Awesome. Tomorrow morning your house will be inundated with 50,000 286's, 15,000 dot matrix printers, 12,000 analog tape drives, and a tractor-trailer full of 5.25" floppies. Good luck, Joe!
all of them, but the US is pretty good at war, from where we derive that its pretty good at killing, raping and generally fucking up people in other countries
Do you REALLY think rape is a necessary part of war?
You are not liberating anyone from anything nor setting any kind of democracy...
But we ARE liberating people. That's what I just finished explaining - our main goal might be something completely different, but our actions nevertheless do result in greater liberty for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
But dont come talkin to me about some "liberating" "nice" army that is there to show how freedom is done.
Now you're just confusing warfigting with stabilization ops. You're right in the sense that the primary job of the military is to smash things and kill people. On the other hand, their current job in Iraq is closer to policing than to warfighting. They are there to stop the factions we don't like from blowing up civilians and infrastructure. As a result, they ARE "liberating" and "nice" to the people whose lives they are saving, and whose communities they are rebuilding and safeguarding.
If you're having difficulty visualizing my meaning, think of the Allied forces in WW2. They weren't "nice" or "liberating" either, in the sense that their primary purpose was to kill millions of Germans. On the other hand, the people of countries like France and Norway were immensely grateful for our presence, and they certainly did see our soldiers as saviours and liberators.
Conflicts aren't nearly as black-and-white as you're trying to make them sound.
More so, you CANNOT say that youre "the liberator" of an Irak that today has thousends of civilian people killed by US bombings and/or bullets (intentional or not)
Why not?
where you set up a jail to systematically torture people
[citation needed]
and where the average citizen... is in more daily danger than they ever were under Saddam
Once again, why not? During WW2, we put the people of France at much greater risk by storming through their nation and bombing the crap out of everything. Yet we certainly can say we liberated France. So how exactly do you justify your conclusion - that we can't say we're "liberators" because some bad stuff has happened?
But I cannot like or admire what is killing its spirit: bring back Whitman and Ginsberg, bring back freedom, bring back the heightening of the individual rights at home, bring back Marthin Luther King.
I agree - but I do want to point out that the average American still enjoys a greater degree of personal freedom than do the citizens of any other nation in the world. There's room for improvement, sure, but it's rather amusing to see Europeans worrying about the Patriot Act when their own legislation is even more oppressive.
Americans worry us, my friend, because when the freest country in the world starts thinking, hey, its a great idea to isolate itself and to carpet bomb another country under the justification of a blatant lie whilst it all but eliminates critical freedoms set in their constitution; that cant mean any good for occident.
Well, for one thing, it wasn't a blatant lie. We know for a fact that Saddam violated pretty much every one of the conditions that were placed on him. The fact that no stockpiles of chemical or nuclear weapons were located is pretty much irrelevant. There were so many other good reasons to invade, that basing the war on something they knew was false would have been the height of stupidity. It's much more likely that the US administration, like everyone else in the world, truly believed that Iraq really did have stockpiles of "WMD".
Yes, yes, we know, the American Zionist Space Lizards control everything that happens in the world. By the way... that chip we put in your head needs a firmware upgrade. You may want to drop by the nearest NWO facility so we can flash it for you.
P.S. Failure to comply will result in personality erasure.
About the Saudis, I point them out because thy are regarded as allies, like saddam was until he became a little too much of a prick regarding us oil interests.
If you're talking about the original 1991 invasion... there's more to it than that, but essentially you're right - Saddam became a bigger pain in the ass than we were willing to tolerate, so the international community got together and spanked him good. I'm not really sure why that's a problem for you. I've got people working for/with me who are tolerable most of the time, but step over the line on occasion and need to be smacked down. As long as you've got humans interacting with each other, you're going to have shifting relationships and power games. That's human nature.
If liberating people was why the us attacks countries he woulve never come into power.
