Debate, lets actually discuss content

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh

Charlie isn't trying to have a actual conversation, he just likes to throw out vastly argumentive and unsupported opinions that stir up issues and then never respond with anything of substance. Cmon now, everyone knows this by now?

He's doing it 100% to troll and the only way to respond is to take him at that value, it's how I find so much entertainment in the jokes he posts. He's basically Westboro lite (not the anti-gay thing but the opinions with no substance).
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

OK then I'll add a response along his lines...

Lets fight like our enemies and car bomb entire city streets (at random,) and kill feminists for wanting an education...
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/klein-drones-morning-joe?CMP=twt_gu

we're already using the terrorists' tactics:
(1) Klein's justification - we have to kill their children in order to protect our children - is the exact mentality of every person deemed in US discourse to be a "terrorist". Almost every single person arrested and prosecuted over the last decade on terrorism charges, when asked why they were willing to kill innocent Americans including children, offered some version of Joe Klein's mindset
Click to expand...
 
Shakey

Shakey

Drone use definitely needs to be looked at. We don't need to stop using them, but we need a stricter policy on how and when they're used. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere. Sure we'll kill the current leaders, but we'll just breed even more with all the innocents killed.
 
Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh

Shakey said:
Drone use definitely needs to be looked at. We don't need to stop using them, but we need a stricter policy on how and when they're used. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere. Sure we'll kill the current leaders, but we'll just breed even more with all the innocents killed.
Click to expand...
Now there's an informed opinion and post that can be taken seriously. One I can also agree with completely.
 
strawman

strawman

Shakey said:
Drone use definitely needs to be looked at. We don't need to stop using them, but we need a stricter policy on how and when they're used. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere. Sure we'll kill the current leaders, but we'll just breed even more with all the innocents killed.
Click to expand...
I think drones have fundamentally changed the airstrike. We are performing missions with drones that we would NOT have performed with manned aircraft. A single drone flight is cheaper, a lost drone is cheaper, they are smaller and fly longer, and you can switch out pilots in mid flight and make decisions with the decision maker right behind you.

You can send drones on wild goose chases, and if a goose shows up then you've got something you can act on immediately.

Because of the lower cost of total resources, it's tempting to overuse them, or to put them into positions where a snap decision has to be made, and rather than saying, "It's better to wait for the right decision even if we miss the window of opportunity" we're saying, "It's better to use the window of opportunity even if we make the wrong decision."

Not only that, but we are trying to convince the world that drones are fundamentally different than manned craft, and therefore are putting them in places we would not or could not place manned craft politically or physically. This is surely going to bite us later on when other countries have advanced drone capabilities.

Still, I'm all for anything that makes Ender's Game come closer to reality. We've already got the iPad, Virgin is going to build hotels in space, and all we need now are remotely commanded fleets of space fighters.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
stienman said:
Which, of course, will only cause endless debate on the latest mass disrupting and whether disrupter control needs to be tightened.
Click to expand...
Oh, trust me. Within 3 seconds of me getting my hands on one, there will be no debate. Nor will there be a consensus.
 
Shakey

Shakey

stienman said:
I think drones have fundamentally changed the airstrike. We are performing missions with drones that we would NOT have performed with manned aircraft. A single drone flight is cheaper, a lost drone is cheaper, they are smaller and fly longer, and you can switch out pilots in mid flight and make decisions with the decision maker right behind you.

You can send drones on wild goose chases, and if a goose shows up then you've got something you can act on immediately.

Because of the lower cost of total resources, it's tempting to overuse them, or to put them into positions where a snap decision has to be made, and rather than saying, "It's better to wait for the right decision even if we miss the window of opportunity" we're saying, "It's better to use the window of opportunity even if we make the wrong decision."

Not only that, but we are trying to convince the world that drones are fundamentally different than manned craft, and therefore are putting them in places we would not or could not place manned craft politically or physically. This is surely going to bite us later on when other countries have advanced drone capabilities.

