I have to agree with this guy
http://thegunsmiths.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=338
http://thegunsmiths.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=338
wast of money for new army weopon
- Thread starter koginam
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Centre Punch
Well-Known Member
Especially when used on a countries own citizens!
Ian.
Ian.
MT4XFore
Well-Known Member
...or perhaps on that frigid ex-girlfriend! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
steve smith
Well-Known Member
I must disagree whole heartedly! This is almost the perfect weapon for use on those who would hide among women and children for cover when the shooting starts. You could deploy this weapon on an entire crowd without civilian casualties. If we simply started shooting into the crowd without reguard for the civilian loss of life, support for the war will simply disappear, and like our enemys think, we'll end up cutting and running. This weapon is classified as nonlethal, nonlethal is a good thing in certain situations. Just think, it's just another way to get people to stop without killing them.
But, If this weapon is truly a waste of money, then I guess we should just drop a nuke on them. I mean who cares If we kill millions of innocent civilians, at least we won the war. Right!
But, If this weapon is truly a waste of money, then I guess we should just drop a nuke on them. I mean who cares If we kill millions of innocent civilians, at least we won the war. Right!
Re: wast of money for new army weapon
Brown Dog
The point of the rant was not about crowd control but WAR. If the government wants to develop new weapons make them lethal, It won't matter if the weapon is non lethal or not the press will accuse us of causing abortions, and cooking babes in the womb,
My son is on his way back to Iraq within a week for the third time, he has been wounded in both previous tours, I don't give a **** about crowd control I want my boy and the others back alive and intact. So spend the money on new body armor and weapons that cause pain and death.
Brown Dog
The point of the rant was not about crowd control but WAR. If the government wants to develop new weapons make them lethal, It won't matter if the weapon is non lethal or not the press will accuse us of causing abortions, and cooking babes in the womb,
My son is on his way back to Iraq within a week for the third time, he has been wounded in both previous tours, I don't give a **** about crowd control I want my boy and the others back alive and intact. So spend the money on new body armor and weapons that cause pain and death.
screech
Well-Known Member
i agree and disagree. I think that for crowd control it is great. excellent Idea. But I dont think this should ever be on the front line when we start rolling in with tanks to take a place and make it safe for our troops. Im sorry, dont have any remorse for anybody that comes and bombes us then hides. especially when the do so at the stake of women and childrens lives. I know there are others out there that are better people than me and think that we shouldn't kill anybody. But after 9/11, I feel no remorse for anybody that was with that plot or anyone bombing and killing just to try and make themselves the bully of the playground we call earth. Just my opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
Just think, it's just another way to get people to stop without killing them.
[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't a riot its a WAR!
[ QUOTE ]
But, If this weapon is truly a waste of money, then I guess we should just drop a nuke on them. I mean who cares If we kill millions of innocent civilians, at least we won the war. Right!
[/ QUOTE ]
Would you be worrying about innocent civilians if your son was their? That may seem harsh but it is the way most of us fathers feel.
I spent several tours in Viet Nam and I don't remember giving a rats *** about civilians while I was being shot at.
You have every right to believe what you want about fighting a civilized war. But if wars were even more terrible more bloody, more horrific their would be fewer of them and fewer people would die. The press doesn't report all of the things good happening over there, and their are many but until the Iraqi people feel they have more to lose from us then the nut cases they won't rat out the enemy. so we can kill them.
Just think, it's just another way to get people to stop without killing them.
[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't a riot its a WAR!
[ QUOTE ]
But, If this weapon is truly a waste of money, then I guess we should just drop a nuke on them. I mean who cares If we kill millions of innocent civilians, at least we won the war. Right!
[/ QUOTE ]
Would you be worrying about innocent civilians if your son was their? That may seem harsh but it is the way most of us fathers feel.
I spent several tours in Viet Nam and I don't remember giving a rats *** about civilians while I was being shot at.
You have every right to believe what you want about fighting a civilized war. But if wars were even more terrible more bloody, more horrific their would be fewer of them and fewer people would die. The press doesn't report all of the things good happening over there, and their are many but until the Iraqi people feel they have more to lose from us then the nut cases they won't rat out the enemy. so we can kill them.
