I doubt anyone would use the much less than 1% of the military who goes to your "home town after the bars close" as the basis for who an "average soldier" is.
The point is our discussion was about a piece of the pie and it's being turned into some childish tantrum because people like you want to cry about how much you wish we could all get along and play nice. You can sit there eating cheesy puffs and playing on your computer while you try to talk down to me, but I really don't care. You seriously need to get outside your little bubble - or is it your mom's basement? I could go on about how utterly incorrect the majority of your post is, but you really aren't worth my time. Have fun with your little moral superiority.
First, I understand where you're coming from. I want technology like this to go further. I just don't agree this particular model is the way to handle the situation.
They think everyone is dead down there and as they start walking down the stairs, the soldiers sees one of the guys and they open fire on the soldier. These guys start yelling "allah ahkbar", so they were obviously just sitting there waiting for the soldiers to come down to finish them off.
This is why you clear a house the same way every time. You never assume it's clear even if you just shot a missile into it.
I would prefer they have a camera inside to see get a view of what is inside and where they are hiding.
Great, but what if I throw this thing in there and dude takes that as a queue to grab whatever weapons he has and come at me, blow himself up, or whatever else.
So what if they see the ball coming in the room knowing that soldiers will be coming in for them, they will have the position surrounded anyways and anything that peeps its head outside or try to escape will be stopped.
I'm not worried about them getting away. I'm worried about them spraying the doorway and throwing grenades back over the wall. I don't want them to have that extra couple seconds to arm the suicide vest. Speed and surprise are fundamental.
Situations like these happen all the time and you really should see some of the combat videos coming out of Iraq/Afghanistan, it will open your eyes to what chaos is really going on over there and what these soldiers have to face.
I was in Iraq less than six months ago clearing houses. Totally agree it's crazy over there.
I'm all for continuing the funding and research for these technologies. After discussing it for a while I can see some usage, but I am still afraid it will be misused. The last thing you ever want to do is let the guy know you're coming in. If you're in a situation where you can't level that building for whatever reason (collateral damage is a big issue in places like Baghdad), you're pretty much stuck with having to send a team in the door.
Well, I don't think the military has to worry much about these types enlisting. I don't ever remember worrying about whether the guy shooting at me was referred to as terrorist, insurgent, enemy, bad guy, or batman. The point is, the guy on the ground isn't going to be having all these philosophical debates in the middle of a clearance mission.
You're missing the point as well. 5000 dead or 50000 dead or 5 dead. It doesn't change the argument. If you read, I was saying that most countries do not want their own people to die. Some countries take more precautions than others. You can argue about a decimal all you want if it makes you happy. Thanks for the comment.
I didn't want the conversation to get into one about what country is better than another. War is obviously a bad thing and life would be great if no one went to war. That being said... The things I'm talking about take no technology at all. I'm talking about the risk guys on the ground take every day to make sure they don't kill the wrong people. Meaning, strict rules of engagement, escalation of force milder than many police departments, clearing individual houses when we could drop bombs, using non-lethal means when possible, etc,. I wish the US wasn't at war, and I am not trying to justify civilian casualties. The point is most people in most countries don't want to see their own people getting killed under most any circumstances.
I wasn't going to waste my time anymore, but something occurred to me. You are really missing the point if your hangup is on the phrase "bad guy". Something I deliberately used because it is so controversial. You have to understand when you're on the ground in the middle of a war there are good guys, bad guys, and unknowns. We're talking about a wartime invention which militaries might be using in actual battle. Don't tell me you don't understand what a "bad guy" is. I'm not going to sit here and argue about what the target actually is. To the fighter on the ground, the target is a bad guy. Why sit here and worry about terminology? If I had said insurgent, someone would have said freedom fighter. If I had said enemy militant, someone would have said terrorist. If I had said target, someone would say that's sugar coating the situation. I think you need to worry more about the big picture and less about terminology.
Of course we don't want to kill civilians if we don't have to. If we could just drop a bomb every time we saw an enemy in a building that would be great. The problem is even with these inventions buildings are still going to have to be cleared. The problem is when the enemy can just as easily say that 500lb bomb blew up civilians even if we actually killed an insurgent cell. I only fear we may be trying to overly sugar coat a war with little inventions which we *hope* will save lives on all sides, but doesn't really work out in practice.
Hence the quotation marks. I'm sorry you have issues understanding what a bad guy is. It's a person (a "guy") who is bad. Do you need me to break it down further?
Honestly, it doesn't even have to be American-centric. If you were Australian you wouldn't want Australians dying, if you were Russian you wouldn't want Russians dying, and so forth and so on. There are few countries which take as many precautions as we do. The problem is you only hear about the.0001% of times when something goes wrong.
As far as deploying it... I haven't spent a lot of time around tanks, but I know some could have smoke grenade launchers and there are various well used weapons platforms out there which I'm sure this thing could be made to work with. Generally though I'd rather see money going towards improving unmanned vehicles and whatnot. UAV feed is a great thing.
I think speed is really of the essence. My fears are only about 1. Giving the enemy advanced knowledge of an assault and 2. Targets moving/taking defensive posture while the feed is being analyzed. My fear is a most deadly course of action that while we're trying to figure out what's in a room, "bad guy" is laying down on the floor and training his RPK on the doorway. Or, most likely the "bad guy" runs away after hearing/seeing/otherwise detecting this thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt anyone would use the much less than 1% of the military who goes to your "home town after the bars close" as the basis for who an "average soldier" is.
mhm
The point is our discussion was about a piece of the pie and it's being turned into some childish tantrum because people like you want to cry about how much you wish we could all get along and play nice. You can sit there eating cheesy puffs and playing on your computer while you try to talk down to me, but I really don't care. You seriously need to get outside your little bubble - or is it your mom's basement? I could go on about how utterly incorrect the majority of your post is, but you really aren't worth my time. Have fun with your little moral superiority.