Still, I'm all for anything that makes Ender's Game come closer to reality. We've already got the iPad, Virgin is going to build hotels in space, and all we need now are remotely commanded fleets of space fighters.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There's really too much of a disconnect with what we're actually doing now. It's too bad, but the reality of war doesn't really strike home until one of our own dies. The people in charge never have to worry about putting our own in danger, so we can run these missions with little to no risk of upsetting our own people. And like you said, it's become so cheap and easy why not? Unfortunately neither candidate will do anything about it.
 
strawman

strawman

It's such a complex calculation anyway. We lack on the ground intelligence - it's too expensive. But now that the cost of a mission is cheap, and the cost of messing up is low, then it's easy to send a mission out on little info, and use that mission not only to gather info, but to strike if the real-time information gathering yields something actionable.

On the one hand it's an incredible capability - The U2 spy plane is nothing compared to this.

On the other hand it's so incredibly cheap and easy to abuse. Why invest more in intelligence that puts our people in harms way, but gathers better information when we can simply send out a plane on all the plausible theories and skip actually thinking about the data we might have otherwise obtained through more difficult and time consuming means.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
And Schmoyoho completes their hat trick:

!

Fun fact: Yes, the US Military still has and uses bayonets and requires troops to train with them.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Adam said:
As recently as 2010 they tried to remove it but retirees complained.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...diers-to-master-at-boot-camp-bayonet-training
Click to expand...
That article spends more than half of its real estate showing the benefits of bayonets...

The objections to ending the training are occasionally practical.

In 2004, with ammunition running low, a British unit launched a bayonet charge toward a trench outside of Basra, Iraq, where some 100 members of the Mahdi Army militia were staging an attack. The British soldiers later said that though some of the insurgents were wounded in the bayonet charge itself, others were simply terrified into surrender.

Instilling such terror is at the heart of the philosophical argument for keeping bayonet training, historians say.
“Traditionally in the 20th century – certainly after World War I – bayonet training was basically designed to develop in soldiers aggressiveness, courage, and preparation for close combat,” says Richard Kohn, professor of military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bayonet training is, in short, used to undo socialization – to “basically to try to mitigate or eradicate the reluctance of human beings to kill each other,” Mr. Kohn says. It is one of the challenges in US or Western society “where we have such reverence for the individual, where we socialize our people to believe in the rule of law, and all of that,” he adds. “What you’re doing with young people is trying to get them used to the highly emotional and irrational and adrenaline-filled situations in which they are liable to find themselves whether they are within sight of the enemy or not – and the reluctance to take a life.”
Click to expand...
 
Adam

Adam

So it's absolutely impossible to replace bayonet training which has been used once in 60 years with something more useful? I just want to get clarification on what you're saying here so as I don't misinterpret what you're trying to defend.
 
Krisken

Krisken

Adam said:
So it's absolutely impossible to replace bayonet training which has been used once in 60 years with something more useful? I just want to get clarification on what you're saying here so as I don't misinterpret what you're trying to defend.
Click to expand...
I'm telling you, spears, bows, and throwing knives. Cutting edge (get it?) technology.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Adam said:
So it's absolutely impossible to replace bayonet training which has been used once in 60 years with something more useful? I just want to get clarification on what you're saying here so as I don't misinterpret what you're trying to defend.
Click to expand...
First, I want to see your data to back up that it's been used only once, especially, when that article cites twice and wikipedia makes it sound a lot more common -

The British Army performed bayonet charges during the Falklands War (see Battle of Mount Tumbledown), the Second Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan.[35] In 2004 in Iraq at the Battle of Danny Boy, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders bayonet charged mortar positions filled with over 100 Mahdi Army members. The ensuing hand to hand fighting resulted in an estimate of over 40 insurgents killed and 35 bodies collected (many floated down the river) and 9 prisoners. Sergeant Brian Wood, of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, was awarded the Military Cross for his part in the battle.[36] This engagement brought to notice the tactical use of the weapon for close combat and the sheer psychological effect it can have.

