European military and Popular Mechanics

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax:

True, lack of interest is the other source of errors, since a sloppy comment (that affirms what the same Wikipedia, in the page dedicated to Herman Kahn reports as "reportedly") may go unnoticed.

Conscripts? Haven't you heard? The US has an all volunteer army.

Even conscripts lost that naiveté when someone was shooting at them. You can only hide in a foxhole for so long before you run out of food or water and no one is going to come looking for you until the battle is over.

Except for the convicted felons to whom the judge offers the option of prison or the USMC.

I have personally met one of them.

Thanks, Rich

Are you claiming that they didn't volunteer?

Bruere, Panteltje, Slowman... the Nederland triplet fairies :-) ...Jim Thompson

That's "volunteering?" "Go to prison, or enlist!" isn't really all that voluntary, is it?

Of course, you can't understand that, because you've never been convicted of a crime, and don't know to what lengths people are willing to go to to stay out of prison.

"Volunteer, or go to prison" isn't really voluntarism, is it?

That's like the religious fundies' definition of free will - "You're free to obey me and have eternal life, or to disobey and go to Hell for all eternity."

Thanks, Rich

You are full of it, as usual. The option to go into the military is only supposed to be offered for minor crimes as a awy for someone to keep from getting a prsion record that will follow them the rest of their lives. No one makes them take it.

Do the crime, do the time.

No one in a battle will look for deserters or cowards, other than to take the ammunition they won't use. The enemy has no qualms about stepping up to a foxhole and dropping a fragmentation grenade into your hole. The days of sending anyone who can walk into battle are pretty much over. Technology has advanced, and troops are better trained. They also weed out the cowards and unstable as soon as possible.

Greasy is your standard village idiot liberal. His mindless utterances are platitudes with absolutely no basis in fact. ...Jim Thompson

Or get conscripted.

You seem to be afflicted with the same sort of brainlock as the liberals.

Thanks, Rich

Conscripted? You are as ignorant as ever.

Are you ever going to grow up? Nothing is free.

You will find that there is a rather well known study on what percentage of soldiers actually shoot to kill. Well, well known to me, but obviously not you. use google.

One in seven US military see combat. Not all of that group kills anyone.

It's actually a good idea to wound rather than kill. At least in those cases where you're dealing with a "civilized" enemy...

Wound one, take three out of action... two to carry him :-) ...Jim Thompson

Things have changed since WW-I.

War has not really changed. It is a game, a very serious game. Games are about resource management. He who runs out of resources loses. The objective is to avoid losing. A focus on winning will cost excessive loss of resources. When Cornwall claimed victory over Greene at Guilford Courthouse he stated that "one more victory like this and the war is lost". Greene reported to Washington "The ground is lost, but the battle is won".

Although I am not and never was a soldier I was fortunate to have two years of ROTC at Ohio State University starting in 1958. It may have been the most valuable of all the formal education that I have enjoyed. The rules of war fit all of life. If you choose to avoid conflict at any cost, you are defeated before you begin!

The reason to use solid bullets rather than hollow points is basic to the tactics. It is not that we are humane, it is that we are consuming the adversaries resources. If he chooses to not care for his wounded he faces a major morale problem: the troops soon realize that life as a POW is better than life as a soldier. Their personal objective is simply to be captured.

During the US wars with Europe many foreign soldier's were brought to the US to labor in the war effort. I am acquainted with several US Citizens of German descent who are absolutely devoted to our country.

In WWI the soldiers in the trenches presented a special problem. They were close enough to the enemy for so long that they could converse with them. After a while, the troops began to adapt to a "live and live" mentality. Neither side was inclined to initiate aggression. When both sides lose the will to fight it amounts to an unauthorized truce. When the leadership lives too close to the troops, they also develop a family kinship that hinders their will to sacrifice their brothers. I believe that mankind in general is good and kind. I still don't understand the evil and corrupt members of society seem to gain control of the rest of us.

War, like any other endeavor, consumes resources on all sides proportionate to the length of time of the project. Therefore, the quicker the conflict can be resolved, the fewer total resources consumed. Unfortunately, the warlords need to make the conflict nearly continuous to justify and maintain their power.

It seems that the whole situation is simply part of the "Human Condition (Rev. Billy Graham)". It may some how be necessary to humanities existence.

Whatever the situation is, in today's language: " It Sucks!" John Ferrell W8CCW

at

without

or

Well said!

As I recall, when I entered MIT in 1958, you could opt out of ROTC... which I did :-) ...Jim Thompson

at

without

them.

or

So, the progression from trench warfare to airborne drones and more accurate weapons is no change? They used chemical weapons in WW-I becasue the two sides were so close to each other. Catch the wind blowing the right direction and mix the chemicals, while hoping the wind didn't shift.

Am 29.10.2010 21:57, schrieb Michael A. Terrell:

--

Sounds like you are planning another attack on the tax payer ?

Gerhard