a fair fight -- our force was clearly superior, but our tactics were not.

      Thing is, only place you want a fair fight is in a boxing ring. You want to have the clear advantage over your enemy, so that casualties on your side are minimal and victory is assured.

    3. Re:One way street... by idontgno · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded?"

      "Fair" means I win, as quickly and with as little cost to me as absolutely possible.

      Both sides (or all sides) believe this. Both sides believe that anything done by the other side which hampers this is therefore, by logical negation, "unfair".

      But most importantly, "Fair means I win. Period."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:One way street... by drmike0099 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have but to look at our own Revolutionary War (in the USA) to see how these "unfair tactics" were applied to great advantage. In most cases, a tactic is a tactic, and guerilla warfare is just another tactic that can be useful in the right situation.

      Fair is in the eye of the beholder until the battle is over. Then it is determined by the victor.

    5. Re:One way street... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm gonna nitpick you to death here. Please excuse me, and understand that my intentions are good.

      I have heard illegal tactics... Not all guerilla tactics are illegal...

      Please don't use the word "illegal" in this context. It propagates the myth that there is such a thing as "international law" or "laws of war." There isn't, and it's a mistake to imply that there is.

      Some tactics are prohibited by certain treaties. But that's not the same thing as saying that those tactics are illegal.

      I know this seems like a very small thing, but it's an important point.

      --

      I write in my journal
    6. Re:One way street... by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Once you're in an urban environment, it strips out a lot of (America's) technology advantages," he said. "It puts you in a fair fight. And you don't want to be in a fair fight."

      So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded?


      I believe John Madden said it best: "All I want is my unfair advantage." If the scales are tipped to my advantage, that's perfectly okay, and I'll make full use of it. But if the other guy has the upper hand, well, that's just not fair, and must be corrected.... Everyone wants to hold the advantage, and will do (or say) anything to convince the world that they should have it.

      Nobody ever said "Hey, you know, our military is vastly superior to theirs. Let's even the playing field a little: we'll wear bright red uniforms and march rank and file into the battle while they shoot at us from behind the trees." Instead, the guerilla tactics of the colonists were decried as unfair and underhanded....
    7. Re:One way street... by Malc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes sir! I'm going to stand here and accept your overwhelming force because my only other options are immoral. Well, immoral to you as judge, jury and executioner.

      How far would you go if somebody invaded your home and imposed their will on you, your family, and nation?

    8. Re:One way street... by theBraindonor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Fair is all my boys come home alive. Fuck the rest."

    9. Re:One way street... by dealsites · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What will be really un-fair, is when we rely on the tech too much. Once (when?) it fails, we will have to go back to the basics. I hope that they will still teach the basics in the future..... If not, we will be sitting ducks.

      --
      New deal processing engine online: http://www.dealsites.net/livedeals.html

    10. Re:One way street... by Malc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Both sides of any conflict use that argument. The people still fighting in Iraq have chosen their tactics for the same reason. They know that Americans will (justifiably) hesitate before attacking an area with civilians, and so they're taking advantage of it. They think they're right, we think they're wrong... but they're also saying: "fuck the rest".

    11. Re:One way street... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. The point under discussion is whether civilians should count as "your boys".

      The point of most armies is to keep civilians out of danger, so using them as meat-shields is not honorable. "Your boys" won't come home alive if you use them as meat-shields.

      Plus it's not a military tactic, but a media one. Your enemy will kill your civilians if there is no other way, but then you can claim the enemy destroyed a hospital. So turning a hospital into a military target is not a tactical move, it's a PR one. That's why it's hated in the military.

      Now, holding the enemy's civilians hostage is a different issue.

    12. Re:One way street... by SquadBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would not put my family or members of other peoples family at risk. I would not put targets that have no business being part of the conflict at risk. There are places to draw the line.