You mean the US has an ulterior motive? NO! Say it aint so!;)
Listen, when a cop intervenes to stop someone from robbing me, neither he nor the government is doing it because they care about me personally. The cop is doing it because that's how he makes money to feed his family, and the government is doing it because the best way for them to maintain a stable society is to attempt to maintain a monopoly on violence and extortion (aka taxes). Despite all that, I'm still damn happy when that cop intervenes, and I'm damn glad that we have a government which keeps us relatively safe and free.
So the US intervened in the Gulf for it's own selfish reasons - so what? The fact that you're acting in your own best interest doesn't automatically exclude the possibility that your actions will be beneficial to others. In fact, most of the positive developments in history have taken place because of selfish self-interest. When Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press, he didn't do it in order to change the world. He did it in order to make money! Yet his invention DID change the world, regardless of his intentions.
Generally speaking, when the US acts it's almost invariably good for others. Look at past wars and you'll realize that the worst consequences have come about when the Yanks got involved and then decided not to finish what they started - Vietnam being the most obvious example, and the anti-soviet Afghan campaign being another. If the US had continued to pursue victory after the Tet offencive, the South Vietnamese would not have had millions of people executed by communists in the post-war period. If the US had helped Afghanistan rebuild after they kicked out the Soviets, the Taliban would not have been able to turn the place into the ass-backwards theocratic dictatorship which sheltered terrorists and fanatics.
The main point here is that no, there is no nice justification to invading and killing people in Irak, or nuking japan when it was already defeated just to test the new gizmo.
"BlakeyRat" posted a good response to the stuff about Japan, so I'm not going to get into that. I just want to point out that you still haven't proven your premise. You can SAY that there's no justification for these things, but that doesn't make it so. You're going to have to do a much better job of explaining why you believe that these acts cannot be justified.
There might be good reasons, but it shouldn't be justified in any way
That makes no sense. If there's good reasons for something, then there's a justification for it. The words "justification" and "reason" are synonyms - they mean the same thing.
why try to find ways to feel better about it instead of realizing mistakes so that you don't go fuck it up again.
Once again - you need to show that they ARE mistakes. I certainly don't see them that way. There are very few historians who would call the bombing of Japan a mistake, and while current opinions on the Iraq campaign vary wildly, there's good reason to be optimistic about it. Only time will tell.
Get a grip... better yet.... get a book and please, READ IT
Don't be a condescending prick. ArcherB made a rational, well thought out response to your earlier comment, and does not deserve to be insulted just because you want to give yourself an ego boost.
Next:
What a way to liberate, vaporizing a cuple of important population centers of a country that was about to surrender anyhow.
The first part of that comment makes no sense - what exactly is wrong with liberating a nation by blowing up parts of it? How else do you expect to do it? By air-dropping cookies and candy bars?
The second part of that sentence should have a [citation needed] tag.
On the other hand, how did it go with the cambodians and the vietnameese? Wonderful, ey?
No, it didn't go wonderful. Why not? Because the US tucked tail and ran. The main difference between SK and Vietnam was that in SK the US was there for the long run, and willing to do whatever it took to win. Vietnam was a whole different ballgame because after only a few years it became apparent that they had no staying power.
Irrelevant. I've never understood this line of reasoning. Apparently, according to people like you, we're not allowed to try and do anything good in ANY part of the world unless we're simultaneously doing the same thing in EVERY part of the world. That is beyond idiotic. I'd love to see you try and justify that "logic".
"As usual, 'creative capitalism' is only going to deepen inequalities (that's what Bill epitomises, after all - the obscene, not to mention illegal, enrichment of one man at the expense of society in general).
Take it easy Mr. Castro... you know how your blood pressure gets when you start on these rants....
Speaking of ancient Egypt and writing, it's kinda funny... they actually invented a phonetic writing (hieratic) _before_ hieroglyphics
Cite?
As far as I know, they developed pretty much simultaneously, and were used at the same time, but for different purposes. Hieroglyphics were used to decorate pyramids and temples, while Hieratic was used for receipts, notes, messages, etc. Moreover, Hieratic was not a real alphabet either, it made use of logographic characters.
