Re: OT: sponge burning!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/29/07 22:28, dave wrote:
> on Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:22:59PM -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
>> Of course, wounding the enemy is nearly *always* more desirable than
>> outright killing him. That is because every wounded soldier takes at
>> least one other soldier (or other person, even if not a soldier) in
>> order to care for his wounds in the short term. So, from a resource
>> perspective, wounded soldiers place a much heavier burden on a military
>> force than corpses.
>>
>
> I disagree. Antipersonnel weapons from the lowly infrantryman's rifle
> to napalm and various cluster weapons, mines, and suchlike are designed
> to kill first, maim second. In the rapidly moving combat environment
> you want to make sure the opponent is thoroughly dead, so you don't have
> to worry about it later. Maiming is an added bonus around the perimeter
> of the kill zone, but not the primary objective of the engagement.
So you shoot the possibly-wounded Iraqi? What about the live
grenade he might be lying on?
[snip]
> Wounded soldiers will only be tended to when it's safe to do so. The
> business of killing the enemy comes first.
That doesn't seem to be the case with the US military.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGDRW/S9HxQb37XmcRAmgrAJ46tmMACi92GpKkZkisRXmE+YJ1hgCg5SKX
LVPqtTQCgBTxPzBcuEK//GY=
=3ytH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: