Army Plans Overhaul of Infantry Gear 829
nxg125 writes "Wired is running an article about a seven-year, $250 million revamping of the US Army's uniforms. One of the major obstacles is going to be how to power all the electronic devices that the soldiers will use. 'They have at least one idea, though. "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems," a recent memo on the subject directed. FFW is going open source. Cleaner software needs less energy to run.'"
FFW is part of Future Combat Systems (FCS)... (Score:5, Informative)
For example, the Vishnu [bbn.com] planning engine (source code and project site here [cougaar.org]) is being used as part of FCS logistics planning.
Re:Grammar nazi meets the SIG (Score:1, Informative)
Global Information Grid (Score:4, Informative)
It's a similar way too forward-looking military thing. The plan is that by 2020, every soldier will have an IP address.
Re:Grammar nazi meets the SIG (Score:1, Informative)
Secondly, it is common in British-English to use 'are' after a noun that indicates a plurality. In this case Motörhead is/are made up of multiple people and is/are plural.
So, put down your grammar swastika and become an informed poster.
Re:Obligatory kneejerk reaction aside (Score:1, Informative)
Re:One way street... (Score:2, Informative)
There isn't? Then how come there's such a thing as "diplomatic immunity?" Is it just my imagination? Or all those other things i was told about in my introductory law course? Are you telling me that these are all myths, and that in reality, everyone does what they will?
Re:No, there are other considerations (Score:4, Informative)
Eisenhower (Score:1, Informative)
An always relevant speech, especially considering that over half of US casualties have come from a weapon that was perfected in the same year that that famous speech was given [howstuffworks.com]. I wish the technologists all the best, but in 10 years a uniform will still do what it does now, provide an easily identifiable target.
Re:Exactly WHO said anything about Open Source? (Score:3, Informative)
Technology (Score:5, Informative)
Go ahead and shoot me down but I'm going off of 8 years of Marine Corps Infantry.
Some of the new technology is great like the new ACOG 4x [usmc.mil] scope for the battle rifles. You can use them with both eyes open. My little brother is deploying to Iraq as a Marine Scout Sniper and bought his own (out of his pocket!) Eotech 552 [blacklionoptics.com] scope. You can see from the link provided that it can be used even when half the lens is damaged.
In keeping in line with my comment about the rifle scopes/sights, the basic gear still needs to be revamped. Tear away chest harnesses are in high demand with most Marines choosign to buy them out of their own pockets rather than use the issue gear. The Marine Corps is still trying to deal with their mistake of using the MOLLE gear system. The MOLLE's plastic pack frame was breaking left and right in Afganistan and now the Marine Corps is replacing the pack with a new design.
So stop fantasizing about the choice of OS on pie in the sky dreams/future projects and get the grunts gear that works.
Re:specialised military batteries (Score:2, Informative)
For Air Force aircrew this seems to be changing. Most of the gear I've been issued in the last year runs on AA or AAA. GPS, NVGs, lip lamps, all commodity batteries.
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Informative)
There are a long series of Geneva conventions that most countries have signed and ratified.
There were four Geneva Conventions, not "a long series." One hundred and ninety countries have signed or ratified (not necessarily both) some part of the Conventions (not necessarily all).
In the United States when international law is ratified it holds the same legal standing as the Constitution.
There's no such thing as "international law." That's just a figure of speech. What you're talking about is a treaty. Treaties, when signed by the president and ratified by the Senate, take on the force of federal law. They do not have the same legal standing as the Constitution. Treaties, like all laws, are subject to the constraints of the Constitution. A treaty which violates any provision of the Constitution is not valid.
(That's why, incidentally, the United States could not have ratified the Rome Treaty if it had wanted to. The International Criminal Court would have completely violated the Constitution's protection of our rights of due process, equal protection, and freedom from self-incrimination.)
Now, let's talk about law for a second. Law is legitimate only to the extent that it arises from the collective will of the people. The rules of war, such as the Geneva Conventions, are agreements made between governments without the involvement of the people. Therefore the rules of war do not comprise a body of law. They're legally equivalent to a handshake.
(So, incidentally, is the UN Charter.)