No, you're wrong. This has nothing to do with defending civilian deaths. Go away.
You are hilarious!
Hey crazy person, get a life. You didn't address what I was talking about at all. Thanks, weirdo. Go back to your basement.
Very true.
First, I understand where you're coming from. I want technology like this to go further. I just don't agree this particular model is the way to handle the situation.
They think everyone is dead down there and as they start walking down the stairs, the soldiers sees one of the guys and they open fire on the soldier. These guys start yelling "allah ahkbar", so they were obviously just sitting there waiting for the soldiers to come down to finish them off.
This is why you clear a house the same way every time. You never assume it's clear even if you just shot a missile into it.
I would prefer they have a camera inside to see get a view of what is inside and where they are hiding.
Great, but what if I throw this thing in there and dude takes that as a queue to grab whatever weapons he has and come at me, blow himself up, or whatever else.
So what if they see the ball coming in the room knowing that soldiers will be coming in for them, they will have the position surrounded anyways and anything that peeps its head outside or try to escape will be stopped.
I'm not worried about them getting away. I'm worried about them spraying the doorway and throwing grenades back over the wall. I don't want them to have that extra couple seconds to arm the suicide vest. Speed and surprise are fundamental.
Situations like these happen all the time and you really should see some of the combat videos coming out of Iraq/Afghanistan, it will open your eyes to what chaos is really going on over there and what these soldiers have to face.
I was in Iraq less than six months ago clearing houses. Totally agree it's crazy over there.
I'm all for continuing the funding and research for these technologies. After discussing it for a while I can see some usage, but I am still afraid it will be misused. The last thing you ever want to do is let the guy know you're coming in. If you're in a situation where you can't level that building for whatever reason (collateral damage is a big issue in places like Baghdad), you're pretty much stuck with having to send a team in the door.
Interesting and very valid point.
Then you be alarmed at the terms being used while everyone else actually worries about the situation.
Well, I don't think the military has to worry much about these types enlisting. I don't ever remember worrying about whether the guy shooting at me was referred to as terrorist, insurgent, enemy, bad guy, or batman. The point is, the guy on the ground isn't going to be having all these philosophical debates in the middle of a clearance mission.
You're missing the point as well. 5000 dead or 50000 dead or 5 dead. It doesn't change the argument. If you read, I was saying that most countries do not want their own people to die. Some countries take more precautions than others. You can argue about a decimal all you want if it makes you happy. Thanks for the comment.
You just made my point for me. It is whoever YOU decide is "bad". That isn't for me to decide on an internet forum. It is to be made case by case.
I didn't want the conversation to get into one about what country is better than another. War is obviously a bad thing and life would be great if no one went to war. That being said... The things I'm talking about take no technology at all. I'm talking about the risk guys on the ground take every day to make sure they don't kill the wrong people. Meaning, strict rules of engagement, escalation of force milder than many police departments, clearing individual houses when we could drop bombs, using non-lethal means when possible, etc,. I wish the US wasn't at war, and I am not trying to justify civilian casualties. The point is most people in most countries don't want to see their own people getting killed under most any circumstances.
Oh, now I made a grammatical error. That must mean I'm a complete idiot!
Obviously the figure was an obvious exaggeration. If I had the exact number I would have referenced it. You obviously missed the point.
I wasn't going to waste my time anymore, but something occurred to me. You are really missing the point if your hangup is on the phrase "bad guy". Something I deliberately used because it is so controversial. You have to understand when you're on the ground in the middle of a war there are good guys, bad guys, and unknowns. We're talking about a wartime invention which militaries might be using in actual battle. Don't tell me you don't understand what a "bad guy" is. I'm not going to sit here and argue about what the target actually is. To the fighter on the ground, the target is a bad guy. Why sit here and worry about terminology? If I had said insurgent, someone would have said freedom fighter. If I had said enemy militant, someone would have said terrorist. If I had said target, someone would say that's sugar coating the situation. I think you need to worry more about the big picture and less about terminology.
You scare me because you don't understand what the word bad means.
When things work out that smoothly, it's a good day.
Of course we don't want to kill civilians if we don't have to. If we could just drop a bomb every time we saw an enemy in a building that would be great. The problem is even with these inventions buildings are still going to have to be cleared. The problem is when the enemy can just as easily say that 500lb bomb blew up civilians even if we actually killed an insurgent cell. I only fear we may be trying to overly sugar coat a war with little inventions which we *hope* will save lives on all sides, but doesn't really work out in practice.
Hence the quotation marks. I'm sorry you have issues understanding what a bad guy is. It's a person (a "guy") who is bad. Do you need me to break it down further?
Honestly, it doesn't even have to be American-centric. If you were Australian you wouldn't want Australians dying, if you were Russian you wouldn't want Russians dying, and so forth and so on. There are few countries which take as many precautions as we do. The problem is you only hear about the .0001% of times when something goes wrong.
As far as deploying it... I haven't spent a lot of time around tanks, but I know some could have smoke grenade launchers and there are various well used weapons platforms out there which I'm sure this thing could be made to work with. Generally though I'd rather see money going towards improving unmanned vehicles and whatnot. UAV feed is a great thing.
You laugh, but you have no idea... Unfortunately.
I think speed is really of the essence. My fears are only about 1. Giving the enemy advanced knowledge of an assault and 2. Targets moving/taking defensive posture while the feed is being analyzed. My fear is a most deadly course of action that while we're trying to figure out what's in a room, "bad guy" is laying down on the floor and training his RPK on the doorway. Or, most likely the "bad guy" runs away after hearing/seeing/otherwise detecting this thing.