"That's why soldiers purposely missed eachother, while using individual weapons, up until recently."
Prestigious historian SLA Marshall did a wonderful sales job on that idea, which is so emotionally appealing that it has been repeated without question.
"Lt Gen. Harry 0. Kinnard, who participated in every one of the 101st Airborne's World War II operations (and who is singled out by Marshall in several books as one of the war's most distinguished combat leaders) says, "In both World War II and in Vietnam it never came to the attention that failure to fire was a problem at any level." Gen. Bruce Clarke, who led the defense of St.-Vith and served as both commanding general-Europe and commanding general-Continental U.S., put it more strongly. Marshall's theories, he said, are "ridiculous and dangerous assertions-absolute nonsense And Gen. James PA. Gavin, who commanded the famous 82d Airborne Division during World War II, says bluntly that Marshall's claim "is absolutely false." According to Gavin, "All of our infantry fired their weapons. I know because I was there and took part."
"If politicians and (more importantly) the military ever totally abandon the Constitution and impose some sort of martial law, no amount of small arms is going to stop them."
The whole military is wildly unlikely to go against the mass of the people, especially as many of the folks in combat arms are good old fashioned rednecks. Remember Timmy McVeigh? If Washington tried martial law without reasonable cause there would be a distinct lack of folks willing to enforce it. There would be plenty who would, OTOH, enjoy turning their weapons in the other direction.
The whole US military is not physically large enough to control CONUS. The more than one hundred million small arms in the US mean that should the people wish, it would be quite practical to revolt and succeed.
A fractured US military
Re:Hundred Millions or Hundred Thousands?
on
China Bans Gold Farming
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"You do realized that the Chinese government used tanks right? Small arms (the kind of guns allowed in the US) cannot stop a tank."
They can force it to button up so it can be killed with incendiaries, have a track disabled by inserted objects for a mobility kill etc.
Small arms dispersed among the people facilitate revolutionary capability, and NO country has enough tanks for them to be everywhere at once. No country, possibly excepting North Korea,has enough domestic military power to destroy widespread armed revolt, though it may contain outbreaks. Tanks can't be everywhere, and can be killed by infantry with expedient weapons. Widespread ownership of weapons means that if enough people choose to unite,they will outnumber any force their government can field. Partisan warfare with a determined base can be very hard to put down,and can turn into civil war where the government forces are divided.
The amount of asspain a few thousand lightly armed Iraqis and Afghans have been inflicting on Coalition forces is an example of what can happen with small arms as basic weapons.
"which if you're away from it would STILL necessitate you having to rush to it up or downstairs to answer???"
What is this "away from it" of which you speak?
I spend lots of time on the computer and such a solution would avoid having to reach for the phone, dig it out of my belly folds, etc. To be able to respond to calls with a mouse click, have all data/messages displayed on my laptop screen, etc would be genuinely useful.
ice over, and heating them properly has been basic aircraft design practice for many years. The weather doesn't matter, because sensor heat should be easily capable of keeping them clear under any condition.
"I assume these kinds of modern planes can't even fly without a computer anymore."
They have redundant systems such that total flight control computer loss is uncommon, but yes, if you lose them all (rare) or they misbehave (less rare) you can certainly lose the ability to control the aircraft. Computers allow aircraft performance impossible with manual systems.
That's not a bad trade off. No flight control system was ever perfectly reliable. The reality of flight is that no matter how wonderful the machine, you'll likely stick a few of them into the ground. As an experienced aircraft maintainer (USAF avionics, engines, crew chief over 26 years) I'm unworried about flying.
[quote] 2. Time for the referral businesses in NC to relocate. Or close up shop. We'd be happy to have them (and their income & property tax revenues) here in NJ. [/quote]
Given the brutal property and income tax situation in New Jersey, they'd be better off moving a few miles to South Carolina.
I'm from New Jersey, lived in both Carolinas, and retired in SC so I get to keep more of my income.:)
"Seriously, NASA (and most space programs in general) should have one crucial long term goal: Getting us off this ball of rock and inhabiting other ones."
If the goal were indeed LONG-term we'd send up large numbers of unmanned systems to explore the universe, which we do not need humans to accomplish. The problem with sending people first is that people are cripplingly expensive to transport using our primitive technology, and doing so reduces funding for genuine exploration as opposed to astronaut tourism.
