Army Plans Overhaul of Infantry Gear

One way street... by grub · 2004-05-25 07:14 · 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,

Re:One way street... by The+Other+White+Boy · 2004-05-25 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

its always unfair when used against you, especially if you tried it first. just like gradeschool recess games/sports.
Re:One way street... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2004-05-25 07:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Unfair? No, never. Ask anybody in uniform or anybody who's ever served in uniform and they'll tell you that fairness has nothing to do with it. "Overwhelming force" is the watchword.

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.

--

I write in my journal
Re:One way street... by Uhlek · 2004-05-25 07:26 · 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.
Re:One way street... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2004-05-25 07:31 · 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
Re:One way street... by bobdehnhardt · 2004-05-25 07:33 · 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....
Re:One way street... by dealsites · 2004-05-25 07:40 · 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
Re:One way street... by jessemckinney · 2004-05-25 07:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

IANAL but, not only is this immoral it is also illegal. There are a long series of Geneva conventions that most countries have signed and ratified. In the United States when international law is ratified it holds the same legal standing as the Constitution. This kind of stuff is very illegal in domestic as well as international law. There are some of the newer Geneva conventions that the U.S. has not signed or ratified though. I don't think that they are signatories to the prohibitions on torture, but this is still covered in treaties as far back as the 1907 or 1949 (?) Geneva conventions. This is a big issue right now with the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq. This body of law is called Ius ad bellum (rules in war).
Re:One way street... by Malc · 2004-05-25 07:49 · 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".
Re:One way street... by the_mad_poster · 2004-05-25 07:57 · 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!
Re:One way street... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-05-25 07:58 · 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.
Re:One way street... by Rei · 2004-05-25 07:58 · 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..."
Re:One way street... by the_mad_poster · 2004-05-25 08:00 · 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!
Re:One way street... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2004-05-25 08:02 · 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
Re:One way street... by Malc · 2004-05-25 08:06 · 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.
Re:One way street... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2004-05-25 08:14 · Score: 4, Informative

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
Re:One way street... by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2004-05-25 08:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

I was in the army for 3 years as a medical laboratory specialist (92B-10) and went to my advanced training school in San Antonio, TX at the lovely Ft. Sam Houston.

I spent several months learning to manually perform all sorts of medical lab work only to arrive at my permanent duty station and be told to forget it all because I'd never need it. Everything in the hospital lab was fully automated with the exception of white blood cell differentials and those were only performed if the machine wasn't sure it had the right answer.

However, if the power had gone out (which it did my very first night working alone on night-shift) I was prepared. Thankfully when it went out it was August and over 100 degrees and that was too warm to perform the tests I knew how to do (as temperature affects reaction rates) and so my very first night being on my own I had to call the hospital commander in the middle of the night and let him know that until the power came back on we (the lab) would be unable to perform any lab work and that we wouldn't be opening the blood bank fridges for anything short of a life or death emergency.

They had to reroute all incoming emergencies to Walter Reed and other area hospitals until about 5:00 am.*

I know a lot of people make fun of the military, but everyone I knew while I was in was well trained and could cope when the expensive equipment wouldn't work.

* Yes, our hospital had emergency backup power.
No, the air conditioning was not on emergency backup power in the wing where the lab was (formerly the psych ward) and so even though the instruments stayed on, the temperature quickly rose to the point where every single instrument started beeping and quickly went out of calibration.
No, the blood bank fridges did not have backup power to keep them cool.
No, I don't know what genius civilian contractor came up with that plan.

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Re:One way street... by anactofgod · 2004-05-25 08:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Reminds me of the (US) Revolutionary War, where the Brits were extremely put off that the American irregulars didn't follow accepted military rules of shooting from closed-line fixed formations. Worse, even, was the American penchant for setting ambushes, shooting from behind trees, hedgerows, and fences, and aiming specifically at British officers (ie. sniping). All of these actions were loudly decried at the time, and not just by the Brits.

But, what American patriot contemporary to the minutemen would blame them for using such tactics when defending home and country against a better prepared, better equipped, better commanded, numerically superior enemy? To fight in this manner was the only rational thing to do, but the values of the Americans. To fight otherwise, and accept the rules of military conduct of the Europeans would have been folly and suicide.

It was "asymetrical warfare" at it's best, and it definitely contributed to the desired (by our American POV) outcome.

