# A "Gun Martial Art"?



## Archangel M (Dec 8, 2008)

Check this out:

http://www.policeone.com/training/a...sive-Hojutsu-Ryu-the-martial-art-of-shooting/



> ...This quest has resulted in induction into the U.S. Martial Arts and Universal Martial Arts Halls of Fame, promotion to tenth dan and grandmaster, and being named &#8220;soke,&#8221; or founder, of the art. What this means to those of you with no traditional background is that sober, life-long grandmasters agree that shooting is a martial art, and have &#8220;blessed&#8221; it, and made it legitimate in the martial arts world. As this is written, Hojutsu-Ryu is the only formally recognized shooting art in the world....


 

Opinions? Ive always thought that firearms as "martial art" had some merit, but Im "on the fence" about this type of approach. Soke boards, 10th dan, retooling classic MA to carve out a niche...


----------



## Carol (Dec 8, 2008)

Awwww...c'mon....  

How is he going to be able to command $350 per head for 3 days of teaching if he's not a 10th degree grandmaster that goes by "Soke"?


----------



## Blindside (Dec 8, 2008)

If you want to call "tap, rack, assess" a kata, well, sure be my guest.  As long as he recognizes that "recognized" or not by a "soke board" there are obviously a hell of alot of other "gun martial arts" out there.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 9, 2008)

Go out and rent the movie "Equillibrium" with Christian Bale.  Everytime I see this topic I think of that movie.

In the movie they are trained in a "gun martial art" that does have katas where you move around and shoot your opponents.  It's fantasy, but it was a neat idea on how it was shown.


----------



## Nolerama (Dec 9, 2008)

I want to learn Gunkata... You know, to supplement my Gymkata.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2008)

This one is actually founded by a Cop and that link is from a reputable LE website. I just hope that even if the whole martial arts approach is a bit goofy, that the stuff he teaches is legit.


----------



## Nolerama (Dec 9, 2008)

I know there are grappling/takedown systems out there designed for cops with a gun in the holster, and would like to keep said gun in the holster when confronting a resisting opponent.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2008)

Its more than that, belts are based on weapon proficiency as well as other skills.


----------



## Blindside (Dec 9, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Its more than that, belts are based on weapon proficiency as well as other skills.


 
I have no problem with the training, I just find it odd to add Japanese trappings (belt, gi, and apparently titles) to an art with decidedly western roots.  Its like having a belt system for driving.  "OK put this white belt on, now to get your learner's permit you need to pass this written test, to get your purple belt you must get your driver's license, and to get your black belt you need to win two dirt track open class races."

Whatever floats your boat, I just don't get why people would seek out such trappings.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2008)

Blindside said:


> I have no problem with the training, I just find it odd to add Japanese trappings (belt, gi, and apparently titles) to an art with decidedly western roots. Its like having a belt system for driving. "OK put this white belt on, now to get your learner's permit you need to pass this written test, to get your purple belt you must get your driver's license, and to get your black belt you need to win two dirt track open class races."
> 
> Whatever floats your boat, I just don't get why people would seek out such trappings.


 
Thats about where I am too. I think it has more to do with the ego behind the pecking order and the prestige of being a "top dog" than anything else.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 9, 2008)

Blindside said:


> I have no problem with the training, I just find it odd to add Japanese trappings (belt, gi, and apparently titles) to an art with decidedly western roots. Its like having a belt system for driving. "OK put this white belt on, now to get your learner's permit you need to pass this written test, to get your purple belt you must get your driver's license, and to get your black belt you need to win two dirt track open class races."
> 
> Whatever floats your boat, I just don't get why people would seek out such trappings.


 

"Hojutsu" (literally, _fire art_) is an actual Japanese term for "gun arts," and part of a few koryu.

See here.

Of course, just 'cause there's one thing, doesn't mean this isn't another....


----------



## Blindside (Dec 9, 2008)

elder999 said:


> "Hojutsu" (literally, _fire art_) is an actual Japanese term for "gun arts," and part of a few koryu.
> 
> See here.
> 
> Of course, just 'cause there's one thing, doesn't mean this isn't another....


 
I understand the origin of the term, but a koryu art on the use of matchlocks isn't exactly the same as clearing a jam in an AR.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 9, 2008)

Blindside said:
			
		

> I understand the origin of the term, but a koryu art on the use of matchlocks isn't exactly the same as clearing a jam in an AR. [/url]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 9, 2008)

I'm unimpressed.  