Re:One way street... (Score:1, Informative)
What? Just what do you think that President Bush lied about? That Iraq was not in complience with 17 unanimous UNSEC resolutions? That there were unaccounted WMD in Iraq? That Saddam wanted more WMD? That Saddam supported terrorists? Exactly what has he lied about?
You see, President Bush is not the first one to say these things. These are facts that have been well established over the past 15 years.
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Informative)
So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded?
The idea is inherited from the Napoleanic Wars. Back in the day, Armies did the fighting, and Civilians were not really much affected by war (unless a battle happened in your backyard) - "The farmer in his field and the Burgher in his town should neither know, nor care, when the state has gone to war". An older phrasing of the idea, already fraying in Napolean's day.
Guerrillas ("little wars") required Armies to make war on the populace at large, or give up. And Armies, traditionally, don't really like making war on the populace or giving up. Note that Air Forces have always been a bit less discriminating that way. Comes from having only area effect weapons.
In any case, the traditional view is that wars have a distinct beginning, middle and end. And Guerrillas mess up that "end" part no end.
Re:One way street... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, despite the fact that our public schools are miserable failures of education these days,
Interstingly, the US Military has one of the most effective teaching systems in the world. The sudden dramatic expansion of the US Military in WW2 pretty much required that they learn how to teach pretty much anyone anything, quickly.
And a long service professional military helps there too.
duh... (Score:2, Informative)
(with the exception of some no critical, off the shelf stuff)
Re:One way street... (Score:2, Informative)
From http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Both the fourth Geneval Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.
Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.
There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.
Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.
Civilians must not be used as hostages.
Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.
Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.
Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.
Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.
Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.
Re:One way street... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:No, there are other considerations (Score:1, Informative)
It "sounds like hypocrasy" to you, but what it really means is that you are ignorant of what the Geneva Conventions actually say, and apparently have no interest in changing that condition. The Geneva Conventions were designed to provide specific protections to civilians and legitimate soldiers in time of war. Those protections only make sense for them, and others, like spies and mercenaries, are excluded. The Al Qaeda terrorists and their associates are also excluded from those specific protections.
For your convenience, here is the extract from the section of the Geneva Convention [unhchr.ch] which is directly responsible for much of the controversy:
Now, as you can see, Al Qaeda and its associates fail at least three of the four tests with the fourth one being a sometime thing at best. Because they fail the test, they are not covered under the convention, just like spies and mercenaries aren't covered. Now, that isn't so hard, is it?
And, since we are on the subject, if we were to disregard the qualifications for the protections of a Prisoner OF War under the conventions it would mean doing some really stupid things. For example:
Under Article 26 we would be responsible to see that:
Do you want fanatical terrorists who are often ready to kill themselves deliberately in the pursuit of their goals to have full access to a kitchen with its many potential bladed weapons and chemicals? That would be stupid. But, if we didn't do it we wouldn't be treating them in accordance with the Geneva Convention. But then we don't have to because they fail the basic test for being covered by the treaty in Article 4A2.
And what about Article 60:
Do you really advocate that we should pay Al Qaeda members in our custody? Hmm? Once again that would
Re:One way street... (Score:2, Informative)
First Isreal has nothing to do with what is happening in iraq. if you can see that then you need to just goto sleep and not even bother any more. The un resolutions were part of a ceasse fire agreament and actions taken because of tha violations of that agreement. This has nothing to do with a country like isreal that has only defended thier own borders and held land they took after being invaded by a superior forces and kicking thier asses back to thier moma's house. In fact Isreal has given some of the land it kept from egypt back to Egypt after they were sure the threat wasn't there. I'm sure it would be the same with palistine if the acted civil towards them.
Second Bush didn't lie about saddam trying to buy plutonium from africa. The british inteligence gave the wrong time line. Most liberals were so happy to trash him they didn't even look in the right country for it and for the longest time claimed it never happend until someone told them how to spell. (probably a slashot regular)
If saddom had nothign to hide and had no banned weapons, then why did he admit to having them, cause the U.N inspectors to be removed from the country when they wanted to look in areas that were previously approved? Why did he constantly say he had them, and then say he didn't? Why did he decide to break the cease fire agreements that he himself initiated to shoot missle at our planes in the no fly zone?