Sending humans made sense when humans and wooden ships were cheap enough to throw away. Now, the demands for returning a high percentage of humans intact ensure high costs, while losing a few humans threatens the program itself. Burn up a probe and you can send another the next day if you are equipped to do so.
OTOH, development of effective unmanned systems can pay off here on Terra as well as in space. Let the machines do the work, and exploit the rapid life-cycle/replacement cycle unmanned systems offer compared to manned equipment.
"What if she is the first person not to have the disease we all have and that she is aging but really really slow?"
Then what we have is not technically a DIS-ease, because we are the product of evolutionary selection. Anyone with her condition is disabled, essentially an invalid, and would promptly die without special care.
"What about those of us who want a reliable, energy efficient car without sacrificing our children's education to get it?"
Odd to see this on a geek forum, where people (usually) get that the EARLY ADOPTERS pay for what is cutting-edge gear one day but promptly filters down to the rest of us for much lower prices. Remember when RAM was over a dollar a meg?
If you want a reliable, energy efficient car right now you have plenty of gasoline and diesel options, all of which were funded over time by...early adopters.
"What a coincidence! Today my wallet decided to lock out Panasonic products. Oh well. Canon is better anyway."
People ask those with experience what to buy and why. Some well-placed scorn such as "good luck buying batteries for that piece of shit" can put off potential customers.
If corps can stick it to us, we can stick it to them with equal or greater gusto.:)
Having defended myself with a firearm, I disagree about their social utility. I am in physical danger from other citizens, not the government.
Mere paper debt is an inconvenience, not a disaster.
Iranians aren't fighting to be free (or they'd be killing Mullahs and destroying theocracy),they just want a piece of the economic pie.
"Any Iranian is freer, weaponless and ruled by priests, than the average American with all of his guns."
E-rage much? USians have far more personal freedom from religion than the Iranian, and far more economic mobility. No one ruled by priests is free until they reject the belief and kill the priest.
"The CIA, with Eisenhower's approval, helped the Shah overthrow Mosaddeq's government in return for allowing foreign oil companies to gain valuable contracts to extract Iranian oil."
I agree with your statement,excepting the "absolute disaster" bit. The Shah was useful during the Cold War, which was far more important to the West than the relatively piddling squabbles afterward,including those in Iraq and Afghanistan we are now involved with.
Things are going reasonably well, and for Islamist regimes to lose legitimacy by killing fellow Muslims is quite like Communist regimes plinking internal Communists. The protests in Iran are not rejecting religion, are not directed at destroying the theocracy, and don't display much of a central goal other than wanting some of the pie.
"The first thing that I would do when up against a drone army is to break out the RF jammer or a moderately powered microwave dish effectively denying the UAV access to the battlefield."
No chance UAV designers would take THAT into consideration!:)
"Look at how itchy a trigger finger our "all volunteer" army has given US Presidents. "What do I care? It's not MY kid."
That statement ignores the many and frequent interventions, wars, and military actions before the advent of the Volunteer Force. Google ye some Smedley Butler for examples.:)
There isn't evidence that the politicians sending the military to war don't care about the troops, even if they mismanage them sometimes due to situational ignorance. The military itself during the pre-volunteer days often treated troops badly, and now that it must compete for recruits standards of living have _greatly_ improved. Casualties are far more controversial than during the Cold War, and vast amounts have been invested in protecting troops. (Going into Iraq under-armored was provably and specifically the fault of the military, not the politicos. The Army refused to learn from Mogadishu years before.)
Slashdot Mirror
"I might have killed 2/3 of you people!"
Since you just posted AC, this could be interesting.
"So if shit eating had taken place while trying to overthrow an evil wizard, it would be okay."
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
"That's why soldiers purposely missed eachother, while using individual weapons, up until recently."
Prestigious historian SLA Marshall did a wonderful sales job on that idea, which is so emotionally appealing that it has been repeated without question.
http://warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallproblem.htm
http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/amheritagemarshall1989pagefour.htm
"Lt Gen. Harry 0. Kinnard, who participated in every one of the 101st Airborne's World War II operations (and who is singled out by Marshall in several books as one of the war's most distinguished combat leaders) says, "In both World War II and in Vietnam it never came to the attention that failure to fire was a problem at any level." Gen. Bruce Clarke, who led the defense of St.-Vith and served as both commanding general-Europe and commanding general-Continental U.S., put it more strongly. Marshall's theories, he said, are "ridiculous and dangerous assertions-absolute nonsense And Gen. James PA. Gavin, who commanded the famous 82d Airborne Division during World War II, says bluntly that Marshall's claim "is absolutely false." According to Gavin, "All of our infantry fired their weapons. I know because I was there and took part."