If you want to learn "the way of the gun," there are plenty of top-notch instructors out there who teach solid, relevant material without the need to "trademark" stuff or make themselves "grandmasters."

to each their own I guess...


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2008)

I can see the value of trying to bring all the elements (weaponcraft, disarms, tactics etc) "under one roof" so to speak. But I guess I have to say I'm somewhat skeptical too.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 9, 2008)

i don't know, it's cool i guess. but i think i'd rather be an IDPA champion or something than a black belt in hojutsu.  i'm always glad to see traditional arts preserved, though.

jf


----------



## Guardian (Dec 11, 2008)

I don't think it's necessary to incorporate both of them into a single entity myself.  You can do both and you already have it, to name it a martial art is just not necessary in my view.

I agree with KenpoTex on this one.


----------



## David Weatherly (Dec 15, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> I want to learn Gunkata... You know, to supplement my Gymkata.


 

hahaha Now that's funny.  I wonder how many people on here remember Gymkata?

David


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 22, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Check this out:
> 
> http://www.policeone.com/training/a...sive-Hojutsu-Ryu-the-martial-art-of-shooting/
> 
> ...



What would be the study of firearms and their use if NOT a martial art?

I don't mean offense, but your question is based on the faulty premise that in order to be a 'Martial Art', something must come from Japan, China or Korea, and involve bowing and wearing a silly looking outfit......in other words TMA's. 

Martial Art is LITERALLY the study of individual conflict.  Any system that is designed to teach an aspect of physical combat is a 'martial art' from shooting, to boxing, to karate.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 22, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> I'm unimpressed.
> 
> If you want to learn "the way of the gun," there are plenty of top-notch instructors out there who teach solid, relevant material without the need to "trademark" stuff or make themselves "grandmasters."
> 
> to each their own I guess...


 Quite right!  

The basis of all martial arts, before TMA's formalized them in to rituals, was the training of effective martial action......there's no need for that in the gun.  Train effectively, and don't worry about the bowing, the belts and the grand masters.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 22, 2008)

jarrod said:


> i don't know, it's cool i guess. but i think i'd rather be an IDPA champion or something than a black belt in hojutsu.  i'm always glad to see traditional arts preserved, though.
> 
> jf


 I'm pretty certain that learning traditional hojutsu would involve drilling in muzzle loading a large and bulky black powder firearm, as that is what was used in battle at the time of the introduction of hojutsu.

At this point it's just a name for a formalized version of modern martial arts training.....a gimmick.


----------



## tellner (Dec 22, 2008)

Second what KenpoTex said. There are plenty of good firearms teachers out there. Start with Massad Ayoob and go from there. 

What you don't need is a bunch of pseudo-Asian crap tacked onto perfectly good material to make it feel "traditional". The first point of the exercise is to turn you into a good shooter who can make little holes in whatever is required under stress conditions. Wearing Japanese gym clothes and a brightly colored belt will not help you do that. Wearing your regular clothes while you shoot will help you. Exaggerated out-of-context Oriental manners will not make you a better shootist. Knowledge of the ethics and legal aspects of the use of deadly force will. 

Firearms use is part of several traditional Japanese martial arts. It's of very limited interest to me. Matchlocks are in short supply these days. If I'm going to the time and expense of getting a gun and learning to fire it I'd prefer one that doesn't require several minutes and a cigarette lighter to operate.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 22, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I'm pretty certain that learning traditional hojutsu would involve drilling in muzzle loading a large and bulky black powder firearm, as that is what was used in battle at the time of the introduction of hojutsu.
> 
> At this point it's just a name for a formalized version of modern martial arts training.....a gimmick.


 
like i said, not my thing.  but some folks like cowboy action shooting, some folks like muzzleloading...whatever trips thier trigger.

hey i made a pun!

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 22, 2008)

jarrod said:


> like i said, not my thing.  but some folks like cowboy action shooting, some folks like muzzleloading...whatever trips thier trigger.
> 
> hey i made a pun!
> 
> jf


 hehe....


----------



## arnisandyz (Dec 23, 2008)

Oy vey


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Dec 24, 2008)

Karate means Empty Hand. But with in Karate you have weapons like Nunchuks or Swords.