      But lets put that aside and examine your "point". Ok you have pissed the US off and they are coming for you. Iraq aside for the better part of 200 years if you are in that position you did something to bring it on yourself. Hell even in Iraq Saddam may not have done the thing that W said he did but had he spent the last 25 some odd years being a nice person and playing with puppy dogs and kittens even W could not have found an escuse to be on his doorstep. Vietnam is .... complex. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. So the problem is that they store munitions in hospitals or set up anti-aircraft guns in schoolyards. Then if we blow the shit out of them they claim we were targeting civilians. So ok if you want to do some of those things that most civilized nations/people agree are wrong then ,IMO, you give up the right to bitch when we respond in kind. People who do that kind of shit are barbs and killing barbs is a good thing. Putting your children in harms way cause you are betting that the peeople coming for you care more for those children then you do is WRONG and STUPID. If you don't want to fight the free world maybe you should quit fucking bringing it on yourselves instead of bitching when we come for your sorry ass.

      See this is the thing. W was wrong with the way he brought us into Iraq. What he should have said is "They are bad people and need to die." Then I could be onboard, as it is I have mixed thoughts and feelings. But the point being with a couple of exceptions I could give a shit how or why our enemies think cause for most of the last 200 years every single one of them have been EVIL. We have not always been perfect or even close to it but there is no comparison. So yes they choose to do things that have directly lead to us being on their doorstep and they should take it like men without dragging in those who should not be dragged in. My fear is that we have no choice but to make it clear to them that we will defeat them no matter the cost. Part of the reason I hate the Palestinians is because they have choosen to force the Israelis to kill their children. Fuckers.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    13. Re:One way street... by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... hence, our illegal tactics in the Revolutionary War, which were in many places fought exactly in that manner.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    14. Re:One way street... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope that they will still teach the basics in the future..... If not, we will be sitting ducks.

      Oh no. America would never abandon teaching the basics in favor of letting high tech gadgetry handle it all. No, never. You, uh, do know how to do long division in your head, right?

      Actually, despite the fact that our public schools are miserable failures of education these days, I do seem to recall seeing a story about an equipment drop or a jump or artillery targetting or something gone awry in Afghanistan or Iraq where the soldiers wound up having to do a bunch of trajectory calculations on paper. Turns out they were trained to use the equipment, but they were also trained not to have to rely on it, so all went well in the end.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    15. Re:One way street... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Haven't you been paying attention? The Geneva Convention does not apply to anybody the U.S. says it doesn't apply to.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    16. Re:One way street... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      --Some tactics are immoral, though. Like surrounding your troops with civilians acting as human shields, or storing weapons in or basing operations out of hospitals or mosques. Why? Because both of those tactics put civilians in danger. If you make hospitals legitimate military targets, for example, then doctors, nurses, and patients are going to die. That's bad for everybody.--

      Killing is immoral therefore war is.

    17. Re:One way street... by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > american revolutionary war .... mujahideen ...

      It may surprise you, but both were fought in the same way that the Iraqis are fighting now. It's almost funny seing the same parallels when you read old newspapers.. the Americans claim that the British fired on a big group of unarmed protesters, the British claim that there were armed men attacking their troops in the crowd....

      BTW, many of the people we were fighting in Afghanistan this time WERE the Mujahideen in the Afghan-Soviet war. It can be fun to follow the tangled web of ever-shifting alliances in Afghanistan.

      > It boils down to this: The tactics of the insurgents in Iraq are not designed to give any military victories, only propaganda ones.

      Funny, last I checked, they had won control of Fallujah.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    18. Re:One way street... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People with that sort of rigid viewpoint don't have much of a moral compass when it comes to "the other guys".

      People who don't understand why people have that rigid viewpoint don't have to fight "the other guys" though.

      Or, to put it all together: war sucks no matter which side you're on and what part you play, and there just isn't any justification for that fact.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    19. Re:One way street... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How far would you go if somebody invaded your home and imposed their will on you, your family, and nation?

      I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't include signing the death warrants of innocent civilians by using them as human shields.

      So why do the terrorists do it? Simple: public relations. The best thing that can possibly happen to the terrorists in Iraq is for the United States to bomb a mosque or a hospital. They can't defeat us militarily, so they try to defeat us from within by weakening our resolve.

      Why do you think they claimed that the terrorist camp we destroyed last week was a "wedding party?" Why, for that matter, do you think Saddam put his military intelligence headquarters in the same building as the al-Amirya air-raid shelter back in 1991?

      --

      I write in my journal
    20. Re:One way street... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sigh.

      Let's see if I can dismantle this argument in the fewest possible words.