We tend to think that inventing an alphabet was oh-so-vital and a major improvement over hieroglyphics, but Egypt invented them the other way around. And for a long time it was, along with Mesopotamia (where cuneiform was also hieroglyphic), at the forefront of science and technology.
Yes, well, most "technical documents" from the time were written in Hieratic, so that tends to suggest that a simple alphabet is at least an aid in clear and professional communication, if not necessarily a requirement for it.
Another anomaly about them was that they knew about coins all right, but preferred barter anyway. They first minted coins to pay some Greek mercenaries, and then continued to do so for external trade with the Greeks and Phoenicians. But internally they used barter until the Romans conquered them and forced them to. They were an economic powerhouse anyway.
Imagine that! A stubborn people, ruled in tyranny by an emperor who is also a religious figure, continue to do things the old fashioned way instead of changing with the times. You NEVER see that happen!:)
I think it's rather akin to North Korea continuing to pretend that Communism is a viable option...
they even know the difference between "they're" and "their". Something most college grads seem to not know. Too bad you can't fire people (lovely government interventions) for having been too stupid to get value for their money when they shopped for "education".
The problems you're talking about are a result of NOT shopping for education in the first place. Proper spelling and grammar should be learned before the 8th grade - and most children up to that point attend public schools. You just made a pretty strong argument for bringing in the voucher system.
Couldn't you just get the tank spray-painted? I'm sure the cops won't realize that you're cruising around in a 70-tonne death machine, so long as it's painted bright pink...
would you give someone who did just that the same time as someone who kicked in your door and robbed you?
Yes. What you are essentially saying is that if I rape a woman who's wearing a bikini I should get a shorter jail sentence (or no sentence at all?) than if I rape a woman in a Burqa. Don't be an idiot. In western society we blame the criminal, not the victim, regardless of how "easy" they may have made the crime.
Ah, yes. Tell ya what, why don't you give me your address, and I'll come by and "do you a favour". I'll break a window, climb in, piss all over your furniture, and leave a note saying:
"By the way, your windows are the weak spot".
Does that sound like a fun time to you?:)
that's the money they should have spent fucking securing the systems in the first place
The linked story doesn't mention it, but he says he was told by US government officials that if he didn't plead guilty and agree to be extradited, he could be facing sixty years in prison.
Right, that's technically the maximum prison term he could face. And? Did you have a point to go with that statement?
Thank you. That was the first insightful comment in this entire thread. After all the conspiracy theory nonsense and the whining about the US being a police state where the people have no power, your commentary is like a breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately I just ran out of mod points 10 minutes ago, so you get my verbal thanks instead of a mod up.
If he caused $900,000 worth of damage, then he essentially DID steal something. Leaving that aside... how exactly do you measure proportionality in this case?
It's the potential for harm in this situation which is the concern. After all, you can go to jail for "dangerous driving" or "driving under the influence" without having caused the least bit of harm to anyone. We as a society understand (even if you as an individual don't) that certain actions deserve punishment whether or not they result in "harm". If you don't like it... too bad. You won't find a society anywhere on earth which doesn't have such laws.
Actually I think the best way would be to send a nuke in large tank of water...
Interesting idea. One of the new techniques coming out of the "war on terror" for knocking holes in walls is to place an IV bag full of water or saline on top of a block of explosive, which you then stick to the wall. The water shapes and directs the explosion, allowing much more of it's force to be directed at the structure. I wonder how difficult it'd be to create a similar effect with a nuke?
Any engineers or physicists out there wanna give this one a shot?
Are you that dense, or just pretending not to understand the point? Different people have different definitions of win.
Well, sure. When you compete in the Special Olympics, EVERYONE's a winner. That doesn't make ME the retarded one....
Similarly, we might have won the war by bombing Japan, but many people still count that as a loss for humanity in general.