Also I study Wing Chun. But you also utilize The The Staff (Gun) Also known as *Luk Dim Boon Gwun*
And the Butterfly Swords (Hudie Shuang Dao) Also known as *Yee Jee Seung Do* 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_martial_arts_weapons


Its ironic the word Gun also means staff in Chinese...Has anyone else notice that? It could be that the early Guns were staff weapons like the bayonet. An we just kept the word Gun. There was formal training back then for the use of Guns. Martial Means War and Art means form. So I can see why we would have Gun Art since it is apart of war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_(staff)




I see some possible Gun Martial Arts depiction in the movies

*Here is a Movie scene of a Gun Kata or Form*
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqoEAc9xmak&feature=related*


*Using the Gun Kata in combat*
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbP2djP0h5g&feature=related*



*Here is a scene of Guns being used in actual combat*




 

Go on youtube and type in Gun Kata very interesting stuff.

So I suppose in my humble opion that a Gun is a weapon just like a knife, sword, staff, spear, daggers, Club, Darts, Throwing stars, Bow and Arrows. Didn't the Samurai used Swords, Spears and Shoot Arrows? Didn't the Ninja use throwing Stars and Shoot Arrows? So I guess shooting is apart of Martial Arts after all. Just depends on if your ready to include it in your Martial Arts?

Does anyone's schools Advocate gun use?


----------



## Blindside (Dec 24, 2008)

Yoshiyahu said:


> Karate means Empty Hand. But with in Karate you have weapons like Nunchuks or Swords.


 
Karate also can mean Chinese Hand or Tang Hand depending on the kanji used, and in most traditional styles, the use of nunchaku or staff or oar is taught seperately as kobodu, the sword is also taught as a seperate style such as kenjutsu, iaido, battojutsu.



> Its ironic the word Gun also means staff in Chinese...Has anyone else notice that? It could be that the early Guns were staff weapons like the bayonet. An we just kept the word Gun.


 
The term is of western origin, possibly Scandanavian, from the base word of gunn, meaning war.



> Go on youtube and type in Gun Kata very interesting stuff.


 
I like Christian Bale, but that is just a movie, and more correctly a fantasy, about as likely as Batman. 



> Does anyone schools Advocate gun use?


 
If a school is serious about self-protection, it would be foolish not to instruct on a legitimate and serious self-defense option. Or at the very least, have good recommendations of instructors to students who are interested. I have taught family and friends to shoot, but I don't have the quals to teach professionally, so I just refer interested students to those that do.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 24, 2008)

Actually making it a martial art can be done. Even a Dojo.

Consider this:

Using 'Red' ASP guns one in Dojo can practice all kinds of draws, pivots, shooting stances, barricade postions, and the like. You can also use those Red guns for disarming and retention practice. Yea, might even have some 'one step sparring' and 'self-defense' just like a Hapkido/TKD dojo.

Using Airsoft in the Dojo, with a 'range' one can then actually do some close range combat shooting practice. And one can use those same Airsofts for Force-on-Force training.

The ONLY thing not allowed in the dojo would be real guns with real ammo! Those would only be in the outdoor class at a gun range!

Now you practice this stuff twice a week for many months and I assure you, you will be GOOD. Much better than any three day class could possibly make you.

Deaf


----------



## LawDog (Dec 25, 2008)

Martial Arts - Military way to perfection.
Firearms training, to a perfection in all areas, is not easy. I have been shooting for over 50 years, I am an upper end shooter but I still don't have all areas of shooting down to the perfection level.
Martial Art it can be.
:biggun:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 25, 2008)

I see firearms as an integral part of the martial practices.  No different than knife or impact tool training.  Just one more tool system to be in a practitioners tool box if needed.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 25, 2008)

I can see the idea of a 'Gun Martial Art' existing. Lets take firing a rifle from a military point of view. In the Marines we fired from the standing, kneeling (which has three versions), sitting, and prone. At close range there's a differnit standing, and two more versions of the kneeling. I geuss you could call those stances. 
At long range, we fire Tri-Fires, Slow-Fire, and Rapid-Fire. Close range there's Control Pairs, Hammer Pairs, Presentation Drills, Failure Drills, Box Drills, Rapid Re-Loads, and so on. I geuss those would be the techniques and drills. When you get to MCT you start to do more close range fire, and unknown distance, and firing on the move. Those would more advanced techniques I geuss.
When you do the qual for each table (which is a set combination of positions, ranges, and drills) that could be called a kata. Weapons maintaince could be looked as warm up/stretching/cool down. Then you could go into other weapons (the SAW, M240 Bravo, AT4, M203, M67, various other machine guns, rocket launchers, handguns, rifles, and shotguns) those would be like dan-level material. 

