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.'"
One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Once you're in an urban environment, it strips out a lot of (America's) technology advantages," he said. "It puts you in a fair fight. And you don't want to be in a fair fight."
So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded? The side at a disadvantage uses any and all means at their disposal to help make the fight more "fair". This fellow seems to back that up, unless having a lopsided fight is only sporting when it's his team doing the slaughtering.
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
--
New deal processing engine online: http://www.dealsites.net/livedeals.html [dealsites.net]
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope that they will still teach the basics in the future..... If not, we will be sitting ducks.
Oh no. America would never abandon teaching the basics in favor of letting high tech gadgetry handle it all. No, never. You, uh, do know how to do long division in your head, right?
Actually, despite the fact that our public schools are miserable failures of education these days, I do seem to recall seeing a story about an equipment drop or a jump or artillery targetting or something gone awry in Afghanistan or Iraq where the soldiers wound up having to do a bunch of trajectory calculations on paper. Turns out they were trained to use the equipment, but they were also trained not to have to rely on it, so all went well in the end.
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent several months learning to manually perform all sorts of medical lab work only to arrive at my permanent duty station and be told to forget it all because I'd never need it. Everything in the hospital lab was fully automated with the exception of white blood cell differentials and those were only performed if the machine wasn't sure it had the right answer.
However, if the power had gone out (which it did my very first night working alone on night-shift) I was prepared. Thankfully when it went out it was August and over 100 degrees and that was too warm to perform the tests I knew how to do (as temperature affects reaction rates) and so my very first night being on my own I had to call the hospital commander in the middle of the night and let him know that until the power came back on we (the lab) would be unable to perform any lab work and that we wouldn't be opening the blood bank fridges for anything short of a life or death emergency.
They had to reroute all incoming emergencies to Walter Reed and other area hospitals until about 5:00 am.*
I know a lot of people make fun of the military, but everyone I knew while I was in was well trained and could cope when the expensive equipment wouldn't work.
* Yes, our hospital had emergency backup power.
No, the air conditioning was not on emergency backup power in the wing where the lab was (formerly the psych ward) and so even though the instruments stayed on, the temperature quickly rose to the point where every single instrument started beeping and quickly went out of calibration.
No, the blood bank fridges did not have backup power to keep them cool.
No, I don't know what genius civilian contractor came up with that plan.
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.
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Interesting)
As section chief of the FDC, I relied on paper chart and paper calulations, although we had specially modified HP's to do the same thing. (A whole 'nother story, but we didn't use the Army's method of data entry either. I taught my people about 'peeks and pokes', and cut down our data entry time by about 75%)
What freaked out our observer from the 505thArty/101airborne, though, was computing a second mission in my head.
The colonel called, ("27 this is 6. That letter "A" is way too small to see well.") Since it was already pretty durn big, I assumed that he wanted the "A" twice as big, so I closed my eyes, computed 5 (one gun could maintain its firing data) sets of deltas for the other guns.
The observer said later (to my Captain and the Colonel) that never in his life had he seen anyone do 3-d trig in their head. It was checked on paper, and my data was 0/0 correct ("Check, 0!)" on all 15 data points (deflection, elevation and tof
Yes I can also do long division in my head!
[B^)
Calculator??? (Score:3, Funny)
Couldn't that fall out of the plane as well?????
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 co
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfair? No, never. Ask anybody in uniform or anybody who's ever served in uniform and they'll tell you that fairness has nothing to do with it. "Overwhelming force" is the watchword.
Some tactics are immoral, though. Like surrounding your troops with civilians acting as human shields, or storing weapons in or basing operations out of hospitals or mosques. Why? Because both of those tactics put civilians in danger. If you make hospitals legitimate military targets, for example, then doctors, nurses, and patients are going to die. That's bad for everybody.
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One way street... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One way street... (Score:4, Insightful)
Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
In essence, no, al Qaeda forces are not required to be treated as prisoners of war, because they are not members of armed forces, militias, or volunte
Re:One way street... (Score:4, Insightful)
The real challenge would be proving that those held at Guantanamo Bay are indeed Al Queda operatives. Especially since it seems that some of those who have been released after being held for multiple years... were not. I don't see anything about the Geneva Convention not applying to suspected terrorists. After all, you could make the case that - as in the constitutional precepts of the US - that people are civillians unless proven terrorists for the purposes of the Geneva Convention. But yeah, its a really hard call to make. And I sure don't have the answer either.
