Re: Toys from Jane's...

AMEN BROTHER!!!!

--- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> On 10-Apr-01 at 22:45, mreindl@pacbell.net
> (mreindl@pacbell.net) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Andy Cowell wrote:
> > 
> > > > Roger (getting tired of the "stupid grunts"
> comments, and I'm an
> > > > 	 ex-squid.)
> > >
> > > That's not how I took that comment at all.
> > 
> > Nor I.  I think he's just giving fair
> acknowledgement to the fact that
> > combat is stressful enough without having to
> introduce more into the mix.
> 
> If this were an isolated incident it wouldn't bother
> me, but over the
> past two weeks this is the third comment I've heard
> about soldiers not
> being smart enough to handle the extra weapons. 
> That doesn't require
> excessive intelligence, it just requires training. 
> If you have been
> in many training situations and you know by reflex
> the shotgun ammo
> is in the belt pouch and the rifle ammo is on your
> harness then you
> don't think about it, you just do it.  The rifle
> with the built in
> grenade launcher which can be set for distance is on
> the way, we'll
> see it in 10 years max.  This will require thought,
> range the target,
> dial in an extra meter, pull trigger two.  Maybe in
> a close encounter
> that won't be used, but I would be willing to bet
> that in an assault
> the shift from rifle to shotgun would be trivial.
> 
> It reminds me of my test for archaelogical theories.
>  Goes like this, 
> if the theory requires my ancestors to be stupid I
> dismiss it out of hand.
> I've noticed we, as a society, tend to equate
> uneducated with stupid.
> In this arguement we are equating stressed with
> stupid.  Those who
> go stupid under stress won't last long in future (or
> current) combats.
> 
> Roger

=====
Thank You,

Shawn M Mininger

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.