So, a "Gun Martial Art" is possible, but doesn't really have much use outside of the military. Oh, and grappling is a bayonet (you either swear by it, or think it's freakin useless)


----------



## tellner (Dec 25, 2008)

The Ancient Masters would have taken one look at modern repeating firearms and ditched all the funny looking man-powered weapons in a heartbeat. And they'd have sold their kids for a few cases of ammunition.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 25, 2008)

tellner said:


> The Ancient Masters would have taken one look at modern repeating firearms and ditched all the funny looking man-powered weapons in a heartbeat. And they'd have sold their kids for a few cases of ammunition.


 
That's very true tellner! They were not stupid and wished to survive. Notice once the first serious, reliable, repeating handgun came along, swords were dropped from use among the calvary (but they kept the left handed holster worn on the right!)

Deaf


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 25, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Notice once the first serious, reliable, repeating handgun came along, swords were dropped from use among the calvary


 
There were calvary charges with _lances_ in World War I. There was no horse calvary in World War II.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 25, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> There were calvary charges with _lances_ in World War I. There was no horse calvary in World War II.


 
Very few..and for good reason.


----------



## LawDog (Dec 26, 2008)

Tellner,
so true.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 26, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> There were calvary charges with _lances_ in World War I. There was no horse calvary in World War II.


 
Actually we did. In the Philippines. U.S. 2nd Cavalry. WW2.

Polish even charged German tanks with Cavalry in '38.

http://boards.history.com/thread.jspa?threadID=520001912

Deaf


----------



## tellner (Dec 26, 2008)

And cavalry charges against tanks worked exactly as well as you'd expect. Hell, the invention of reliable repeating firearms pretty much put the kibosh to cavalry.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 26, 2008)

And you know, what is amazing is after WW1, when the machinegun showed massed assaults against them were suicide, you would think that would be the end of cavalry.

I cannot fathom how the Polish thought that would work.

I remember seeing films of our U.S. Cavalry in the Philippines practicing charges with .45 automatics back in the '30s. I mean right out of 'They came from Cordura' and Gary Cooper.

But then, even after the Mini-ball was developed, making a musket effective to 200 yards, the generals still had their troops stand, without cover, 40 yards from each other and blaze away.

Tactics are usually are slower to develop than technology. You can see that in Iraq where the terrorist still use AK-47s and 'spray-n-pray' while we use body armor, EOT/ACOG/Aimpoints, and simi-auto fire (not to mention wide use of NVD, GPS guided munitions, head set communications down to privates, and other nice goodies.)

Deaf


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 26, 2008)

tellner said:


> Hell, the invention of reliable repeating firearms pretty much put the kibosh to cavalry.


 
Trenches had these things called 'machine guns' in them. They are a reliable weapon which fires many rounds in one burst. And yet, there were still charges of horse calvary armed with swords and lances. It's amazing how the advent of better weapons will remove outdated methodologies. If the old masters were around today to see our modern firearms, they would probably still use there old style. They would just add firearms at some point. People are smart, but they are also stubborn.

Side comments:
- Tellner, if you were desperate to win a battle, you'd throw your mothers wedding ring at the enemy if you thought it might do something.

- Deaf, Horse calvary in an area of heavy jungles makes perfect sense. It's still pretty much impossible to get an armored vechicle into some areas. There usage is an exception. I'm also pretty sure you know what I meant in my statement.

- Deaf, those things make it so we can kill the enemy better, not that there tactics aren't working. Spray and pray is used because you cann't really zero an AK47, and even if you could, the insurgents dont get the marksmanship training to make it matter. The major reason troops aren't dieing _as_ quickly in Iraq and Afghanistan is because there aren't as many attacks. And the enemy has actually been learning from there mistakes, and from us. The started using snipers alot more after we sniped the crap out of them in Falujah. They've been hideing IEDs in differnit and more clever spots over the years. Suicide bombers no longer get all decked up before blowing us up. The enemy has also learned how to probe us. The enemy we are fighting is very good at what they do, don't under estiamte them just because the weapons they use are junk compared to ours.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 26, 2008)

jarrod said:


> like i said, not my thing.  but some folks like cowboy action shooting, some folks like muzzleloading...whatever trips thier trigger.
> 
> hey i made a pun!
> 
> jf



The difference is that I've never heard any SASS types claim to be teaching tactics or material relevant to modern-day usage of the firearm for combat/defense.  The period-correct clothing and weapons are strictly for the fun of it.