Re:One way street... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because the Geneva Convention has the effect of maintaining the status quo. It protects and assists countries with traditional armies, while not extending protection to other combatants. Sure, countries will sign the Geneva Convention. It increases their power relative to anyone *not* currently in power. Take, for instance, rebel groups that are trying to seize control of a country -- these people are not a regular army, and are hence not entitled to Geneva Convention protection. The regular army is easier to build up, because that army can expect Geneva Convention protection if they ever go to war against another country. However, they do not need to respsect Geneva Convention rights WRT rebels, terrorists, freedom fighters, etc.
Technicalities (Score:4, Insightful)
If America won't treat its prisoners by the same standards it expects American prisoners to be treated then there is no 'red line' anymore. Soon other countries will be using the words 'terrorist' or 'none-combatant' to justify egregious abuses whilst the U.S. sits quietly by because it can no longer criticize other countries failure to respect the Geneva Conventions in their 'fight' against 'terrorism'.
The U.S. declared itself to be at war against terrorism. The President has himself said that America is at war with terrorists who are the 'enemy of freedom'. How can the very people America is supposed to be fighting against -- who it is at war with -- be none-combatants? These disingenuous distinctions to create convenient excuses to circumvent international conventions that regulate the treatment of prisoners in a war bring only discredit to the very morality of the fight.
This President has in my opinion done irreparable harm to the prestige of the United States in the matter of human rights. The ends do not justify the means if you are a moral person; the same is true for a country.
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was about to ignore the whole discussion on Iraq until I saw this. You cannot justify the actions of the MP's based on this thinking. If you follow that thinking, then we should have roughed up a few of the German soldiers during World War II, because they were doing it to "our boys". Or, you could just decide to let the Local Police Department go crazy on one particular neighborhood of a city, because the crime rate in that neighborhood is so high. Who cares if the innocent are tossed in prison? At least the crime rate goes down!
The fact is, if we are going to try to export democratic values to a country that hasn't experienced them before, maybe we should try to treat their citizens the way our citizens would expect to be treated. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty (at least you were before the Patriot Act). Just because you arrest someone, you cannot decide to beat the shit out of them.
Oh, wait, there are a few dozen Iraqi's out there that killed four contractors and hung them from a bridge. Screw it, let's just beat the hell out of hundreds of prisoners. Who cares if they were actually involved in anything remotely illegal. Fuck human rights. We're trying to bring them democracy! Even if bringing democracy to the country means that we have to rape and/or kill a few of their men in the process. When we leave, they'll appreciate everything we have done for them.
These pictures from that Baghdad prison have destroyed about 40 years of US credibility on human rights and democratic values. We now have no right to discuss bringing our values to anywhere else in the world.
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Insightful)
i cna agree with that. what i find puzzling is that while a few iraqis decapitating inocent people don't represent the hole as a country including captive prisoners
These pictures from that Baghdad prison have destroyed about 40 years of US credibility on human rights and democratic values. We now have no right t
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.)
No, there are other considerations (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all well and good but only applies if the structures are NOT being used as military staging areas. If you turn a hospital into a military base and launch attacks from it, it is no longer a civilian target and it not protected under the Geneva Convention. Ther Germans found this out in WWII. They took over a monestary, which was protected under the Geneva Convention, and used it to launch attacks (it was a very strong structure). Well the allies were having none of that, it was now a military target and they reduced it to rubble.
So that's the reason for not using tactics like this, your hurt your own nation and the people that you claim to be trying to protect. That is the point of a military, remember, to protect the people.
How far would I go? Well it depends. If a foriegn dictatorship was trying to take over the US, I'd fight to the death. Of course I'd do that by joining the military. If the US had fallen into dictatorship (and I hadn' already gotten out) and the force was here to liberate me, I'd help THEM.
Re:No, there are other considerations (Score:4, Informative)
"convenient or they think the media isn't looking" (Score:3, Insightful)
One might wish to consider that the Administration is utilizing Gitmo is because interrogating terrorists and not sending terrorists back home is a no brainer, and any responsible leader would do the same.
Re:No, there are other considerations (Score:5, Interesting)
The so-called "soldiers" involved in the Iraq prison scandal violated orders (or obeyed illegal orders) and ignored their training. As for the prisoners at Gitmo: most fall into a gray area not covered by the Conventions (the last modifications to which took place in the late 40s, decades before an pan-national entity like Al Qaeda was considered seriously).