---anactofgod---

--

---anactofgod---

"Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
Re:One way street... by Martin+Blank · 2004-05-25 08:25 · 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.
Re:One way street... by CrimsonAvenger · 2004-05-25 08:29 · Score: 3, Informative

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"
Re:One way street... by rjstanford · 2004-05-25 08:30 · 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!
Re:One way street... by CrimsonAvenger · 2004-05-25 08:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's as if the senior military decision makers don't really understand how the military is really just another tool of diplomacy, and should be used in concert, planning and execution of all other diplomatic means.
I understand that British generals think this way (and, based on much reading, that most European generals think much the same)- that war is just part of the diplomatic process. American generals are trained on the assumption that the diplomacy is done by the State Department, and that the military is only called in when it's time to bust heads. So they concentrate on being good at busting heads, and let the striped-trouser types concentrate on the diplomacy parts.
In other words, its a difference of opinion about the role of a general. A fairly common difference of opinion, at least between Americans and Europeans.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:One way street... by micromoog · 2004-05-25 08:38 · 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.
Re:One way street... by lucabrasi999 · 2004-05-25 09:21 · 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.
Re:One way street... by 0x0d0a · 2004-05-25 10:13 · 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.

--
May we never see th
Re:One way street... by denise_yenko · 2004-05-25 10:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

In 1984, I fired a pattern of illumination shells to form a letter "A" (my battery) after winning the battery tests. (Also a neat way to burn up the extra ammo, so as not to have to turn it back in -- a *major* p.i.t.a.)

As section chief of the FDC, I relied on paper chart and paper calulations, although we had specially modified HP's to do the same thing. (A whole 'nother story, but we didn't use the Army's method of data entry either. I taught my people about 'peeks and pokes', and cut down our data entry time by about 75%)

What freaked out our observer from the 505thArty/101airborne, though, was computing a second mission in my head.

The colonel called, ("27 this is 6. That letter "A" is way too small to see well.") Since it was already pretty durn big, I assumed that he wanted the "A" twice as big, so I closed my eyes, computed 5 (one gun could maintain its firing data) sets of deltas for the other guns.

The observer said later (to my Captain and the Colonel) that never in his life had he seen anyone do 3-d trig in their head. It was checked on paper, and my data was 0/0 correct ("Check, 0!)" on all 15 data points (deflection, elevation and tof

Yes I can also do long division in my head!

[B^)

--
I'm armed and I haven't changed my patch, so don't start with me -- you *know* how I get!

BSOD by AtariAmarok · 2004-05-25 07:14 · Score: 4, Funny

"'They have at least one idea, though. "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems,""

Awww. I was so looking forward to the Yankee "Blue Soldier of Death" putting fear in the hearts of the enemy from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Re:BSOD by blair1q · 2004-05-25 07:33 · Score: 4, Funny

If you see a blue soldier, he is playing in God mode.

FFW is part of Future Combat Systems (FCS)... by tcopeland · 2004-05-25 07:15 · Score: 4, Informative

...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

No batteries? by Sad+Mephisto · 2004-05-25 07:15 · Score: 5, Funny

How to power those things? Haven't they seen the Matrix?

Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-25 07:16 · Score: 3, Funny

Boy you know it's not going to be very easy to edit whatever.conf on your jacket. Maybe they should reconsider this.

Very silly post about the Marines. by The+I+Shing · 2004-05-25 07:16 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, the USMC uses suits like this that are powered by sound. Tiny receivers built into a Marine's helmet transmit sound energy into a belt-mounted unit to the rear. Guttural, high-pitched sounds generate the most energy, so when you see a sergeant right up in a private's face screaming, he's actually just recharging the private's batteries. No, really!

--
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.

Windows Front Line edition by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-25 07:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Just as you see the whites of their eyes
FIRE.EXE has performed an illegal operation and w.....

Clippy by AtariAmarok · 2004-05-25 07:18 · Score: 5, Funny

"It looks like you are engaging in offensive manoevers. Would you like help?"

Get help writing battle plan.

Set us up the bomb.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

bake sale by happyfrogcow · 2004-05-25 07:20 · Score: 4, Funny

they better be having one hell of a bake sale to make that kind of money...

colonel panic? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-25 07:20 · Score: 5, Funny

Open source in the military? Has anybody made a Colonel Panic joke yet?

this just cracks me up! :) by xutopia · 2004-05-25 07:23 · Score: 4, Funny

But tests showed that "some people's heads were literally too thick for that to work," DeGay said.

What might happen if they DID use windows.... by eviljolly · 2004-05-25 07:23 · Score: 5, Funny

"Enemy spotted, 100 yards and closing.
"Open fire soldier!"
"Sir my weapon says it's not responding"
"Reboot soldier!"
"I did sir, but each time I reboot it still says "Remote Procedure Call (RPC) service terminated unexpectedly.""
"Disable your wireless connection soldier and switch to manual override, we're being exploited!"