> Spray and pray is used because you cann't really zero an AK47,


 Whahahahaha :rofl:  dude...read more, post less.


----------



## LawDog (Dec 27, 2008)

Spray and Pray, the military and a few tact. units will use this technique from time to time. It is known as "suppression fire", "grazing fire" and so on. They do this to keep the bad guys head down so a tact. move can be done with a lower K-D ratio.
Most thought that WW I was the "war to end all wars" so they thought that spending money on the military was a waste of varuable and expensive resources that could be spent elsewhere. So the old reliable horse stayed. After all, trucks can't graze in a field or reproduce themselves.
After WW I the USA still used the horse partially because of the depression and, back then, those vehicles were not very "off road" friendly.
They were many reasons why.
The gun,(all types), is one of our histories first WMD's.
:shock:


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 27, 2008)

CuongNhuka,

Do you own an AK? I do. It can be zeroed quite well. Not as accurate as a M4, but about like a run-of-the-mill Winchester 30/30. Yes the terrorist get poor training and in fact their ability with firearms is why they went to IEDs. Notice though their methods are so effective they have lost Iraq.

The Philippines is not all jungle and cavalry is not good heavly wooded areas. Cavalry relys on shock of the charge. I've ownd a horse ranch before and I can tell you bunch of running horses is a very hard thing to stop (but machineguns, and submachineguns, do that quite well.)

And CuongNhuka, the Japanese at the first of WW2 did TRY to use swords. They found them difficult to weld when cut in half from automatic weapons fire. 

Hey LawDog, did you know Pope Innocent II, in 1139, banned crossbows for Christians fighting Christians (but he granted a dispensation for fighting Moslems or Pagans).... he considered it to effective. Of course everyone ignored his decree and they used them on each other. So I guess it was a weapon of mass destruction for it's time.

Deaf


----------



## jarrod (Dec 27, 2008)

just wanted to throw in my support of the AK.  you can hit a man sized target up to 200yrds without too much trouble, which history has proven to be enough for general, non-specialized use.

more importantly, you can use it in almost _any_ conditions.

jf


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 28, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Do you own an AK? I do. It can be zeroed quite well. Not as accurate as a M4, but about like a run-of-the-mill Winchester 30/30.


 
Don't you need a special tool to adjust the front sight? That makes it very hard to adjust if you an AK that is 40 years old. God knows were that part has gotten off to.



Deaf Smith said:


> Notice though their methods are so effective they have lost Iraq.


 
Define winning and losing. They are in Iraq. They are killing us. They are doing the same basic thing in Afghanistan, and they're doing pretty well by most standards.



Deaf Smith said:


> The Philippines is not all jungle and cavalry is not good heavly wooded areas.


 
What's going to work better, horse calvary (or infantry with a horse supply train) or a tank in a heavily wooded area/jungle?



Deaf Smith said:


> .... A bunch of running horses is a very hard thing to stop (but machineguns, and submachineguns, do that quite well.) .... the Japanese at the first of WW2 did TRY to use swords. They found them difficult to weld when cut in half from automatic weapons fire.



Thats kinda been my point through most of this thread. So, I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.

you can hit a man sized target up to 200yrds without too much trouble

Thats fine. I can hit a man sized target at 500 yards. Something tells me thats a little bit better. Part of that whole "better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it"  thing


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Dec 28, 2008)

Those drills taught to hard working law abiding fathers who desire to protect their family might be a great idea. I mean what if a Gun Wielding Crack head broke into someones house with an uzi. The father could use these tactics to advoid being killed, defend his family and kill the intruder. I mean he might do ten years for manslaugther and five years for having a illegal gun in house like Ak-47 or other Assualt rifle but he would be alive and well and his family would be alive. An in fifthteen to twenty years he would be a free man. Better to be alive in prison for two decades than to be dead and never taste the sweetness of your wife again...Wouldn't you say?