Go check out the Third Geneva Convention [wikipedia.org]. The Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan did not meet all of the conditions in 4A(2) (most did not wear identifiable uniforms or markings, nor did they conduct themselves accordingly with the laws of war), nor did they qualify as a "regular armed force" (a requirement specified in 4A(3)) nor did they "spontaneously take up arms" as defined in 4A(6).
The U.S. officially calls these guys a few things (such as "detainees") rather than "prisoners of war" -- and rightly so. They are little more than a step up from street gangs operating on a larger piece of turf. They have very little resemblance to professional armed forces when it comes to training, discipline or organization. They are thugs, murderers and criminals.
So please, if you're going to wave your angry anti-American flag, do so after you've been better informed.
Mod parent up (Score:4, Interesting)
Please.
While I don't agree that our government is entirely innocent (Rumsfeld apparently knew about the sanction given our intelligence forces carte blanche in anti-terrorist interrogations, and then (arguably) lied about it) the parent post is still spot on with respect to many of the arguments above it in this thread.
I agree completely with the opinion that terrorists - and insurgents in Iraq who don't follow the GC themselves - have no rights under the GC.
Leaving Iraq aside for a moment, let's consider this: EVERY CIVILIZED COUNTRY in the WORLD is "at war" with terrorism. Terrorists - those who would kill, en masse, unarmed and innocent civilians to make a POLITICAL POINT - are as the above AC pointed out, murderers and criminals.
Perhaps they should have trials. Ok, they should at least have an independent body or bodies consider the evidence against them. Unfortunately the WC is so busy examining it's own navel that it's unlikely anything would come of it.
To slow down terrorism, we have to punish those who commit *immediately* - because it's the only deterrent that the civilized world has against this particular kind of scum. Unfortunately some innocents will fall, even with that process, NO MATTER WHO IS DOING THE JUDGING, be it the US, the coalition, or the World Court.
\end rant
SB
Re:No, there are other considerations (Score:3, Insightful)
...which appears to be quite limited.
Which proves how limited their ability to follow the Geneva convention is. Wars with "regular armed forces", with "identifiable uniforms or markings", are more an exception than a rule today.
For the information of your only Proud American neuron in that empty thing you insist calling head, the
Re:No, there are other considerations (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense, Article 75 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions states that torture is always forbidden, regardless of whether the victims have POW status. And we know that the US has been guilty of torture, directly and indirectly (the Canadian guy who was sent to Syria to be tortured).
The so-called "soldiers" involved in the Iraq prison scandal violated orders (or obeyed illegal orders) and ignored their training.
Re:No, there are other considerations (Score:4, Insightful)
The same can be said of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and other cities in WWII. When daylight precision bombing against military targets was getting too many bombers shot down, the USA and Great Britain shifted to night-bombing using incendiary bombs, obliterating whole cities in order to destroy the war industries located in or near them. In Dresden and Tokyo each, according to the best estimates, 100000+ civilians died. Let's face the truth: in war, Geneva Convention or not, anything is valid. And the victor decides who is to be considered a "war criminal".
Re:No, there are other considerations (Score:4, Interesting)
People tend to get on their high horse when talking about what's right and wrong in war (especially when they've never been in one) and tend to gloss over the fact that this is people fighting for their lives here. According to the Geneva convention you're not supposed to use a 50-caliber machine gun on personell. Yeah, if I have no guns and there's a 50cal beside me I'm sure as hell going to shoot back. In the end if you want to avoid atrocities in war, then don't get in one in the first place.
Re:No, there are other considerations (Score:3, Interesting)
And the sky is blue, and the fifer and the drummer are playing a little ditty, and the flag is waving we go marching happily off to war.
We (Americans) were all taught in school that the Nazis were protecting Hitler, not the German people. And the Republican Guard was protecting Saddam, not the Iraqi people, etc.
Now clearly the U.S.M.C. is not protecting GWB, so they must be protecting the people, right?
Don't laugh, it's true! I watch my 40
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:No, there are other considerations...Not really (Score:3, Informative)
You're wrong. The geneva convention prohibits physical and moral coericion including threats. In particu
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't include signing the death warrants of innocent civilians by using them as human shields.
So why do the terrorists do it? Simple: public relations. The best thing that can possibly happen to the terrorists in Iraq is for the United States to bomb a mosque or a hospital. They can't defeat us militarily, so they try to defeat us from within by weakening our resolve.
Why do you think they claimed that the terrorist camp we destroyed last week was a "wedding party?" Why, for that matter, do you think Saddam put his military intelligence headquarters in the same building as the al-Amirya air-raid shelter back in 1991?