"If politicians and (more importantly) the military ever totally abandon the Constitution and impose some sort of martial law, no amount of small arms is going to stop them."
The whole military is wildly unlikely to go against the mass of the people, especially as many of the folks in combat arms are good old fashioned rednecks. Remember Timmy McVeigh? If Washington tried martial law without reasonable cause there would be a distinct lack of folks willing to enforce it. There would be plenty who would, OTOH, enjoy turning their weapons in the other direction.
The whole US military is not physically large enough to control CONUS. The more than one hundred million small arms in the US mean that should the people wish, it would be quite practical to revolt and succeed.
A fractured US military
"You do realized that the Chinese government used tanks right? Small arms (the kind of guns allowed in the US) cannot stop a tank."
They can force it to button up so it can be killed with incendiaries, have a track disabled by inserted objects for a mobility kill etc.
Small arms dispersed among the people facilitate revolutionary capability, and NO country has enough tanks for them to be everywhere at once. No country, possibly excepting North Korea,has enough domestic military power to destroy widespread armed revolt, though it may contain outbreaks. Tanks can't be everywhere, and can be killed by infantry with expedient weapons. Widespread ownership of weapons means that if enough people choose to unite,they will outnumber any force their government can field. Partisan warfare with a determined base can be very hard to put down,and can turn into civil war where the government forces are divided.
The amount of asspain a few thousand lightly armed Iraqis and Afghans have been inflicting on Coalition forces is an example of what can happen with small arms as basic weapons.
"which if you're away from it would STILL necessitate you having to rush to it up or downstairs to answer???"
What is this "away from it" of which you speak?
I spend lots of time on the computer and such a solution would avoid having to reach for the phone, dig it out of my belly folds, etc. To be able to respond to calls with a mouse click, have all data/messages displayed on my laptop screen, etc would be genuinely useful.
Pitot, AOA, and other such sensors should
__NEVER__
ice over, and heating them properly has been basic aircraft design practice for many years. The weather doesn't matter, because sensor heat should be easily capable of keeping them clear under any condition.
Airbus fucked up.
"I assume these kinds of modern planes can't even fly without a computer anymore."
They have redundant systems such that total flight control computer loss is uncommon, but yes, if you lose them all (rare) or they misbehave (less rare) you can certainly lose the ability to control the aircraft. Computers allow aircraft performance impossible with manual systems.
That's not a bad trade off. No flight control system was ever perfectly reliable. The reality of flight is that no matter how wonderful the machine, you'll likely stick a few of them into the ground. As an experienced aircraft maintainer (USAF avionics, engines, crew chief over 26 years) I'm unworried about flying.
[quote]
2. Time for the referral businesses in NC to relocate. Or close up shop. We'd be happy to have them (and their income & property tax revenues) here in NJ.
[/quote]
Given the brutal property and income tax situation in New Jersey, they'd be better off moving a few miles to South Carolina.
I'm from New Jersey, lived in both Carolinas, and retired in SC so I get to keep more of my income. :)
"Seriously, NASA (and most space programs in general) should have one crucial long term goal: Getting us off this ball of rock and inhabiting other ones."
If the goal were indeed LONG-term we'd send up large numbers of unmanned systems to explore the universe, which we do not need humans to accomplish. The problem with sending people first is that people are cripplingly expensive to transport using our primitive technology, and doing so reduces funding for genuine exploration as opposed to astronaut tourism.
Sending humans made sense when humans and wooden ships were cheap enough to throw away. Now, the demands for returning a high percentage of humans intact ensure high costs, while losing a few humans threatens the program itself. Burn up a probe and you can send another the next day if you are equipped to do so.
OTOH, development of effective unmanned systems can pay off here on Terra as well as in space. Let the machines do the work, and exploit the rapid life-cycle/replacement cycle unmanned systems offer compared to manned equipment.
"What if she is the first person not to have the disease we all have and that she is aging but really really slow?"