CuongNhuka said:


> I can see the idea of a 'Gun Martial Art' existing. Lets take firing a rifle from a military point of view. In the Marines we fired from the standing, kneeling (which has three versions), sitting, and prone. At close range there's a differnit standing, and two more versions of the kneeling. I geuss you could call those stances.
> At long range, we fire Tri-Fires, Slow-Fire, and Rapid-Fire. Close range there's Control Pairs, Hammer Pairs, Presentation Drills, Failure Drills, Box Drills, Rapid Re-Loads, and so on. I geuss those would be the techniques and drills. When you get to MCT you start to do more close range fire, and unknown distance, and firing on the move. Those would more advanced techniques I geuss.
> When you do the qual for each table (which is a set combination of positions, ranges, and drills) that could be called a kata. Weapons maintaince could be looked as warm up/stretching/cool down. Then you could go into other weapons (the SAW, M240 Bravo, AT4, M203, M67, various other machine guns, rocket launchers, handguns, rifles, and shotguns) those would be like dan-level material.
> 
> So, a "Gun Martial Art" is possible, but doesn't really have much use outside of the military. Oh, and grappling is a bayonet (you either swear by it, or think it's freakin useless)


----------



## tellner (Dec 28, 2008)

It's not just that "the terrorists" get poor training and therefore went to IEDs. You can't go up against armor and large groups of well-equipped soldiers who have air and artillery support if you only have small arms. It just doesn't work.

So they found ways to kill more of the enemy at a lower cost. That's simply how you fight if you want to win. In fact, it turns out that the DoD had predicted the threat before the war. But the White House didn't want to be confused with facts in their glorious little war. So they ignored it.

Are they losing? I'd say not. We've killed a bunch of them, but the effort has bankrupted the United States. The official pronouncement is that it cost us a bit over one and a half trillion (with a "T") dollars. It eviscerated the United States Army and Marine Corps. It sent American stature and prestige down the toilet. Iran was left as the regions dominant power. The entire country is being segregated along religious lines. All the minority religions including better than half a million Christians have had to flee for their lives. 

In Afghanistan the Taliban is back. They take our convoys at will. They are all over the countryside and have become the de facto government in much of the country. They have also destabilized large parts of Pakistan and have succeeded in radicalizing much of the population or at least killing and terrifying the opposition. In other words, they're doing to the US what they did to the USSR. From the day we went in there an old joke was running through my head "Hey Ivan, let's invade Afghanistan!"


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Dec 28, 2008)

So what should America do to end the terrible money problems and stop their people from dying in a senseless war?




tellner said:


> It's not just that "the terrorists" get poor training and therefore went to IEDs. You can't go up against armor and large groups of well-equipped soldiers who have air and artillery support if you only have small arms. It just doesn't work.
> 
> So they found ways to kill more of the enemy at a lower cost. That's simply how you fight if you want to win. In fact, it turns out that the DoD had predicted the threat before the war. But the White House didn't want to be confused with facts in their glorious little war. So they ignored it.
> 
> ...


----------



## jarrod (Dec 28, 2008)

coungnhuka, you cut of part of my quote 

500yrds of accuracy is clearly better than 200yrds.  it's also largely unecessary in _most_ warfare applications, & even pointless if it is at the expense of reliability.

jf


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 28, 2008)

tellner said:


> The official pronouncement is that it cost us a bit over one and a half trillion (with a "T") dollars.


 
Well considering that's over what, six years? And we just gave Wall Street and the big three auto companies about the same amount. War does cost, just as 9/11 costed. Just as the USS Cole costed. So I guess it would be better just to let the terrorist kill more. Hmmm that might cost more than a few trillion.



tellner said:


> It eviscerated the United States Army and Marine Corps. It sent American stature and prestige down the toilet. Iran was left as the regions dominant power. The entire country is being segregated along religious lines. All the minority religions including better than half a million Christians have had to flee for their lives.


 
So we have a choice, worry about what others think of us or fight? And this time, unlike Vietnam fight to win. I really don't care what France thinks of us, nor what Denmark or Sweden or some two-bit country in Africa. I do care about American lives that are killed by terrorist. If the war must go to their lands, so be it.



tellner said:


> In Afghanistan the Taliban is back. They take our convoys at will. They are all over the countryside and have become the de facto government in much of the country. They have also destabilized large parts of Pakistan and have succeeded in radicalizing much of the population or at least killing and terrifying the opposition.