British forces in Afghanistan have used bayonets on numerous occasions. In 2009, Lieutenant James Adamson, aged 24, of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was awarded the Military Cross for a bayonet charge whilst on a tour of duty in Afghanistan: after shooting one Taliban fighter dead Adamson had run out of ammunition when another enemy appeared. Adamson immediately charged the second Taliban fighter and bayoneted him.[37] In September 2012, Lance Corporal Sean Jones of The Princess of Wales's Regiment was awarded the Military Cross for his role in a bayonet charge which took place in October 2011.[38]
Click to expand...
At any rate, my assertion is that it sounds hip and trendy to talk smack about bayonets being passe on TV as a sound byte, but all it really does is display an ignorance of military reality (that bayonet tactics are still winning battles today). If the problem is 10 weeks of basic isn't enough to teach soldiers what they need to know, maybe a better solution would be to make basic training longer?[DOUBLEPOST=1351026799][/DOUBLEPOST]
Gilgamesh said:
Which is not even remotely close to the point, but still hilarious.
Click to expand...
The point is Obama is ignorant in matters military.
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

i can't believe you're really having this conversation / arguing this point. i honestly thought the thing I read about conservatives really defending this bayonette thing was a joke
 
Krisken

Krisken

Funny, I thought the quip made a good point on how little Romney knew about the military and its needs, especially when he keeps advocating for equipment the military keeps screaming they don't need.[DOUBLEPOST=1351027038][/DOUBLEPOST]
Charlie Don't Surf said:
i can't believe you're really having this conversation / arguing this point. i honestly thought the thing I read about conservatives really defending this bayonette thing was a joke
Click to expand...
Believe it. 'Our guy is bad, but your guy is worse' is the cornerstone of this election. For everyone involved.
 
Adam

Adam

So, again, just to clarify, the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training says that bayonet training could be replaced by something better and your defense to that is to bring up the fact that the British Army has used bayonets 3 times in the past 60 years and that the idea that 'bayonets are passe' displays an ignorance of military reality that apparently, once again, the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training would not agree with.

Now, I'm not fond of argument appeals to authority, but the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training, the guy who would know if the problem is 10 weeks of basic isn't enough to teach soldiers what they need to know, saying that bayonets are passe, would tend to get me thinking I should believe him instead of, to be polite, you.[DOUBLEPOST=1351027424][/DOUBLEPOST]I, also, like commas today.
 
strawman

strawman

Krisken said:
he keeps advocating for equipment the military keeps screaming they don't need.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, I've seen this bandied about a lot but haven't been curious enough to research it. What equipment is he advocating that the military says it doesn't want or need?
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Once again I take comfort in knowing my view is divergent from Charlie's - and anyone's whose isn't, should reflect on that situation for a moment.

I'm not saying Romney is a military genius. Far from it. I'm saying that particular remark on the part of Obama was ignorant. He rattled off a snide sound bite to try to deflect that part of the reason the US is having such problems projecting its power is because our navy is less than half the size it was during the 90s, and he did it in a factually inaccurate way.

Adam said:
So, again, just to clarify, the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training says that bayonet training could be replaced by something better and your defense to that is to bring up the fact that the British Army has used bayonets 3 times in the past 60 years and that the idea that 'bayonets are passe' displays an ignorance of military reality that apparently, once again, the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training would not agree with.

Now, I'm not fond of argument appeals to authority, but the Lieutenant General in charge of US Army Basic Training, the guy who would know if the problem is 10 weeks of basic isn't enough to teach soldiers what they need to know, saying that bayonets are passe, would tend to get me thinking I should believe him instead of, to be polite, you.[DOUBLEPOST=1351027424][/DOUBLEPOST]I, also, like commas today.
Click to expand...
For not wanting to appeal to authority, that is exactly what you just did. The Lieutenant General's opinion is not shared by a number of other military personnel of higher and lower rank. Also, do you assert that unless I rattle off every single instance of bayonet use, with sources, here in this thread that the uses didn't happen? Do you assert that the battles fought by the British in the same wars and campaigns as us bear no tactical significance to the US Military?

If 10 weeks isn't enough to teach soldiers what they need to know, I reiterate, wouldn't the first logical thought of any rational, thinking human being be that maybe basic training is too short?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top