Then what we have is not technically a DIS-ease, because we are the product of evolutionary selection.
Anyone with her condition is disabled, essentially an invalid, and would promptly die without special care.
"RIP Justice, it was kinda cool while you were around..."
Must have been before my time, and I was born in 1958.
What is this "justice" of which you speak?
"Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......
Wait a sec. I don't think I should go any further with this......."
DON'T STOP!
I'm not finished yet.
"No, he lost because he over extended himself into Russia."
Germany DEFEATED Russia in WW1, and but for their late invasion and split effort which failed to take Moscow could have done so again.
"What about those of us who want a reliable, energy efficient car without sacrificing our children's education to get it?"
Odd to see this on a geek forum, where people (usually) get that the EARLY ADOPTERS pay for what is cutting-edge gear one day but promptly filters down to the rest of us for much lower prices. Remember when RAM was over a dollar a meg?
If you want a reliable, energy efficient car right now you have plenty of gasoline and diesel options, all of which were funded over time by...early adopters.
As any auto mechanic knows, the metric system is a breeze to work with. I'll be 50 next year and have no problem with complete conversion.
The US hasn't converted because our education system sucks, our people are mentally lazy, and we don't care.
"What a coincidence! Today my wallet decided to lock out Panasonic products. Oh well. Canon is better anyway."
People ask those with experience what to buy and why. Some well-placed scorn such as "good luck buying batteries for that piece of shit" can put off potential customers.
If corps can stick it to us, we can stick it to them with equal or greater gusto. :)
Having defended myself with a firearm, I disagree about their social utility. I am in physical danger from other citizens, not the government.
Mere paper debt is an inconvenience, not a disaster.
Iranians aren't fighting to be free (or they'd be killing Mullahs and destroying theocracy),they just want a piece of the economic pie.
"Any Iranian is freer, weaponless and ruled by priests, than the average American with all of his guns."
E-rage much? USians have far more personal freedom from religion than the Iranian, and far more economic mobility. No one ruled by priests is free until they reject the belief and kill the priest.
"The CIA, with Eisenhower's approval, helped the Shah overthrow Mosaddeq's government in return for allowing foreign oil companies to gain valuable contracts to extract Iranian oil."
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
I agree with your statement,excepting the "absolute disaster" bit. The Shah was useful during the Cold War, which was far more important to the West than the relatively piddling squabbles afterward,including those in Iraq and Afghanistan we are now involved with.
Things are going reasonably well, and for Islamist regimes to lose legitimacy by killing fellow Muslims is quite like Communist regimes plinking internal Communists. The protests in Iran are not rejecting religion, are not directed at destroying the theocracy, and don't display much of a central goal other than wanting some of the pie.
"I am. A lot of people are scared by things they don't understand. Why should he be any different?"
Let's not forget that he is 89, and declining faculties go with the territory.
Instead of grumbling at change, we should be readier to admit when we are too old and scared to deal with it.
"By that logic, would the East be morally justified in destroying American nuclear weapons facilities?"
Since "morals" are arbitrary and subjective, why not?
"A man on US soil gets attacked by agents of a foreign government."
Clearly terrorism.
Advocates of the Iranian theocracy are enemies of the US, and when they attack our citizens they should be sent straight to Gitmo.
"The first thing that I would do when up against a drone army is to break out the RF jammer or a moderately powered microwave dish effectively denying the UAV access to the battlefield."
No chance UAV designers would take THAT into consideration! :)
"Look at how itchy a trigger finger our "all volunteer" army has given US Presidents. "What do I care? It's not MY kid."
That statement ignores the many and frequent interventions, wars, and military actions before the advent of the Volunteer Force. Google ye some Smedley Butler for examples. :)
There isn't evidence that the politicians sending the military to war don't care about the troops, even if they mismanage them sometimes due to situational ignorance. The military itself during the pre-volunteer days often treated troops badly, and now that it must compete for recruits standards of living have _greatly_ improved.
Casualties are far more controversial than during the Cold War, and vast amounts have been invested in protecting troops. (Going into Iraq under-armored was provably and specifically the fault of the military, not the politicos. The Army refused to learn from Mogadishu years before.)
"Iran is run by a central council of idiots anyway. Who cares what puppet they stretch over their hand?"
It's comforting to pretend that the new puppet and the people themselves will have a different FOREIGN AFFAIRS agenda.