Re:One way street... (Score:4, Interesting)
But, what American patriot contemporary to the minutemen would blame them for using such tactics when defending home and country against a better prepared, better equipped, better commanded, numerically superior enemy? To fight in this manner was the only rational thing to do, but the values of the Americans. To fight otherwise, and accept the rules of military conduct of the Europeans would have been folly and suicide.
It was "asymetrical warfare" at it's best, and it definitely contributed to the desired (by our American POV) outcome.
---anactofgod---
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's as if the senior military decision makers don't really understand how the military is really just another tool of diplomacy, and should be used in concert, planning and execution of all other diplomatic means.
I understand that British generals think this way (and, based on much reading, that most European generals think much the same)- that war is just part of the diplomatic process. American generals are trained on the assumption that the diplomacy is done by the State Department, and that the military is only called in when it's time to bust heads. So they concentrate on being good at busting heads, and let the striped-trouser types concentrate on the diplomacy parts.
In other words, its a difference of opinion about the role of a general. A fairly common difference of opinion, at least between Americans and Europeans.
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Interesting)
More to the point, I wasn't speaking of the US forces on the ground, in harms way, as it were. I intended to speak to the senior most military and governmenta
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the things that the US planners are continually behind to curve on is how communications is getting increasingly instantaneous and decentralized. They were behind the curve in Gulf War I, when they tried to limit the access to the battlefield of the Western news media, only to find that the Western news services reported anyway, from behind enemy lines. This left the Coalition forces with no comparable outlet to the public, and to a situation where the only POV that was NOT being b
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
People with that sort of rigid viewpoint don't have much of a moral compass when it comes to "the other guys".
People who don't understand why people have that rigid viewpoint don't have to fight "the other guys" though.
Or, to put it all together: war sucks no matter which side you're on and what part you play, and there just isn't any justification for that fact.
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 th
Re:One way street... (it's an all-way-street) (Score:3, Insightful)
And, if the Japanese were ready to surrender, why did it take two bombs?
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see if I can dismantle this argument in the fewest possible words.
If killing is immoral, than the prevention of killing is moral. And if the prevention of killing involves lesser killing, then... well, QED, huh?
Take a seat on the bench, "EvilBudMan." We play for keeps around here.
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
Body count. It's real easy. Just basic arithmetic: addition and subtraction.
Do people really still take pure utilitarianism seriously? I guess so. The simplest ideas are the easiest to grasp.
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Insightful)
In plenty of places this is quite common.
Only on slashdot could the idea of partying until 3 AM be considered unlikely.
Geek tip: In college, some (cute)girls actually like smart guys, but it does require the occasional all night(and most of next day) party
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact is, America hasn't been in a "fair fight" since Vietnam. Vietnam wasn't even technically a fair fight -- our force was clearly superior, but our tactics were not.
Thing is, only place you want a fair fight is in a boxing ring. You want to have the clear advantage over your enemy, so that casualties on your side are minimal and victory is assured.
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Fair" means I win, as quickly and with as little cost to me as absolutely possible.
Both sides (or all sides) believe this. Both sides believe that anything done by the other side which hampers this is therefore, by logical negation, "unfair".
But most importantly, "Fair means I win. Period."
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair is in the eye of the beholder until the battle is over. Then it is determined by the victor.
Obligatory Klingon Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Klingon Quote (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe John Madden said it best: "All I want is my unfair advantage." If the scales are tipped to my advantage, that's perfectly okay, and I'll make full use of it. But if the other guy has the upper hand, well, that's just not fair, and must be corrected.... Everyone wants to hold the advantage, and will do (or say) anything to convince the world that they should have it.
Nobody ever said "Hey, you know, our military is vastly superior to theirs. Let's even the playing field a little: we'll wear bright red uniforms and march rank and file into the battle while they shoot at us from behind the trees." Instead, the guerilla tactics of the colonists were decried as unfair and underhanded....
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
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have heard illegal tactics... Not all guerilla tactics are illegal...
Please don't use the word "illegal" in this context. It propagates the myth that there is such a thing as "international law" or "laws of war." There isn't, and it's a mistake to imply that there is.
Some tactics are prohibited by certain treaties. But that's not the same thing as saying that those tactics are illegal.
I know this seems like a very small thing, but it's an important point.
Re:One way street... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One way street... (Score:5, Insightful)
It may surprise you, but both were fought in the same way that the Iraqis are fighting now. It's almost funny seing the same parallels when you read old newspapers.. the Americans claim that the British fired on a big group of unarmed protesters, the British claim that there were armed men attacking their troops in the crowd....