And many people count Bin Laden's attacks as a victory against capitalism. Why the hell should I concern myself with what idiots think?
I have to ask, does might always make right in your world view?
It's nice to be right, but, in war, it's who's left that matters most. To quote Heinlein:
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion [that violence never settles anything] is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."
You can argue all you like about morality - I don't particularly give a damn. I'm talking about victory. If you can't understand the difference, expect to be left by the wayside.
While they can certainly fire him for insubordination, I'm not exactly sure what he could really be charged with.
Mischief at the very least. Vandalism probably. At least in theory they could charge him with theft. And of course, there's the civil suits which could be brought for lost productivity, etc.
Reagan was also a sociopath how believed he could win a nuclear war.
Well, I've got two comments on that:
1. I very much doubt that you're a mental-health professional, so I'll ask you to refrain from making uninformed guesses.
2. The idea that a nuclear war cannot be won seems to be rather pervasive in modern culture, without ever having been proven.
I mean, yeah, ok, I saw Wargames too, and thought it was a fun film. And granted, you were probably at a very impressionable age when that movie came out, so I can't blame you for basing your whole view of nuclear warfare on it. But it's been more than 20 years since then! Grow up already!
I would argue that choosing "B" could be criminally negligent, and that A is the better choice, however, he should also immediately go to HR and explain why he's violating the order.
Your scenario is a false dichotomy. The best way to deal with a manager asking you to do something dangerous is to immediately go over his head and get his superiors involved. If you make it all the way to the top and you're still being asked to do the same thing, then chances are it's you that's the problem.
Of course, if your convictions are so strong that you're willing to ignore everyone else, you'll probably still feel a need to do something about the problem. In which case, your best option is to resign loudly and publicly, and then immediately try to catch the interest of the media and/or any relevant regulatory bodies for your industry. No matter what though, just about the worst possible option is to break the law. If it turns out you were wrong, you're on your own, and even if it turns out you're right, you still get fucked for going about it the wrong way.
Via JGreely's reply [chizumatic.mee.nu], see this article [freerepublic.com] concerning a similar event at Camp Pendleton, where the BFA shattered without damaging the barrel so badly that the gun couldn't fire.
Amazing. I'm actually speaking from experience - we had an incident a few years back where troops were loading their magazines from a pile of "loose" rounds, in the middle of the night, without using any illumination. Unfortunately, a live round had somehow found it's way into the pile. I had a chance to examine the rifle afterwards - the live round hitting the BFA literally blew the weapon apart.
They mention in the article that such a catastrophic failure is the usual result, but judging by the Pendleton experience it's clearly possible for them to fail in a different fashion.
Thanks for the info.
The gun described in the opening article is designed to encourage violations of the same rules. No good and very bad.
Absolutely. It's the kind of thing that seems wonderful to paper-pushers looking to cut costs. It usually gets shitcanned the first time any experienced soldier/LEO looks at the proposal. I'd be shocked if these rifles ever saw active service anywhere in the world, except maybe in North Korea. Those bastards seem crazy enough to try it.
1. See the incident [google.com] a few weeks ago where a soldier was firing machine gun blanks into a crowd during a demonstration. He swapped mags--but unfortunately, the fresh mag was not filled with blanks.
That incident is rather fishy. Firing blanks requires the use of a BFA, which is basically a metal plug in the end of the barrel. If you made the mistake of firing live rounds with a BFA on... well, you wouldn't enjoy the experience, I'll tell you that much. Think Elmer Fudd after Bugs sticks a carrot in his muzzle.
Whatever happened with that French soldier, I very much doubt it was an accident.
Slashdot Mirror
Refusing to help people is the same as executing people? Are you retarded?
Well, that answers that question ....
Awesome. Tomorrow morning your house will be inundated with 50,000 286's, 15,000 dot matrix printers, 12,000 analog tape drives, and a tractor-trailer full of 5.25" floppies. Good luck, Joe!