      If killing is immoral, than the prevention of killing is moral. And if the prevention of killing involves lesser killing, then... well, QED, huh?

      Take a seat on the bench, "EvilBudMan." We play for keeps around here.

      --

      I write in my journal
    21. Re:One way street... by Malc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your last sentence says it all. This was a war of choice, which is bad enough, but made sickeningly worse by the fact that all of the whimsical reasons for justifying it have been debunked as lies... how short GWB wishes peoples memories are as he now turns it in to an issue of freedom and ridding Iraq of an evil dictator. Yes war sucks, and this current situation should never have been made possible. People can finger point at the Iraqi immoral tactics as much as they like, but the point is moot as they really shouldn't have been given the opportunity in the first place.

    22. Re:One way street... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A=B does not mean !A=!B

      That's very cute, but it has nothing to do with the point. You would disagree with the premise that the prevention of an immoral act is a moral act? I'd love to hear you defend that assessment.

      "lesser killing" does not have a precise definition, if any.

      Body count. It's real easy. Just basic arithmetic: addition and subtraction.

      --

      I write in my journal
    23. Re:One way street... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the Third Geneva Convention:

      Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

      (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

      (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

      (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

      (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

      (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

      (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

      B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

      (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

      C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.


      In essence, no, al Qaeda forces are not required to be treated as prisoners of war, because they are not members of armed forces, militias, or volunte

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    24. Re:One way street... by rjstanford · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not really fond of the idea of keeping them out at Guantanamo Bay. I would prefer that they be hooked up with legal assistance and moved stateside, but depending on how some things work out, it appears that there is a loophole in the legal framework that isn't likely to be closed soon. They're not POW's, so there's no requirement to treat them as such. They're not in the US, so US law may not apply to them (last I heard, no one had been able to tell on which side the Supreme Court justices were falling on this). But Guantanamo Bay is also not subject to Cuban law.

      The real challenge would be proving that those held at Guantanamo Bay are indeed Al Queda operatives. Especially since it seems that some of those who have been released after being held for multiple years... were not. I don't see anything about the Geneva Convention not applying to suspected terrorists. After all, you could make the case that - as in the constitutional precepts of the US - that people are civillians unless proven terrorists for the purposes of the Geneva Convention. But yeah, its a really hard call to make. And I sure don't have the answer either.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    25. Re:One way street... by Malc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where are these weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to the United States? I watched Colin Powell's presentations to the UN, and I would be quite embarrased if I were he! There's a word here on /. for what he presented: FUD!

      As for the executive branch's implications that Saddam had ties with al Quada... hahaha. He was as popular with them as GWB is. That implication was allowed to stand because the average American didn't know better and it was a useful tool for taking advantage of their emotions after the WTC attack.

      Let's be honest though, this action in Iraq has weakened the US's ability to deal with terrorists, and in fact might have increased the probability of a larger number of attacks.

    26. Re:One way street... by micromoog · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Prevention of an immoral act via another immoral act is still immoral, regardless of magnitude. Besides, this falls under ethics, not logic, meaning it can't be proven or disproven (or "dismantled", as you so arrogantly put it).

      Body count. It's real easy. Just basic arithmetic: addition and subtraction.

      Do people really still take pure utilitarianism seriously? I guess so. The simplest ideas are the easiest to grasp.

    27. Re:One way street... by kpansky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. But the revolutionaries did not hide in the towns and use women and children as shields. We did not go hiding among Indian tribes hoping that the British would kill some of them and the Indians would fight for our side.

      The revolutionaries used guerilla tactics -- acceptable by rules of modern warfare. The Iraqi resistance is using tactics immoral by any rule of modern warfare.

      --

      --Kevin
    28. Re:One way street... by anactofgod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True to a point.

      One of the things that the US planners are continually behind to curve on is how communications is getting increasingly instantaneous and decentralized. They were behind the curve in Gulf War I, when they tried to limit the access to the battlefield of the Western news media, only to find that the Western news services reported anyway, from behind enemy lines. This left the Coalition forces with no comparable outlet to the public, and to a situation where the only POV that was NOT being broadcast was that of the US and allied military.