[ QUOTE ]
The point of the rant was not about crowd control but WAR.
[/ QUOTE ]
The nature of modern war has changed; most western militaries now suscribe to (and train for) the the USMC concept of the '3 Block War' and recognise that 'brassing up' non-combatants is extremely counter-productive (not to mention morally wrong):
"The Three Block War is a concept devised by Gen Charles Krulak in the late 1990s to describe the complex spectrum of challenges likely to be faced by soldiers on the modern battlefield. In three contiguous city blocks soldiers may be required to conduct full scale military action, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian relief."
(from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Block_War)
with a piece written by Krulak at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/strategic_corporal.htm
Godspeed to your son.
The point of the rant was not about crowd control but WAR.
[/ QUOTE ]
The nature of modern war has changed; most western militaries now suscribe to (and train for) the the USMC concept of the '3 Block War' and recognise that 'brassing up' non-combatants is extremely counter-productive (not to mention morally wrong):
"The Three Block War is a concept devised by Gen Charles Krulak in the late 1990s to describe the complex spectrum of challenges likely to be faced by soldiers on the modern battlefield. In three contiguous city blocks soldiers may be required to conduct full scale military action, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian relief."
(from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Block_War)
with a piece written by Krulak at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/strategic_corporal.htm
Godspeed to your son.
Buffalobob
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I spent several tours in Viet Nam and I don't remember giving a rats *** about civilians while I was being shot at.
[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your concern for your son and I am sure you would go in his place. It is a shame that us old codgers who don't have that much of our life left in front of us can't go and let the kids stay home and enjoy their lives.
Old men start wars and young men fight them. It should be that who ever starts it has to fight it. Be dam few wars then.
I spent several tours in Viet Nam and I don't remember giving a rats *** about civilians while I was being shot at.
[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your concern for your son and I am sure you would go in his place. It is a shame that us old codgers who don't have that much of our life left in front of us can't go and let the kids stay home and enjoy their lives.
Old men start wars and young men fight them. It should be that who ever starts it has to fight it. Be dam few wars then.
buffalobob
Truer words I have not heard in a long time.
I would trade with my son in a heart beat. I made the mistake of watching a show on fox called shoot out and they showed some marines i believe arriving at a house for a raid, while they were lining up to go in a insurgent fired a few rounds from in front of an ally way and then turned and ran into the ally the marines ran after him right into the ally, I was screaming like hell at the tv "don't follow him its an ambush" sure enough they got hit. Then I realized what I was doing and felt the fool. I watched a captain show a reporter the spot where a roadside bomb had exploded earlier that day killing several GI's and then he points to several more places within a hundred feet of where that one had gone off explaining that bombs had gone off at those locations over the last several weeks as well, Whats wrong with us ambushing the area or setting up mines. well civilians might get hurt or a camel might set off a mine, and the press would have a field day.
Truer words I have not heard in a long time.
I would trade with my son in a heart beat. I made the mistake of watching a show on fox called shoot out and they showed some marines i believe arriving at a house for a raid, while they were lining up to go in a insurgent fired a few rounds from in front of an ally way and then turned and ran into the ally the marines ran after him right into the ally, I was screaming like hell at the tv "don't follow him its an ambush" sure enough they got hit. Then I realized what I was doing and felt the fool. I watched a captain show a reporter the spot where a roadside bomb had exploded earlier that day killing several GI's and then he points to several more places within a hundred feet of where that one had gone off explaining that bombs had gone off at those locations over the last several weeks as well, Whats wrong with us ambushing the area or setting up mines. well civilians might get hurt or a camel might set off a mine, and the press would have a field day.
[ QUOTE ]
The nature of modern war has changed
[/ QUOTE ]
That doesnt mean it was for the better. Again let me say that their is no incentive to Not fight a war if their isn't enough loss of life or unless it becomes to expensive to fight. You must destroy the will to fight in order to win a war.
If we take a large town and tell every one to leave and bomb it flat then tell the other towns were going to do that to them next or they can rat out the enemy many will do it, the enemy has no support they can't fight for long.
In Nam when we took fire from a building we destroyed it blew it up after a few more times the people were telling us where the enemy was so we wouldn't blow up their homes.