Meanwhile somewhere in the middle east...
"Heheheheh.........silly Americans...."

Big Boned by medication · 2004-05-25 07:25 · Score: 3, Funny

'DeGay and his fellow Future Force Warriors call it a "load-bearing chassis."' - load-bearing chassis, reminds me of some PC term like 'Big Boned'. She ain't heavy, she's just got a load-bearing chasis.

--
"If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit." - Mitch Hedberg

Recruiting tool. by AtariAmarok · 2004-05-25 07:25 · Score: 4, Funny

If this means full iPods built into the suit, count me in! Where's the nearest recruiting office? Who needs ammo when you are armed with 5,000 songs.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.

Global Information Grid by Proaxiom · 2004-05-25 07:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Has the Global Information Grid come up on Slashdot before?

It's a similar way too forward-looking military thing. The plan is that by 2020, every soldier will have an IP address.

No clippy? by Himring · 2004-05-25 07:28 · Score: 5, Funny

"Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems,"

Too bad. I guess that means no MS Word either. I guess that means no clippy, and I guess that means no:

It looks like you're killing people. Would you like help?

--
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill

Re:Obligatory kneejerk reaction aside by jeff+munkyfaces · 2004-05-25 07:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

one would hope easy to use products could be reliable too.

it would certainly make them a lot easier to use..

specialised military batteries by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-25 07:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

anyone who's been in the army knows what I'm talking about.

Your GPS has this big whack battery that only works in it. Your NVG's are the same (well, the 'new' ones will actually takee AA's as well). That big 'ol SINGARS radio, what a beast of a battery. The secure comm unit for it, again another specialised battery.

When I was in the army I always thought our biggest weakness was every single piece of electronic gear took a specialised battery that would only work in that item. Nothing could just use commodity batteries.

I think they are just taking this a step further. You guys whine about windows but, this is REAL vendor lock-in. You get batteries from us or all your shit stops working.

Re:specialised military batteries by SylvesterTheCat · 2004-05-25 07:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

While your overall point has validity... some of your details are incorrect.

The PLGR battery is actuallly used in several other devices.
The same is true of the SINCGARS battery.

You are correct that there are _way_ to many batteries which are only used in one device.

Exactly WHO said anything about Open Source? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-05-25 07:36 · 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

Yes, but... by moosesocks · 2004-05-25 07:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Clean software is better than bloated software.

No software is better than clean software.

No matter how clean it may be, it will still potentially have flaws. In the case of "army stuff", I'd tend to think that traditional computing systems would not be suitable or efficent for that matter. Any software which has to 'boot up' is probably bad.

QNX on the other hand, may be good. It's used pretty widely, is lightweight, and supposedly rock solid. But, still, if the task can be accomplished just as efficently without computers at all, it's probably a better idea.

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose

batteries powered by motion by kaan · 2004-05-25 07:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

I remember a few years ago, seeing a bunch of high-end wrist watches that charged up through regular motion while wearing the watch. Or you could just flick your wrist a few times to store some extra energy. I think one of them was called "Kinetic" or something clever like that.

I wonder if there's any possibility for motion-charging batteries to succeed as a power source for soldiers. I admit I didn't rtfa, but obviously the overall power requirements would be relevant to the success of something like this.

Windows has detected..... by cardshark2001 · 2004-05-25 07:40 · Score: 4, Funny

The soldier inserts a new clip into his gun.

"Windows has detected new hardware. Please insert the Windows installation disk."

--
WWJD? JWRTFA!

Is it just me.... by Dachannien · 2004-05-25 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Obligatory Klingon Quote by CHaN_316 · 2004-05-25 07:41 · Score: 5, Funny

"History is written by the victors!" -Chancellor Gowron

--
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix

Re:Obligatory Klingon Quote by for_usenet · 2004-05-25 09:28 · Score: 3, Informative

But before that, I believe it was said by none other than Winston Churchill.

who is this general failure? by dunkelfalke · 2004-05-25 07:42 · Score: 4, Funny

and why is he reading my hard disk?

--
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.

Re:Simple Solution for the power problem by zonix · 2004-05-25 07:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Build their helmets with solar panels

Yeah, solar panels will come in handy when powering those night vision goggles. :-)

z

--
What would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me

No, there are other considerations by Sycraft-fu · 2004-05-25 07:48 · 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.