Awesome. 50,000 286's and associated peripherals are now on their way to Joe's house. Good luck, Joe!
Do you REALLY think rape is a necessary part of war?
But we ARE liberating people. That's what I just finished explaining - our main goal might be something completely different, but our actions nevertheless do result in greater liberty for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now you're just confusing warfigting with stabilization ops. You're right in the sense that the primary job of the military is to smash things and kill people. On the other hand, their current job in Iraq is closer to policing than to warfighting. They are there to stop the factions we don't like from blowing up civilians and infrastructure. As a result, they ARE "liberating" and "nice" to the people whose lives they are saving, and whose communities they are rebuilding and safeguarding.
If you're having difficulty visualizing my meaning, think of the Allied forces in WW2. They weren't "nice" or "liberating" either, in the sense that their primary purpose was to kill millions of Germans. On the other hand, the people of countries like France and Norway were immensely grateful for our presence, and they certainly did see our soldiers as saviours and liberators.
Conflicts aren't nearly as black-and-white as you're trying to make them sound.
Why not?
[citation needed]
Once again, why not? During WW2, we put the people of France at much greater risk by storming through their nation and bombing the crap out of everything. Yet we certainly can say we liberated France. So how exactly do you justify your conclusion - that we can't say we're "liberators" because some bad stuff has happened?
I agree - but I do want to point out that the average American still enjoys a greater degree of personal freedom than do the citizens of any other nation in the world. There's room for improvement, sure, but it's rather amusing to see Europeans worrying about the Patriot Act when their own legislation is even more oppressive.
Well, for one thing, it wasn't a blatant lie. We know for a fact that Saddam violated pretty much every one of the conditions that were placed on him. The fact that no stockpiles of chemical or nuclear weapons were located is pretty much irrelevant. There were so many other good reasons to invade, that basing the war on something they knew was false would have been the height of stupidity. It's much more likely that the US administration, like everyone else in the world, truly believed that Iraq really did have stockpiles of "WMD".
I've never underst
Yes, yes, we know, the American Zionist Space Lizards control everything that happens in the world. By the way ... that chip we put in your head needs a firmware upgrade. You may want to drop by the nearest NWO facility so we can flash it for you.
P.S. Failure to comply will result in personality erasure.
See you soon!
Cheers. You're a better man than most.
If you're talking about the original 1991 invasion ... there's more to it than that, but essentially you're right - Saddam became a bigger pain in the ass than we were willing to tolerate, so the international community got together and spanked him good. I'm not really sure why that's a problem for you. I've got people working for/with me who are tolerable most of the time, but step over the line on occasion and need to be smacked down. As long as you've got humans interacting with each other, you're going to have shifting relationships and power games. That's human nature.
You mean the US has an ulterior motive? NO! Say it aint so! ;)
Listen, when a cop intervenes to stop someone from robbing me, neither he nor the government is doing it because they care about me personally. The cop is doing it because that's how he makes money to feed his family, and the government is doing it because the best way for them to maintain a stable society is to attempt to maintain a monopoly on violence and extortion (aka taxes). Despite all that, I'm still damn happy when that cop intervenes, and I'm damn glad that we have a government which keeps us relatively safe and free.
So the US intervened in the Gulf for it's own selfish reasons - so what? The fact that you're acting in your own best interest doesn't automatically exclude the possibility that your actions will be beneficial to others. In fact, most of the positive developments in history have taken place because of selfish self-interest. When Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press, he didn't do it in order to change the world. He did it in order to make money! Yet his invention DID change the world, regardless of his intentions.
Generally speaking, when the US acts it's almost invariably good for others. Look at past wars and you'll realize that the worst consequences have come about when the Yanks got involved and then decided not to finish what they started - Vietnam being the most obvious example, and the anti-soviet Afghan campaign being another. If the US had continued to pursue victory after the Tet offencive, the South Vietnamese would not have had millions of people executed by communists in the post-war period. If the US had helped Afghanistan rebuild after they kicked out the Soviets, the Taliban would not have been able to turn the place into the ass-backwards theocratic dictatorship which sheltered terrorists and fanatics.