      They countered this unacceptable situation by adopting a policy of embedding reporters with the troops in GWII. A nice plan to address the failure of GWI, but it completely failed to address the oh-so-obvious (to me, anyway) difference between that state of communication affairs between GWI and GWII. Namely, that of the rise of the Arabs *own* news services, which are completely outside the purview of Western (esp American) influence.

      So, while we get stories from the embedded reporters and others in our news media, they don't have nearly the resonance with the intended target audience that Al J'zera (sp?) and other Arab news media have with *their* target audiences.

      And, once again, the US military is put in a situation where it is behind the power curve in winning the overall war. Only, in this case there is no clearly defined, easily attainable goal ("the re-establishment of the government-in-exile of Kuwait"). Rather, there are nebulous, mutable desired end-results, as stated by our government ("End Iraqs ties to terrorism.", "Remove weapons of mass destruction.", "Establish a democratic government in Iraq."

      Two of the many ways that the Adminstration stacked the deck against a positive outcome of this war in Iraq...

      ---anactofgod---

      --

      ---anactofgod---

      "Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
    29. Re:One way street... by BrodyVess · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ahh yes, another victim of the neocon propaganda machine. Hey, just because something is the "accepted" view doesn't mean that its the "kooky liberal leftie pinko commie bastard" view.

      We won every major "battle" of the Vietnam war. Of which there were relatively few for a conflict as lengthy as it was. We lost nearly every engagement. Just because a victory is phrryic doesn't make it less of a victory.

      All war is decided on the battlefied. If we could have truly brought overwhelming force to bear we would have won it. While our tactics may have been superior, our strategy was far and away outmatched. The VC strategy was one of harrassment, supply disruption, and waiting for the United States to leave.

      The worst thing is that your post espouses the typical sentiment seen by neocons- the "your either with us or against us" sentiment. Just because any person did not support a war they felt was unjustified does not make them a "Viet Cong irregular" Hey, I dont like vegetables- does that mean that I support deforestation, agent orange, and killing all vegitarians?

      In short- tactics != strategy. Good tactics != winning a war. Opposing a war != treason.

      Oh, and in the list of "Post-Communist Nihilists" I would include the neocons biggest flunky- Ahmed Chalabi.

      --
      No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
    30. Re:One way street... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We are fighting an enemy who will not abide by GC

      I was about to ignore the whole discussion on Iraq until I saw this. You cannot justify the actions of the MP's based on this thinking. If you follow that thinking, then we should have roughed up a few of the German soldiers during World War II, because they were doing it to "our boys". Or, you could just decide to let the Local Police Department go crazy on one particular neighborhood of a city, because the crime rate in that neighborhood is so high. Who cares if the innocent are tossed in prison? At least the crime rate goes down!

      The fact is, if we are going to try to export democratic values to a country that hasn't experienced them before, maybe we should try to treat their citizens the way our citizens would expect to be treated. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty (at least you were before the Patriot Act). Just because you arrest someone, you cannot decide to beat the shit out of them.

      Oh, wait, there are a few dozen Iraqi's out there that killed four contractors and hung them from a bridge. Screw it, let's just beat the hell out of hundreds of prisoners. Who cares if they were actually involved in anything remotely illegal. Fuck human rights. We're trying to bring them democracy! Even if bringing democracy to the country means that we have to rape and/or kill a few of their men in the process. When we leave, they'll appreciate everything we have done for them.

      These pictures from that Baghdad prison have destroyed about 40 years of US credibility on human rights and democratic values. We now have no right to discuss bringing our values to anywhere else in the world.

    31. Re:One way street... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so a few iraqi people cutting the head from a civilian or hanging other from bridges don't condem the rest of them and shouldn't be used as a means to justify the stuff comming out of that prison,

      i cna agree with that. what i find puzzling is that while a few iraqis decapitating inocent people don't represent the hole as a country including captive prisoners

      These pictures from that Baghdad prison have destroyed about 40 years of US credibility on human rights and democratic values. We now have no right to discuss bringing our values to anywhere else in the world.

      So now, the actions of a few soldiers sent to guard prisioner with little training reflects the holle united states and thier creditability on human rights? WE know these actions were by a minority of people. it apears they acted without cause and it also apears that alot of the pictures we seen were fake too. I understand your disapointment, but if we are going to be fair, let be fair then

    32. Re:One way street... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see anything about the Geneva Convention not applying to suspected terrorists.