Re:No, there are other considerations by Malc · 2004-05-25 07:52 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Re:No, there are other considerations by mangu · 2004-05-25 08:19 · 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".
Re:No, there are other considerations by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-25 08:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

The US only observes the Geneva Convention when it's convenient or they think the media isn't looking.
No, the U.S. observes the Geneva Convention to the best of its ability.

The so-called "soldiers" involved in the Iraq prison scandal violated orders (or obeyed illegal orders) and ignored their training. As for the prisoners at Gitmo: most fall into a gray area not covered by the Conventions (the last modifications to which took place in the late 40s, decades before an pan-national entity like Al Qaeda was considered seriously).

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 U.S. officially calls these guys a few things (such as "detainees") rather than "prisoners of war" -- and rightly so. They are little more than a step up from street gangs operating on a larger piece of turf. They have very little resemblance to professional armed forces when it comes to training, discipline or organization. They are thugs, murderers and criminals.

So please, if you're going to wave your angry anti-American flag, do so after you've been better informed.
Re:No, there are other considerations by Rayonic · 2004-05-25 09:44 · Score: 4, Informative

You're getting your tactics mixed up. Some are OK by the Geneva Convention, some are not.
Sexual humiliation -- Not OK. Sleep deprivation -- OK. Violent beatings -- Not OK. *Threat* of beatings -- OK. Causing pain -- Not OK. Witholding pain medication -- OK. Physical disfigurement -- Not OK. Loud music -- OK.
Etc, etc.. You get the idea, the Geneva Convention is surprisingly flexible.

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
Re:No, there are other considerations by archen · 2004-05-25 09:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

As far as I've ever heard, there really weren't any military targets in Dresden. The bombing there was to obliterate the city and demoralize the German people, just as Hitler tried to do the same with London. I think there is validity for most people in the Geneva Convention, but if anyone is going to talk about "morality" in war, you might as well completely skip WWII because everyone pretty much blatantly ignored all the "rules".

People tend to get on their high horse when talking about what's right and wrong in war (especially when they've never been in one) and tend to gloss over the fact that this is people fighting for their lives here. According to the Geneva convention you're not supposed to use a 50-caliber machine gun on personell. Yeah, if I have no guns and there's a 50cal beside me I'm sure as hell going to shoot back. In the end if you want to avoid atrocities in war, then don't get in one in the first place.
Re:No, there are other considerations by Sinterklaas · 2004-05-25 21:37 · 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.

Liquid body armor? by Woogiemonger · 2004-05-25 07:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm disappointed I saw no mention of the liquid body armor Army scientists are working on. Basically you take Kevlar, which is already pretty protective, and soak certain chemicals into it. Then when you get shot or stabbed, etc, the liquid hardens instantly and the wearer remains unharmed. I guess it's a possible future improvement, but perhaps the more conventional body armor is more reliable and tested for now. Less fun to talk about :/

Technology by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · 2004-05-25 07:54 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:One way street... (it's an all-way-street) by BgJonson79 · 2004-05-25 07:55 · 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.

Oh boy.... by The-Bus · 2004-05-25 07:58 · Score: 4, Funny

[THE SCENE: A battlefield before a hill, with a Commander and several infantrymen, including a Grunt right near him. The enemy approaches...]

Commander: "Here they are men, coming over the crest...!"

Grunt: "Sir, it looks like they are using flame throwers! We were only equipped for ballistics and hand-to-hand combat."

Commander: "No problem soldier, we'll upgrade to flame-resistant armor. I'll issue the command."

[On screen] ***BZT!**** WINDOWS GUI: Welcome to Windows Battlefield Update Get the latest updates available for your suit's operating system, software, and hardware. Windows Battlefield Update scans your computer and provides you with a selection of updates tailored just for you.[End Screen]

Grunt: "Hurry! They're coming over the hill!"

[On screen]. WBU is scanning for updates... 0%... 33%... 66%... 100% Complete! Windows Update has found other updates for your computer. Browse through these updates and select the ones you want to install: [X] Flame Retardant Skin 1.56MB [ ] Ice Shield Update 39459FTG 6.7MB [ ] SCUBA Fix 3949DFR (Prevents Drowning) 34.5KB [ ] WBU Hotfix 29399DEE 12.5KB [ ] S-Prepatch 3030WSA 6.7TB ... You've selected: **BZT! [End screen]

Grunt: "They're getting really close now!!!"
Commander: "Hold them off!"