BTW, many of the people we were fighting in Afghanistan this time WERE the Mujahideen in the Afghan-Soviet war. It can be fun to follow the tangled web of ever-shifting alliances in Afghanistan.
> It boils down to this: The tactics of the insurgents in Iraq are not designed to give any military victories, only propaganda ones.
Funny, last I checked, they had won control of Fallujah.
BSOD (Score:5, Funny)
Awww. I was so looking forward to the Yankee "Blue Soldier of Death" putting fear in the hearts of the enemy from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli.
Re:BSOD (Score:5, Funny)
Sweet! (Score:2, Funny)
Our Armed forces are going to be one giant beowulf cluster!
Bloat. (Score:2, Funny)
Pork! Pork! Pork!
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.
No batteries? (Score:5, Funny)
Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Very silly post about the Marines. (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory kneejerk reaction aside (Score:2, Interesting)
Being closed-source, Windows wouldn't be peer-reviewable by the army, nor could the army fix its own problems with the code if they encounter any.
No need for a cheap-shot.
Re:Obligatory kneejerk reaction aside (Score:3, Funny)
Agreed. I read that little quip and thought I was reading a Dilbert cartoon. "Next we want you to write software that makes the laptop lighter."
Re:Obligatory kneejerk reaction aside (Score:3, Interesting)
it would certainly make them a lot easier to use..
Windows Front Line edition (Score:5, Funny)
FIRE.EXE has performed an illegal operation and w.....
Times are changing (Score:2, Funny)
Just think about it! (Score:2)
Clippy (Score:5, Funny)
Get help writing battle plan.
Set us up the bomb.
bake sale (Score:5, Funny)
colonel panic? (Score:5, Funny)
who is this general failure? (Score:5, Funny)
this just cracks me up! :) (Score:5, Funny)
What might happen if they DID use windows.... (Score:5, Funny)
"Open fire soldier!"
"Sir my weapon says it's not responding"
"Reboot soldier!"
"I did sir, but each time I reboot it still says "Remote Procedure Call (RPC) service terminated unexpectedly.""
"Disable your wireless connection soldier and switch to manual override, we're being exploited!"
Meanwhile somewhere in the middle east...
"Heheheheh.........silly Americans...."
What will happen when they use Open Source... (Score:5, Funny)
> "Enemy spotted, 100 yards and closing.
> "Open fire soldier!"
> "Sir my weapon says it's not responding"
"There isn't a driver for the magazine loader."
"The firing module wasn't compiled into the kernel."
"There's no documentation. Throw rocks at the enemy while I look around on Google, Usenet, and IRC."
"The trigger code wasn't tested with this distro. The programmer wants me to use JimBobsBaitAndTackle Linux instead."
Big Boned (Score:4, Funny)
Recruiting tool. (Score:5, Funny)
Research shows (Score:3, Funny)
As a consequence, the military has chosen to provide the utmost camoflauge, while at the same time provide a uniform that simply scares the hell out of the enemy. HERE [geocities.com] is the prototype. (I know geocities, I'm lazy it's the first imge I could find)
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.
No clippy? (Score:5, Funny)
Too bad. I guess that means no MS Word either. I guess that means no clippy, and I guess that means no:
It looks like you're killing people. Would you like help?
specialised military batteries (Score:5, Interesting)
Your GPS has this big whack battery that only works in it. Your NVG's are the same (well, the 'new' ones will actually takee AA's as well). That big 'ol SINGARS radio, what a beast of a battery. The secure comm unit for it, again another specialised battery.
When I was in the army I always thought our biggest weakness was every single piece of electronic gear took a specialised battery that would only work in that item. Nothing could just use commodity batteries.
I think they are just taking this a step further. You guys whine about windows but, this is REAL vendor lock-in. You get batteries from us or all your shit stops working.
Re:specialised military batteries (Score:3, Interesting)
The PLGR battery is actuallly used in several other devices.
The same is true of the SINCGARS battery.
You are correct that there are _way_ to many batteries which are only used in one device.
Re:specialised military batteries (Score:3, Interesting)
Plus thank you for correcting his spelling of SINCGARS.
In addition, many stock military devices take D-size cells. In our lab, we used to have a whole case of OD color MIL-Spec D-cells for various pieces of equipment we had to interface with.
Re:specialised military batteries (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly WHO said anything about Open Source? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what the Wired story says, but exactly what does the memo actually say? Simply saying "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems" does not in the least imply they are thinking of open source solutions. What they are much more likely thinking about is proprietary embedded systems.