 
The vast majority of provences in Afghanistan are Taliban free. They are near the Pakistan border. Yea they attack some convoys, so what? That's war. Do we run and give up? No. Iraq is almost done. Won't be long till a 'surge' comes to Afghanistan.



tellner said:


> In other words, they're doing to the US what they did to the USSR. From the day we went in there an old joke was running through my head "Hey Ivan, let's invade Afghanistan!"


 
No tellner, if you read the history of the Russian war in Afghanistan you will see WE gave them SAMs. WE gave them logistics. They were in control of 90 percent of the country. The Russians feared to leave the cities. *Kabul was rocketed nightly*.

Now they don't have a bunch of Stingers. They don't have the logistics to go far. Most of Afghanistan peaceful. Kabul is not under siege at all!

The one way we can loose Afghanistan is to run. And then what? Let it be a terrorist training ground all over again?

Deaf


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 28, 2008)

tellner said:


> You can't go up against armor and large groups of well-equipped soldiers who have air and artillery support if you only have small arms. It just doesn't work.


 
I've worn our armor. It's nice, and it will stop a 7.62 round, but it's very far from being perfect. It has plates on your chest and your back. There is nothing more then padding on your ribs. The face is exposed on the kevlar. The entire lower body (minus the crotch piece, maybe) and the arms are completly exposed. Get into a sniper position on top of a building with an AK47, and shoot a guy on the inside of the thigh. There is no armor there, and the femoral artery. And, thats a pretty easy shot if your close. 
Air and arti have there flaws. In the MOUT enviroment, you cann't use too much arti in a city full of civilians. And even the best pilots make mistakes. One of my combat instructors told us about a US tank (during the first Gulf War) getting hit by one of our planes, because the pilot thought it was Russian! Now imagine if that pilot had to hit a building in a city. I'm not sure if I really trust too many pilots to be able to precisely hit a target. When it comes down to it, we're going to use alot of infantry to acomplish alot of differnit missions, because of the danger of freindly fire, and hitting non-combatants. And those infantrymen are not perfectly protected.



tellner said:


> Are they losing? I'd say not.


 
I said that someone needed to define winning and losing.



tellner said:


> In Afghanistan the Taliban is back. They take our convoys at will. They are all over the countryside and have become the de facto government in much of the country.


 
OK, I don't know about that part. I know that Marines get well trained in how to defend our convoys, which are well armored and armed. They _attack_ our convoys at will maybe, but they don't take our convoys. And with what the Marines do when we lose a vechile, I know they don't take much of anything from us.



tellner said:


> They have also destabilized large parts of Pakistan and have succeeded in radicalizing much of the population or at least killing and terrifying the opposition.


 
We're not in Pakistan, so, I'm not sure how much of an impact we can really have in that area.



jarrod said:


> 500yrds of accuracy is clearly better than 200yrds. it's also largely unecessary in _most_ warfare applications, & even pointless if it is at the expense of reliability.


 
Like I said, "Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it". And I'd like to know what you mean by 'expense of reliabilty'. The only time (out of the thousands of rounds I've fired from 2 M16s) I've ever had a problem was when I tried to fire blanks on burst.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Dec 28, 2008)

Nope, not in Pakistan at all.
Couple, maybe a dozen missions into Pakistan, 30-40 thousand more troops heading to the big A, but you're right as always.

Nice to see the "I just got out of basic" mindset. Let us know how it is after your first tour and you've actually shot at something besides a paper target. 
That is, assuming you come back, which I do hope you do, kid.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2008)

tellner said:


> It's not just that "the terrorists" get poor training and therefore went to IEDs. You can't go up against armor and large groups of well-equipped soldiers who have air and artillery support if you only have small arms. It just doesn't work.
> 
> So they found ways to kill more of the enemy at a lower cost. That's simply how you fight if you want to win. In fact, it turns out that the DoD had predicted the threat before the war. But the White House didn't want to be confused with facts in their glorious little war. So they ignored it.
> 
> ...



Thanks to technology and training we have the upper hand......but ultimately war in asia comes down to will.  They will ultimately outlast our will.