Now War is War why make it more complected then that, Stop worrying what the rest of the world thinks or what the press thinks the winners wright the history of the war not the losers.
The nature of modern war has changed
[/ QUOTE ]
That doesnt mean it was for the better. Again let me say that their is no incentive to Not fight a war if their isn't enough loss of life or unless it becomes to expensive to fight. You must destroy the will to fight in order to win a war.
If we take a large town and tell every one to leave and bomb it flat then tell the other towns were going to do that to them next or they can rat out the enemy many will do it, the enemy has no support they can't fight for long.
In Nam when we took fire from a building we destroyed it blew it up after a few more times the people were telling us where the enemy was so we wouldn't blow up their homes.
Now War is War why make it more complected then that, Stop worrying what the rest of the world thinks or what the press thinks the winners wright the history of the war not the losers.
Fotis
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely do not agree. The fellow has clearly never been involved in any form of crowd or riot control activity.
Non-lethal or 'less than lethal' weapons are a vital option.
Try a web search on 'Three block war'.
[/ QUOTE ]
True! Great weapon for Confrontation management!
Absolutely do not agree. The fellow has clearly never been involved in any form of crowd or riot control activity.
Non-lethal or 'less than lethal' weapons are a vital option.
Try a web search on 'Three block war'.
[/ QUOTE ]
True! Great weapon for Confrontation management!
Dark Side
Active Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The nature of modern war has changed
[/ QUOTE ]
That doesnt mean it was for the better. Again let me say that their is no incentive to Not fight a war if their isn't enough loss of life or unless it becomes to expensive to fight. You must destroy the will to fight in order to win a war.
If we take a large town and tell every one to leave and bomb it flat then tell the other towns were going to do that to them next or they can rat out the enemy many will do it, the enemy has no support they can't fight for long.
In Nam when we took fire from a building we destroyed it blew it up after a few more times the people were telling us where the enemy was so we wouldn't blow up their homes.
Now War is War why make it more complected then that, Stop worrying what the rest of the world thinks or what the press thinks the winners wright the history of the war not the losers.
[/ QUOTE ]
So Nam was a triumphant victory then?
You would be fighting in more than just Iraq and Afganastan if you tryed to "..Stop worrying what the rest of the world thinks" solider's are just pawns in war's, sad but true.If you want WW3, then just you ignore the rest of the world. Nuckler bombs worked in Japan, in that they ended the war quickly. Nuck Iraq or Afganistan and the "alli" and "neutral" muslum nations will turn on you, disperse a crowd of civilions with a machine gun, killing women and children and you will have comited a "war crime". Do you want an American "Teanimum Square"(pardon the spelling)
America is part of the world, not leader's of the world. Your armed forces job is more than just WAR, a non leathal method of crowed control is a nesesity, not just a waste of defence budget.
Just my opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
The nature of modern war has changed
[/ QUOTE ]
That doesnt mean it was for the better. Again let me say that their is no incentive to Not fight a war if their isn't enough loss of life or unless it becomes to expensive to fight. You must destroy the will to fight in order to win a war.
If we take a large town and tell every one to leave and bomb it flat then tell the other towns were going to do that to them next or they can rat out the enemy many will do it, the enemy has no support they can't fight for long.
In Nam when we took fire from a building we destroyed it blew it up after a few more times the people were telling us where the enemy was so we wouldn't blow up their homes.
Now War is War why make it more complected then that, Stop worrying what the rest of the world thinks or what the press thinks the winners wright the history of the war not the losers.
[/ QUOTE ]
So Nam was a triumphant victory then?
You would be fighting in more than just Iraq and Afganastan if you tryed to "..Stop worrying what the rest of the world thinks" solider's are just pawns in war's, sad but true.If you want WW3, then just you ignore the rest of the world. Nuckler bombs worked in Japan, in that they ended the war quickly. Nuck Iraq or Afganistan and the "alli" and "neutral" muslum nations will turn on you, disperse a crowd of civilions with a machine gun, killing women and children and you will have comited a "war crime". Do you want an American "Teanimum Square"(pardon the spelling)
America is part of the world, not leader's of the world. Your armed forces job is more than just WAR, a non leathal method of crowed control is a nesesity, not just a waste of defence budget.
Just my opinion.