      That's because the Geneva Convention has the effect of maintaining the status quo. It protects and assists countries with traditional armies, while not extending protection to other combatants. Sure, countries will sign the Geneva Convention. It increases their power relative to anyone *not* currently in power. Take, for instance, rebel groups that are trying to seize control of a country -- these people are not a regular army, and are hence not entitled to Geneva Convention protection. The regular army is easier to build up, because that army can expect Geneva Convention protection if they ever go to war against another country. However, they do not need to respsect Geneva Convention rights WRT rebels, terrorists, freedom fighters, etc.

    33. Re:One way street... by Forge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      most of what Iraq is doing to American troops right now is very similar to what the US (Under general Washington) used to defeat Britain. Hit and run, send 1 goy to shoot up a convoy. Reduce the value of superior firepower.

      The American media likes to call such acts terrorism but that just distorts the meaning of the word. As long as you are going after the military and the government it's all warfare (Yes. I endorse assassination as a military tool). Just be careful to define your enemy correctly. I.e. In the original golf war the enemy was Sadam and his ruling elite. It would have made good military and moral sense to assassinate them during that conflict.

      The current war is between the US government (I.e. Bush and his cronies) and the people of Iraq. Which is funny since between the Shias, The Curds and Allah knows who else Iraq was never a united nation. Now it is united against a common enemy (The USA for those not paying attention). They are even making friends with Alquida (SP?) which is a novelty for Iraq.

      As for the matter of "overwhelming force". War is not like sports. Your goal as a Warlord is to engineer the equivalent of a fistfight between Lenox Lewis and Leonardo Decaprio. The WBA would never approve but who cares. If the little guy caries a switchblade into the ring, hey it wasn't fare to begin with.

      The US has the advantage of wealth so it hits you with $3M missiles while Iraq has committed fighters so it uses suicide bombers. Both are "fare". As for striking civilian targets. Iraq is an occupied country. This makes any American in Iraq fare game.

      While the original 9/11 tragedy was terrorism in it's pure form, if it was repeated today by Iraqis it would be an act of war just like bombing Hiroshima.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    34. Re:One way street... by Vindicator9000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Robert Heinlein was known to say "You cannot enslave a free man - the worst you can do is kill him." I think that his statement could apply in this circumstance.

    35. Re:One way street... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, I'm no expert on Iraqi culture, but having a bunch of kids at a party at 3am seems very unlikely to me.

      In plenty of places this is quite common.


      Only on slashdot could the idea of partying until 3 AM be considered unlikely.

      Geek tip: In college, some (cute)girls actually like smart guys, but it does require the occasional all night(and most of next day) party

    36. Re:One way street... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All the muslims I've met and known here in Europe consider bin Laden a psychotic freak. They would be ashamed of him if they in any way identified with him, but they don't.

      Yes, you seem to be pretty much the only one.

      I hope you get out of your blinding fear. (Because you need common sense and objective jusgment to be able to stop the actual terrorists -- which will probably have to involve both hunting the mass murderers down, and eliminating the causes that spawn terrorism, and both are damn hard things to accomplish.)

      Muslims are people, you know?

  2. Possible Solutions for Power: by TheTXLibra · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I were them, I'd take a blanket storage approach to power. Use extremely efficient power drains, coupled with a battery for storage of energy. Then they can harness it in multiple ways: solar (during the day), kinetic (from movement), wind (small portable turbines in a windy environment, or over the shoulder while walking), and water (when camped/resting near a river or stream--you could even use the same turbine you use for wind power).

    You wouldn't need to power a city off this stuff, just keep a continual charge building, and add perhaps a max of one-pound of weight for the turbine. Most of the time these special components would not be needed, and any time they aren't used, they can recharge...

    Am I missing anything here? Is there some reason the Armed Forces aren't doing this? Or are they?



    -The Libra
    "You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
    - my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.

    --
    -The Libra
    "Please be patient--The future will begin momentarily."
  3. Exactly WHO said anything about Open Source? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "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."

    This is what the Wired story says, but exactly what does the memo actually say? Simply saying "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems" does not in the least imply they are thinking of open source solutions. What they are much more likely thinking about is proprietary embedded systems.

