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.'"

6 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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
  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.