Honestly, when was the last time a multi-zillion dollar military contract involve Open Source?
Re:Exactly WHO said anything about Open Source? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
No software is better than clean software.
No matter how clean it may be, it will still potentially have flaws. In the case of "army stuff", I'd tend to think that traditional computing systems would not be suitable or efficent for that matter. Any software which has to 'boot up' is probably bad.
QNX on the other hand, may be good. It's used pretty widely, is lightweight, and supposedly rock solid. But, still, if the task can be accomplished just as efficently without computers at all, it's probably a better idea.
batteries powered by motion (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if there's any possibility for motion-charging batteries to succeed as a power source for soldiers. I admit I didn't rtfa, but obviously the overall power requirements would be relevant to the success of something like this.
Windows has detected..... (Score:5, Funny)
"Windows has detected new hardware. Please insert the Windows installation disk."
Is it just me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Liquid body armor? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Oh boy.... (Score:5, Funny)
Commander: "Here they are men, coming over the crest...!"
Grunt: "Sir, it looks like they are using flame throwers! We were only equipped for ballistics and hand-to-hand combat."
Commander: "No problem soldier, we'll upgrade to flame-resistant armor. I'll issue the command."
Grunt: "Hurry! They're coming over the hill!"
Grunt: "They're getting really close now!!!"
Commander: "Hold them off!"
**flames erupt**
[ENTER SCREEN, TOP RIGHT: Clippy, a handsome rogue]
Obligatory Nelson (Score:3, Funny)
Ha-Ha.
don't ask, don't tell (Score:3, Interesting)
What ever happened to don't, ask don't tell?
Ok, enough playing with ppl's names.
Man he's got a cool job. GI-Joe mixed with geeky technology. Sounds like an awesome gig. Wonder how he got into that? I'm sure there are many others who agree that's everything awesome in the world merged into 1 job. Would be neat get a
Wired is reading too much - or not enough. (Score:3, Interesting)
It will likely be a low-power, sleep-capable PIC that doesn't have an OS. To run some bloatware (any operating system is bloatware on a low-power system) would be absolutely ridiculous. The software will be custom-written for the suits and work on the machine level.
being in the infantry (Score:5, Interesting)
being in the infantry you get used to everything just being heavy and ungangly. it would be a shock to most slashdotters just how cumbersome our gear is. fighting at night with NVG's on is NOTHING like in a video game. half the time you can't see a thing because it focuses like any other optic. you have to adjust the focus everytime you look at something more than a few feet closer or further than what you were last looking at. and don't get me started on the skull crushers and rhino mounts. i've never been able to get a PVS 14 to sit properly over my eye. shooting in the prone position is even worse.
here's something funny to illustrate. in the army we have this thing called a PLGR (Portable Lightweight GPS Reciever) or "plugger". i assure you that there is nothing portable, lightweight, or GPS about it. it's huge, like the biggest text book you've ever seen. the batteries don't last for shit, it has only an alphanumeric display (no arrows and maps), it weights a good few pounds, it is TERRIBLE at getting a GPS signal. you practically have to climb a tree or be in the middle of open desert to use it.
which leads me to this: most of us use civialian and so called "special ops" (usually just civilian things that have been ruggedized) gear. we use alot of civialian GPRS/FRS radios (though ours can be encrypted), we use lots of civilian GPS too. pretty much anything special forces uses too gets trickled down into infantry use because our gear sucks and they've got the common sense and freedom to use what works.
now to counter that we do have alot of things that really give us a leap over the enemy. we have infared targeting lasers we use at night which really help in a fire fight. other cool things i dont' want to talk about. but of course the bad guys have night vision too. yea, they do. it's not really that expensive these days. good thing most of them are poor shots.
being a terrorist has it's advantages. you can really be effective in small groups. but our tactics work great too and we are constantly adapting. what they gain in autonomy is thwarted by lack of C2 (command and control), training, and good support channels. besides, we can move and act autonomously too.
Re:Simple Solution for the power problem (Score:5, Funny)
Build their helmets with solar panels
Yeah, solar panels will come in handy when powering those night vision goggles. :-)
zRe:bullet proof vests? (Score:3, Interesting)
I ask that question all the time. Why not bulletproof vests? I hear all the arguments of "too much money" "foot soldiers are disposable" to "they're not really bulletproof" and all sorts of other crap. Sure they don't help in all situations (my buddy's helicopter crashed while avoiding ground fire), but i would think that it'd make more sense on every level. Especially the financial one.