[On screen] *BBRM*** [X] Flame Retardant Skin Before being able to install this, you will need: [ ] S-Prepatch 3030WSA 6.7TB Estimated download time: 2 days, 6 hours, 5 minutes. Hit OK to pro--[End screen]

**flames erupt**

[ENTER SCREEN, TOP RIGHT: Clippy, a handsome rogue]

Clippy: Hello! It appears you have 2nd degree burns. Would you like to? [x] Call a Medic [ ] No thanks, I'd like to die now

--

Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

being in the infantry by -ryan · 2004-05-25 09:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

i hate it when people talk about the infantry. it's like some mystical world full of video game and movie references and abstract concepts that seem totally logical to someone who hasn't done it. it's a culture shock and a different, very real, very harsh world. it's really agonizing to hear it discussed but that being said:

being in the infantry you get used to everything just being heavy and ungangly. it would be a shock to most slashdotters just how cumbersome our gear is. fighting at night with NVG's on is NOTHING like in a video game. half the time you can't see a thing because it focuses like any other optic. you have to adjust the focus everytime you look at something more than a few feet closer or further than what you were last looking at. and don't get me started on the skull crushers and rhino mounts. i've never been able to get a PVS 14 to sit properly over my eye. shooting in the prone position is even worse.

here's something funny to illustrate. in the army we have this thing called a PLGR (Portable Lightweight GPS Reciever) or "plugger". i assure you that there is nothing portable, lightweight, or GPS about it. it's huge, like the biggest text book you've ever seen. the batteries don't last for shit, it has only an alphanumeric display (no arrows and maps), it weights a good few pounds, it is TERRIBLE at getting a GPS signal. you practically have to climb a tree or be in the middle of open desert to use it.

which leads me to this: most of us use civialian and so called "special ops" (usually just civilian things that have been ruggedized) gear. we use alot of civialian GPRS/FRS radios (though ours can be encrypted), we use lots of civilian GPS too. pretty much anything special forces uses too gets trickled down into infantry use because our gear sucks and they've got the common sense and freedom to use what works.

now to counter that we do have alot of things that really give us a leap over the enemy. we have infared targeting lasers we use at night which really help in a fire fight. other cool things i dont' want to talk about. but of course the bad guys have night vision too. yea, they do. it's not really that expensive these days. good thing most of them are poor shots.

being a terrorist has it's advantages. you can really be effective in small groups. but our tactics work great too and we are constantly adapting. what they gain in autonomy is thwarted by lack of C2 (command and control), training, and good support channels. besides, we can move and act autonomously too.

Technicalities by Vicegrip · 2004-05-25 10:21 · 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.

What will happen when they use Open Source... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-25 10:23 · Score: 5, Funny

> "Enemy spotted, 100 yards and closing.
> "Open fire soldier!"
> "Sir my weapon says it's not responding"

"There isn't a driver for the magazine loader."
"The firing module wasn't compiled into the kernel."
"There's no documentation. Throw rocks at the enemy while I look around on Google, Usenet, and IRC."
"The trigger code wasn't tested with this distro. The programmer wants me to use JimBobsBaitAndTackle Linux instead."

Re:One way street... SlightlyOT by HawkPilot · 2004-05-25 12:59 · Score: 3, Informative

It's been awhile (left the Air Force in 1989), but as I recall, the Air Force back then used degrees and minutes (which allowed accuracy to the nearest nautical mile) pulled off the lat-longs from our navigational charts, while the Army used a decimal system that allowed them to specify locations down to the meter if needed.

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.

Mod parent up by shadowbearer · 2004-05-25 13:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Please.

While I don't agree that our government is entirely innocent (Rumsfeld apparently knew about the sanction given our intelligence forces carte blanche in anti-terrorist interrogations, and then (arguably) lied about it) the parent post is still spot on with respect to many of the arguments above it in this thread.

I agree completely with the opinion that terrorists - and insurgents in Iraq who don't follow the GC themselves - have no rights under the GC.

Leaving Iraq aside for a moment, let's consider this: EVERY CIVILIZED COUNTRY in the WORLD is "at war" with terrorism. Terrorists - those who would kill, en masse, unarmed and innocent civilians to make a POLITICAL POINT - are as the above AC pointed out, murderers and criminals.

Perhaps they should have trials. Ok, they should at least have an independent body or bodies consider the evidence against them. Unfortunately the WC is so busy examining it's own navel that it's unlikely anything would come of it.

To slow down terrorism, we have to punish those who commit *immediately* - because it's the only deterrent that the civilized world has against this particular kind of scum. Unfortunately some innocents will fall, even with that process, NO MATTER WHO IS DOING THE JUDGING, be it the US, the coalition, or the World Court.

\end rant

SB

--
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.

Slashdot Mirror

Army Plans Overhaul of Infantry Gear

70 of 829 comments (clear)