    Honestly, when was the last time a multi-zillion dollar military contract involve Open Source?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  4. Is it just me.... by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...or does "Future Force Warrior" sound like a bad anime title?

  5. No, there are other considerations by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As in do you want the enemy (in this case enemy being a major force like the US) to leave your schools, hospitals, churches, and the like alone? The US (and most other nations) is a nation that obeys the Geneva Convention. Part of that is that deliberate attacks on civilian targets aren't allowed. Specifically, hospitals and churches (mosques, temples, etc) are off limits. If you are a soldier wounded in battle and are taken to a hospital, they aren't allowed to blow up the hospital.

    This is all well and good but only applies if the structures are NOT being used as military staging areas. If you turn a hospital into a military base and launch attacks from it, it is no longer a civilian target and it not protected under the Geneva Convention. Ther Germans found this out in WWII. They took over a monestary, which was protected under the Geneva Convention, and used it to launch attacks (it was a very strong structure). Well the allies were having none of that, it was now a military target and they reduced it to rubble.

    So that's the reason for not using tactics like this, your hurt your own nation and the people that you claim to be trying to protect. That is the point of a military, remember, to protect the people.

    How far would I go? Well it depends. If a foriegn dictatorship was trying to take over the US, I'd fight to the death. Of course I'd do that by joining the military. If the US had fallen into dictatorship (and I hadn' already gotten out) and the force was here to liberate me, I'd help THEM.

    1. Re:No, there are other considerations by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well the allies were having none of that, it was now a military target and they reduced it to rubble.


      The same can be said of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and other cities in WWII. When daylight precision bombing against military targets was getting too many bombers shot down, the USA and Great Britain shifted to night-bombing using incendiary bombs, obliterating whole cities in order to destroy the war industries located in or near them. In Dresden and Tokyo each, according to the best estimates, 100000+ civilians died. Let's face the truth: in war, Geneva Convention or not, anything is valid. And the victor decides who is to be considered a "war criminal".

    2. Re:No, there are other considerations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      US follows the Geneva Convention? Since when?

    3. Re:No, there are other considerations by o'reor · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They are thugs, murderers and criminals.

      Oh, yeah, all of them, sure. Like this British guy who got captured by the Talibans while traveling across Afghanistan and was then deported to Guantanamo before he could say anything ?

      And I'm not even mentioning people who were told on to the US forces by their neighbours under false pretenses, just to get the reward for it.

      Listen buddy, even thugs and criminals have a right to a trial. At the very least, the innocent must be let out of this place.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    4. Re:No, there are other considerations by orzetto · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, the U.S. observes the Geneva Convention to the best of its ability.

      ...which appears to be quite limited.

      The U.S. officially calls these guys a few things (such as "detainees") rather than "prisoners of war"

      Which proves how limited their ability to follow the Geneva convention is. Wars with "regular armed forces", with "identifiable uniforms or markings", are more an exception than a rule today.

      For the information of your only Proud American neuron in that empty thing you insist calling head, the American war of indipendence was also fought by people you stigmatise as "thugs, murderers and criminals" (at least the Red Coats called them so, and they were indeed a proper regular army).

      It's very convenient for the US military to call these POWs with euphemisms such as detainees to deny them any basic right. If they are, as you say, a

      little more than a step up from street gangs
      they should be entitled at least to the rights a gangster has, which comprises that thing that used to be called "fair trial", which in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib has not been especially followed. Or do these rights apply only to American citizens?
      And please don't start saying that it was just "a few cases", the only thing Rumsfeld did was to put on trial the ones that had taken pictures and forbidding cameras. So much for the commitment to human rights.

      I've seen this worrying development in the US mentality, everybody seems to justify anything the military does. General Kimmit had yesterday the guts to say that bad people have parties too, after a movie showing the bombing of a wedding in Iraq was found. That guy would really deserve being tried for war crimes.

      Mod me down as you wish, I could not care less. But remember that a country heading this way is heading to no good.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    5. Re:No, there are other considerations by Sinterklaas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the U.S. observes the Geneva Convention to the best of its ability.

      Nonsense, Article 75 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions states that torture is always forbidden, regardless of whether the victims have POW status. And we know that the US has been guilty of torture, directly and indirectly (the Canadian guy who was sent to Syria to be tortured).