"BlakeyRat" posted a good response to the stuff about Japan, so I'm not going to get into that. I just want to point out that you still haven't proven your premise. You can SAY that there's no justification for these things, but that doesn't make it so. You're going to have to do a much better job of explaining why you believe that these acts cannot be justified.
That makes no sense. If there's good reasons for something, then there's a justification for it. The words "justification" and "reason" are synonyms - they mean the same thing.
Once again - you need to show that they ARE mistakes. I certainly don't see them that way. There are very few historians who would call the bombing of Japan a mistake, and while current opinions on the Iraq campaign vary wildly, there's good reason to be optimistic about it. Only time will tell.
Last thing first:
Don't be a condescending prick. ArcherB made a rational, well thought out response to your earlier comment, and does not deserve to be insulted just because you want to give yourself an ego boost.
Next:
The first part of that comment makes no sense - what exactly is wrong with liberating a nation by blowing up parts of it? How else do you expect to do it? By air-dropping cookies and candy bars?
The second part of that sentence should have a [citation needed] tag.
No, it didn't go wonderful. Why not? Because the US tucked tail and ran. The main difference between SK and Vietnam was that in SK the US was there for the long run, and willing to do whatever it took to win. Vietnam was a whole different ballgame because after only a few years it became apparent that they had no staying power.
Irrelevant. I've never understood this line of reasoning. Apparently, according to people like you, we're not allowed to try and do anything good in ANY part of the world unless we're simultaneously doing the same thing in EVERY part of the world. That is beyond idiotic. I'd love to see you try and justify that "logic".
Take it easy Mr. Castro ... you know how your blood pressure gets when you start on these rants ....
Cite?
As far as I know, they developed pretty much simultaneously, and were used at the same time, but for different purposes. Hieroglyphics were used to decorate pyramids and temples, while Hieratic was used for receipts, notes, messages, etc. Moreover, Hieratic was not a real alphabet either, it made use of logographic characters.
Yes, well, most "technical documents" from the time were written in Hieratic, so that tends to suggest that a simple alphabet is at least an aid in clear and professional communication, if not necessarily a requirement for it.
Imagine that! A stubborn people, ruled in tyranny by an emperor who is also a religious figure, continue to do things the old fashioned way instead of changing with the times. You NEVER see that happen! :)
I think it's rather akin to North Korea continuing to pretend that Communism is a viable option ...
The problems you're talking about are a result of NOT shopping for education in the first place. Proper spelling and grammar should be learned before the 8th grade - and most children up to that point attend public schools. You just made a pretty strong argument for bringing in the voucher system.
Couldn't you just get the tank spray-painted? I'm sure the cops won't realize that you're cruising around in a 70-tonne death machine, so long as it's painted bright pink ...
Yes. What you are essentially saying is that if I rape a woman who's wearing a bikini I should get a shorter jail sentence (or no sentence at all?) than if I rape a woman in a Burqa. Don't be an idiot. In western society we blame the criminal, not the victim, regardless of how "easy" they may have made the crime.
Ah, yes. Tell ya what, why don't you give me your address, and I'll come by and "do you a favour". I'll break a window, climb in, piss all over your furniture, and leave a note saying:
"By the way, your windows are the weak spot".
Does that sound like a fun time to you? :)
Man, your house must be a FORTRESS ....
Right, that's technically the maximum prison term he could face. And? Did you have a point to go with that statement?
Thank you. That was the first insightful comment in this entire thread. After all the conspiracy theory nonsense and the whining about the US being a police state where the people have no power, your commentary is like a breath of fresh air.
Unfortunately I just ran out of mod points 10 minutes ago, so you get my verbal thanks instead of a mod up.
If he caused $900,000 worth of damage, then he essentially DID steal something. Leaving that aside ... how exactly do you measure proportionality in this case?
