Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, we see here that you not only have no sympathy for girls who commit suicide after being bullied (earlier thread), you now chide the military for not being deadly enough. I thought the purpose of the military was to protect us and our government and foster peace, but it appears by your complaint that you believe its equipment should "kill whoever you need it to". I didn't know we NEEDED to kill anyone. If so, I fully understand why other country's militaries would adopt the same strategy toward us. Anyone see a vicious circle here? In two different threads you encourage violence--in this case deadly--as an acceptable tactic to use to achieve a goal while ignoring the inevitable consequences.
And if the military is now thinking green, that's a good thing and a major shift from the prior Administration which granted it exemptions from most environmental regulations. It's about time the military concerned itself with the unintended but serious destruction it causes. The same thing that claims to "save a nation" should not also make it uninhabitable in the process.
Well, we see here that you not only have no sympathy for girls who commit suicide after being bullied (earlier thread), you now chide the military for not being deadly enough. I thought the purpose of the military was to protect us and our government and foster peace, but it appears by your complaint that you believe its equipment should "kill whoever you need it to". I didn't know we NEEDED to kill anyone. If so, I fully understand why other country's militaries would adopt the same strategy toward us. Anyone see a vicious circle here? In two different threads you encourage violence--in this case deadly--as an acceptable tactic to use to achieve a goal while ignoring the inevitable consequences.
And if the military is now thinking green, that's a good thing and a major shift from the prior Administration which granted it exemptions from most environmental regulations. It's about time the military concerned itself with the unintended but serious destruction it causes. The same thing that claims to "save a nation" should not also make it uninhabitable in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twista6002
Why don't join the army and complain about it? They're on RU's campus everyday recruiting.
Not even worth responding to except to say that, whether you agree with the current military actions or not, the military's sole and only mission is to wreak havoc on the enemy.
The US military is not deadly enough. If only we had these super killer bullets our multiple military actions in multiple countries would have been won long ago!
They are so close to surrendering to our will now, if only we had these bullets!
First of all the military's mission is to protect out Nation in peace by projecting FORCE to our enemies. While I have had no problems with my SAW, I am not putting it to use under battle conditions with enemies bearing down on me. That said, SOCOM has a different mission parameter and I can understand the need for a more powerful and destructive round, and I personally approve...for SOCOM use. And while I have experienced no problem shredding a car windshield, I would not be surprised to see most if not all M855 rounds pass through the vehicles. Now, with TWO M249's opening up and still not hitting the driver, I would be extremely concerned at that. But I would have to see it to believe it.
Enough with this. Give them good ammo that shoots straight and kills whoever you need it to. Ridiculous
?
"The Corps has dropped its plans to field the Army’s M855A1 and approved the new SOST round for Marines to use in Afghanistan. SOST, short for Special Operations Science and Technology, is SOCom’s enhanced 5.56mm round. It isn’t green, but it is deadlier than the current M855 round and it’s available now, Marine officials say."
The OP apparently doesn't know that international conventions on warfare encourage combatants to use the minimal lethal force required to accomplish the mission. The goal is to incapacitate without killing. The object of modern war is victory through surrender, not wanton destruction.
I dont know, but maybe Im reading the article differently, but isn't the article saying that the original wasn't working in current situations:
"The M855 was developed in the 1970s and approved as an official NATO round in 1980. In recent years, troops have widely criticized it. They complain it is ineffective against barriers such as car windshields and often travels right through unarmored insurgents, with less than lethal effects".
The OP apparently doesn't know that international conventions on warfare encourage combatants to use the minimal lethal force required to accomplish the mission. The goal is to incapacitate without killing. The object of modern war is victory through surrender, not wanton destruction.
What is encouraged on paper by politicians and diplomats is very different than what is execute by soldiers on the battlefield. Death of the enemy is what is practiced not minimal force with a goal of incapacitating without death. Those who carry weapons are trained to shot to kill whether its is the military or local law enforcement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