In other words, as much as you like suddam and would like to trash bush, the fact is that suddom did this to himself. If he would have gone along with what he agreed to, that stoped this from happemning in the first time around, he would be sitting over there without a care in the would.
in my opinion Bush done somethign that clinton should hav edone back in 95. because he didn't, you now think you can get bent out of shape and whine about saddam and how he is suffering and bush id evil and all that.. most inteligent people have moved on by now. i would suggest you do too.
by the way, the U.N gave the the jews the land that Isreal holds (except for what they capture after being invaded) when they it was taken back from germany and hitler after ww2. It is amazing to here people think that it would/should be someone elses. Thats the effects from previous wars. ask the curds when they are going to get thier land back?
Back to basics (Score:1, Informative)
There's still a shortage of body armor in Iraq. The Beretta pistol-breakage problem hasn't been totally solved. The replacement for the M-16 is behind schedule. And everything with batteries needs more battery life. Let's get those problems solved.
Re:Obligatory Klingon Quote (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No, there are other considerations (Score:5, Informative)
And all that stuff I listed, that's just for people classified as prisoners of war. If you're not part of the armed forces of a nation... well, the rules are considerably looser.
Re:specialised military batteries (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One way street... SlightlyOT (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutly true. The Air Force deals with Lat/Long because the earth is curved and the area they cover is large enough that computing distances and heading over a curved surface is computationally easier using degrees and minutes.
The Army, on the other hand, deals in distances much smaller, where the curvature of the earth is not a factor. The Army uses a system called the Military Grid Reference System (MGRS [google.com] ).
This system suits the Army well because it is simple, accurate, and works in meters instead of nautical miles.
Army pilots, like myself, have to use both systems constantly. And we always have to convert between the two. Although when errors are made, it often deals with using different datums rather than computational error. The DOD is in the process of fixing this though by using a single datum for all maps. (WGS84) [google.com]
Re:No, there are other considerations...Not really (Score:3, Informative)
You're wrong. The geneva convention prohibits physical and moral coericion including threats. In particular,
So withholding pain meds, sleep deprivation, threats of torture, loud starvation, etc. are not okay according to the convention.
Also, threats of physical violence don't really do much unless it's credible in which case someone probably gets hurt in order to make sure prisoners understand that they might be next or that the interrogators are willing to go further.
No, you don't get it... (Score:3, Informative)
Not because "war is wrong", but because once the US unilaterally invaded Iraq, it would have no way to get out, without a worse situation occurring (a theocracy against the US). Because we can't get out (without having a more f**ked up situation), 800 US citizens have lost their lives (and more heroes are about to die for their country), reservists are confronted with the situation of being a grunt for the next ten years, while their families fall apart and loss of potential civilian career, and the cost to the US taxpayer will probably ultimately go into the trillions of dollars for this escapade.
This result of this action was forseen by military & strategic experts before the actual invasion. It only could have been mitigated by better planning and execution by the U.S. Gov't. Obviously, they failed miserably (Invasion suceeded, occupation has failed). Now these same experts are indicating that our U.S. military will become unable to meet its world wide security committments (Korea & Taiwan) because the bulk of our force is now stuck in Iraq & Afganistan. Support the US and the troops all you want. But if you support Bush, then you support an administration that *failed* in reverting Iraq into a stable nation, and made the US geopolitical situation much worse than it was in 2002.
The "imminent threat" to the US by Saddam has been demonstrated to be a lie. A lie concocted by the U.S. Gov't, with the most likely culprits the Bush administration.
You think the lie was merely a mistake caused by British intelligence. But we had US personnel verify that the intel was wrong. When one of those gov't employees tried to point out that the administration was lying about not receiving the information, someone decided to tell the press that his wife worked as a deep cover anti-terrorist agent. There was no reason to reveal her name. Its a federal crime to do so. It damaged the intelligence network she setup against WMD terrorists, jeapardized her life, and now she can't work in CIA because she's been outed.
Why Bush decided to invade Iraq, who was behind it (Israel???), is all distracting speculation.
The only thing left to do is kick out the Bush administration for their egregious failure, and hope the next set of ass-clowns can do a better job. The current group has failed.