It's the potential for harm in this situation which is the concern. After all, you can go to jail for "dangerous driving" or "driving under the influence" without having caused the least bit of harm to anyone. We as a society understand (even if you as an individual don't) that certain actions deserve punishment whether or not they result in "harm". If you don't like it ... too bad. You won't find a society anywhere on earth which doesn't have such laws.
Interesting idea. One of the new techniques coming out of the "war on terror" for knocking holes in walls is to place an IV bag full of water or saline on top of a block of explosive, which you then stick to the wall. The water shapes and directs the explosion, allowing much more of it's force to be directed at the structure. I wonder how difficult it'd be to create a similar effect with a nuke?
Any engineers or physicists out there wanna give this one a shot?
Well, sure. When you compete in the Special Olympics, EVERYONE's a winner. That doesn't make ME the retarded one ....
And many people count Bin Laden's attacks as a victory against capitalism. Why the hell should I concern myself with what idiots think?
It's nice to be right, but, in war, it's who's left that matters most. To quote Heinlein:
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion [that violence never settles anything] is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."
You can argue all you like about morality - I don't particularly give a damn. I'm talking about victory. If you can't understand the difference, expect to be left by the wayside.
It's just about the most decisive win in history. Doesn't get much better than that!
Oh, wait, you were trying to be sarcastic, right? Gotcha. In that case, I hope you get moded "+5 funny".
Mischief at the very least. Vandalism probably. At least in theory they could charge him with theft. And of course, there's the civil suits which could be brought for lost productivity, etc.
Well, I've got two comments on that:
1. I very much doubt that you're a mental-health professional, so I'll ask you to refrain from making uninformed guesses.
2. The idea that a nuclear war cannot be won seems to be rather pervasive in modern culture, without ever having been proven.
I mean, yeah, ok, I saw Wargames too, and thought it was a fun film. And granted, you were probably at a very impressionable age when that movie came out, so I can't blame you for basing your whole view of nuclear warfare on it. But it's been more than 20 years since then! Grow up already!
Your scenario is a false dichotomy. The best way to deal with a manager asking you to do something dangerous is to immediately go over his head and get his superiors involved. If you make it all the way to the top and you're still being asked to do the same thing, then chances are it's you that's the problem.
Of course, if your convictions are so strong that you're willing to ignore everyone else, you'll probably still feel a need to do something about the problem. In which case, your best option is to resign loudly and publicly, and then immediately try to catch the interest of the media and/or any relevant regulatory bodies for your industry. No matter what though, just about the worst possible option is to break the law. If it turns out you were wrong, you're on your own, and even if it turns out you're right, you still get fucked for going about it the wrong way.
Amazing. I'm actually speaking from experience - we had an incident a few years back where troops were loading their magazines from a pile of "loose" rounds, in the middle of the night, without using any illumination. Unfortunately, a live round had somehow found it's way into the pile. I had a chance to examine the rifle afterwards - the live round hitting the BFA literally blew the weapon apart.
They mention in the article that such a catastrophic failure is the usual result, but judging by the Pendleton experience it's clearly possible for them to fail in a different fashion.
Thanks for the info.
Absolutely. It's the kind of thing that seems wonderful to paper-pushers looking to cut costs. It usually gets shitcanned the first time any experienced soldier/LEO looks at the proposal. I'd be shocked if these rifles ever saw active service anywhere in the world, except maybe in North Korea. Those bastards seem crazy enough to try it.
And injure 17 people, 4 of them seriously? No way. Not even in hollywood!
I guess we'll have to wait fort he full report.
That incident is rather fishy. Firing blanks requires the use of a BFA, which is basically a metal plug in the end of the barrel. If you made the mistake of firing live rounds with a BFA on ... well, you wouldn't enjoy the experience, I'll tell you that much. Think Elmer Fudd after Bugs sticks a carrot in his muzzle.
Whatever happened with that French soldier, I very much doubt it was an accident.