Re: Small Arms Failure in Afghan (caliberpunks)
Optimizzin wrote: >>The only use for instant kill weapon in warfare would be for an >>officer to shoot mutineers. > >Or vice-versa. I was advised to use a fragmentation grenade to off an officer, slid under the tent flap, or lobbed from the dark. An officer can kill a mutineer with impunity, whether mutiny or merely alleged, while a grunt would be hung for getting rid of an officer so terrified in battle he'd shoot anything that got in his way to safety. A favorite way to test a new officer before following his orders is to roll a grenade toward his feet from the rear ranks, pin in place the first time. If he flinches and stands his ground after spotting the pin, that's acceptable. If he screams and runs, gift a live one before going on a doomed mission. West Pointers are warned about these tests, and how to pass them, principally by respecting their grunts. ROTC and OCS aren't -- they serve as fodder for all sides. Nobody from the ranks who's been in battle will accept a commission despite the fairy tales about it. A single weapon is never enough. You need one for intimate encounters when the DoD issue fails, hardware or leadership, which they will, the more reputable the more likely, from sleath aircraft to sniper rifle.
RE: Small Arms Failure in Afghan (caliberpunks) (pharmpunks)
At 07:40 AM 4/6/02 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >You don't even need to open a book on pharmacology to realize why this is >a dumb idea. ... some people will get >a lot more exposure than others due to statistical fluctuations...when >you're approaching LD50 country, a mg/kg body weight dosage at which 50% >of people die) is narrow. > >Taken together, this means that you're walking a *very* narrow line >between no effect at all, and a lot of dead bodies littering the >landscape. Both are probably not what you wanted. Yep. 1. Yes it has been researched; .ZA did some documented work on (supposedly) using psychotropics as riot-control agents. See also BZ, an atropine-like[1] deleriant investigated by the US. 2. Some psychotropics have very wide ED:LD50 ratios (e.g., lsd), several orders of magnitude larger than even the safer drugs (which might have an ED:LD of 100; cf Tylenol, a few times the ED will toast your liver). But they may not have the immediacy of effect you desire. The DMT-class drugs act faster, and ethyl- and longer substitutions last longer, but pain and vomiting drugs seem to be favored. Hallucinogens might only encourage the religious martyrs. 3. *Any* chemwar, e.g., CS and capsaicin, used by the US police on its citizens, can kill, e.g., the elderly, young, asthmatics, etc. Any drug will kill some fraction: vaccines kill a few people a year, but save zillions. [1] The British military, fighting the american revolutionary Jihad, inadvertently consumed a Datura species as they scrounged for food in the Virginia woods. Datura sp. contain atropine. They ended up "howling naked at the moon". As they were near Jamestown, the species became known as Jimsonweed.
Re: Small Arms Failure in Afghan (caliberpunks)
At 08:38 PM 4/5/02 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >-- >James A. Donald: >> > Military weapons are generally not designed to kill quickly. >> > A badly wounded man who takes a long time dying is a much >> > bigger drain on your enemy's resources. > >Major Variola >> True for snipers, but if you're being shot at and have >> inadequate cover, > >A badly wounded man will instantly lose interest in his mission. A badly wounded *Christian* draftee/unemployable but not wannabe *Martyr* volunteer. >Instant deterrence is in many ways better for military purposes >than instant kill. Instant kill only matters in close quarters >one on one combat. (And is much overrated even in that >situation.) Indeed ---US domestic police shoot to kill, not 'wound', because they shoot when someone's life is in imminent danger. >The only use for instant kill weapon in warfare would be for an >officer to shoot mutineers. Or vice-versa.
RE: Small Arms Failure in Afghan (caliberpunks)
> Anonymous Coredump[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > On Fri Apr 05 2002 Major Variola (ret) (mv_at_cdc.gov) wrote: > > > At 09:19 PM 4/4/02 -0800, jamesd_at_echeque.com wrote: > > > -- > > >On 4 Apr 2002 at 14:55, John Young QUOTED: > > >> "The current-issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when > > >> fired from the short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself > > >> (once again) to be woefully inadequate as man stopper. > > >> Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits > > >> to permanently bring down enemy soldiers. > > > > > Yes, disabling someone drains the enemy's resources more than killing > > them outright. > > But generally when firing at someone the idea is to stop them from > > doing what they're doing, ASAP. This is done by reducing the hydraulic > > supply to their brain, the nervous system itself being too small a > > target to aim for. > > > > >Military weapons are generally not designed to kill quickly. A > > >badly wounded man who takes a long time dying is a much bigger > > >drain on your enemy's resources. > > > > True for snipers, but if you're being shot at and have inadequate cover, > > I bet your opinion would change. > > > > >An ideal low fire rate weapon will in a single shot so badly wound > > >a man that he will soon die, unless he receives very prompt and > > >expert medical attention, but does not "drop" him. > > > > So he gets another chance to kill you. Or drop another mortar down > > the tube. Or boobytrap his body. Not a good plan. > > > > >An ideal rapid fire weapon will reliably cause serious and often > > >permanent injury in a single hit, but will typically take several > > >hits to so badly wound a man that he will shortly die. > > > > Only you won't hit him twice because your muzzle is flying around. > > The soldiers who are complaining should be able to obtain > > AKs (7.62mm), which use a more penetrating projectile, fairly easily > > over there :-) > You can thank the Geneva Convention - it specifies milspec projectiles to > be high-velocity FMJ rounds, which produce disabling wounds but don't do > such massive damage that it becomes "one hit, one kill". No shattered > bones, just neat little clip-outs that hurt like hell... > Hydostatic shock is, however, another matter. > - Dr. Strangelove > This is yet another example of how Western cultural biases have been proven faulty in dealing with this enemy. The Geneva Conventions were written with the notion of uniformed, national armies, which placed a fairly high value on their soldier's lives. The warrior willing to die if that makes his or her attack even marginally more successful was not envisaged in the GCs or in most of Western military planning, nor the notion of an enemy which provides a major foe without anything which looks like a uniformed national army. The milspec projectile seem to be optimized for the WWII model of a fairly thin line of engagement between territories under the control of different powers. In that case, a wound which requires attention, but does not kill, is ideal - it takes the woundee out the fight, and requires his side to expend labor and resources to pull them back from the front line and get treated - a single wounded soldier may take one or two more out of commission for at least a while. If, however, your opponent is a Holy Warrior who expects and yearns to become a Blessed Martyr by dying in battle, this doesn't work. On being wounded, his response is not to fall out and call for a medic. He rather regards it as the signal that his opportunity is at hand, and he might as well make the best of it, since he is already dead. [It's not only the West that the GCs are failing - the highly technical, legalistic grounds under which Shrub is denying PoW status to captured Taliban is another example (one which even many US military find objectionable).] Peter Trei