      The so-called "soldiers" involved in the Iraq prison scandal violated orders (or obeyed illegal orders) and ignored their training.

      First of all, the US is always responsible for the well-being of their detainees. A lack of training and policing with regard to the actions of the torturers is the fault of the US leadership. It may not technically be against the law to be stupid at the expense of the well-being of others, but it definitely can and should be held against them.

      However, the situation seems even worse with illegal orders from high-ups and willing disregard of the Geneva conventions on the highest level (yes, Rumsfeld).

      Go check out the Third Geneva Convention. The Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan did not meet all of the conditions in 4A(2) (most did not wear identifiable uniforms or markings, nor did they conduct themselves accordingly with the laws of war), nor did they qualify as a "regular armed force" (a requirement specified in 4A(3)) nor did they "spontaneously take up arms" as defined in 4A(6).

      The fact that they don't have POW status doesn't mean that the US can do what they want. Both morally and legally, the US should treat everyone decently. As for the latter, Article 75 states that every detainee has the right to a trial, innocent until proven guilty, etc.

      They are thugs, murderers and criminals.

      It's really scary to see how you've been indoctrinated into assuming that people are guilty without a fair trial. Besides, if they truly are thugs, murderers and criminals, then why not give them the same rights that we give to other people who are accused of these crimes?:
      - A speedy trial
      - No torture
      - Access to a lawyer
      - Assumed innocent until proven guilty

      It's really scary to see people advocating a police state so easily (and no, the 'war' on terrorism is not comparable to WWII). An enemy who can 'only' kill thousands should not be a reason for us to turn our back on freedom.

      So please, if you're going to wave your angry anti-American flag, do so after you've been better informed.

      I'm not anti-American, but pro-human rights. It's sad that those two are thought to be the same.

  6. Re:One way street... (it's an all-way-street) by BgJonson79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Conditional surrender too often leaves too much wriggle room.

    And, if the Japanese were ready to surrender, why did it take two bombs?

    --

    There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

  7. "convenient or they think the media isn't looking" by glrotate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You post makes no sense. The Gitmo situation is a topic of worldwide interest, and has been a massive headache for the Administration.

    One might wish to consider that the Administration is utilizing Gitmo is because interrogating terrorists and not sending terrorists back home is a no brainer, and any responsible leader would do the same.

  8. Technicalities by Vicegrip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Using a technicality to justify different treatment is exactly the kind of thing that makes countries scoff at the U.S. when after the fact the government takes the moral high-ground about human rights. It may be 'legal' but, judging how the U.S. is perceived internationally these days, not many countries are fooled about whether or not it is right.

    If America won't treat its prisoners by the same standards it expects American prisoners to be treated then there is no 'red line' anymore. Soon other countries will be using the words 'terrorist' or 'none-combatant' to justify egregious abuses whilst the U.S. sits quietly by because it can no longer criticize other countries failure to respect the Geneva Conventions in their 'fight' against 'terrorism'.

    The U.S. declared itself to be at war against terrorism. The President has himself said that America is at war with terrorists who are the 'enemy of freedom'. How can the very people America is supposed to be fighting against -- who it is at war with -- be none-combatants? These disingenuous distinctions to create convenient excuses to circumvent international conventions that regulate the treatment of prisoners in a war bring only discredit to the very morality of the fight.

    This President has in my opinion done irreparable harm to the prestige of the United States in the matter of human rights. The ends do not justify the means if you are a moral person; the same is true for a country.

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
  9. Re:Geneva Convention Does not Apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am not passing judgement on the US military's behaviour, but, if they thought everything they were doing in Guantanamo was all above board, why not house the prisoners on the mainland USA?
    The thing that makes me uneasy is that they have been specifically held in legal limbo. US law doesn't apply because it is not in the USA, so what law does apply?

  10. Sounds like a case where code ptimization is neede by 1bammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Code optimation went out the window in the 90's with ever increasing CPU and storage capabilites. Perhaps moving back to software coding as artform, designed to minimize CPU (and thus power) usage is one solution vice "more power". For example, KT-V2OIP compresses, and transmits symmetrically over 3G cell phones using a 85 KB compression engine that doeasn't require a hardware accelerator. Just try that with MPEG!