Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Army Plans Overhaul of Infantry Gear

Posted by michael on from the stuff-to-carry dept.

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.'"

15 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 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
    4. 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....
    5. 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

    6. 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".

    7. 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!
    8. 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..."
    9. 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!
    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

  2. 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
  3. 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.