As to the tactics, you are spot on right......there are those who claim that you can't fight an F-22 with an AK-47.......but they are mistaken.  The way you fight an F-22 with an AK-47 is to shoot the pilot while he's on the way to the pub!  Asymmetrical warfare involves thinking around the enemies strengths and using them against them.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> And I'd like to know what you mean by 'expense of reliabilty'. The only time (out of the thousands of rounds I've fired from 2 M16s) I've ever had a problem was when I tried to fire blanks on burst.


 
i'm not arguing with you on the 'have it & not need it' point'.  my m-16 jammed up on me frequently in sandy, windy conditions.  gun vs. gun debates are largely a matter of taste, i'm just saying that for my money i'll take 200yrds of definately over 500yrds of maybe, based on my experience.  

jf


----------



## tellner (Dec 29, 2008)

sgtmac, it's not just about "will". It's also about cost. They can physically continue the sort of war they are fighting indefinitely. We have to spend a metric buttload of money to fight this kind of war. We have run out of money for 10,000 mile supply lines, lasers, ammuntion by the pallet, JDAMs, air-strikes and billion dollar embassies. They are not going to run out of bodies and simple tools. 

It's also a question of the hound and the hare as in Aesop's fable. "He was running for his life. I was running for a dinner." We can go home. They can't. They are stuck with fighting this war whether they want to or not. For us it's a choice. Close to your point but not completely the same thing.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Dec 29, 2008)

Would you say an AK-47 is a better weapon when it comes to not jamming?



jarrod said:


> i'm not arguing with you on the 'have it & not need it' point'. my m-16 jammed up on me frequently in sandy, windy conditions. gun vs. gun debates are largely a matter of taste, i'm just saying that for my money i'll take 200yrds of definately over 500yrds of maybe, based on my experience.
> 
> jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2008)

tellner said:


> sgtmac, it's not just about "will". It's also about cost. They can physically continue the sort of war they are fighting indefinitely. We have to spend a metric buttload of money to fight this kind of war. We have run out of money for 10,000 mile supply lines, lasers, ammuntion by the pallet, JDAMs, air-strikes and billion dollar embassies. They are not going to run out of bodies and simple tools.
> 
> It's also a question of the hound and the hare as in Aesop's fable. "He was running for his life. I was running for a dinner." We can go home. They can't. They are stuck with fighting this war whether they want to or not. For us it's a choice. Close to your point but not completely the same thing.


 Money is, ultimately, irrelevant.......the will to spend money is less costly than the will to spend bodies.  It always comes to will and who is willing to bleed the most, whether that's red or green.  We have ZERO staying power.  We as a society have cultural ADHD.....we view history in hours and days......our enemy views history in years, decades and centuries.  

We could certainly MAKE them run out of bodies, but we lack the will for that as well.  

The last sentence is quite accurate.....for us this is an adventure, and one we wish to get over with as quickly as possible......the enemy KNOWS that all they have to do to win is out wait us.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2008)

Yoshiyahu said:


> Would you say an AK-47 is a better weapon when it comes to not jamming?


 The AK-47 is a suitable weapon for most shooters......it's accuracy isn't really an issue as it is inherently more accurate than the limited ability of the average shooter any way.  When you find the rare person who can shoot up to the gun, they can talk about the difference, but with most folks it's just parroting some line they heard.  The AK-47 in reasonably trained hands is a quite adequate instrument.......and there is much to be said for field sustainability and zero maintenance.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 29, 2008)

jarrod said:


> i'm not arguing with you on the 'have it & not need it' point'. my m-16 jammed up on me frequently in sandy, windy conditions. gun vs. gun debates are largely a matter of taste, i'm just saying that for my money i'll take 200yrds of definately over 500yrds of maybe, based on my experience.
> 
> jf


 
Well, like I said, I've never had a problem with it. I do imagine it gets differnit if you cann't properly work on it for period of 'however the hell long you're out in the feild' (there's a refernce in that quote). I'm just saying, from my experince, there is no major flaws with the weapon system. I do know that the AK47 has more stopping power, but really, if you get shot, are you going to care about that 2 mm differnce? You probably wouldn't even notice the differnce between a AK round and a pea-shooter handgun if it's somewere vital, at the range most battles have been taking place.

Like SgtMac said, it's designed to be used and abused. The AKs that are being used agianst us are (some of them atleast) the ones made in Russia during the Cold War. Some of them are over 40 years old! You could bury one of those things in a swamp, come back 5 years later and it will still fire pretty well. It's a decent weapon that was designed for a militia army. So, it's pretty easy to learn. But, as a whole, I'd perfer the M16. Don't smack it around too much, clean it, lube it, stay in practice, and you should be good to go.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 29, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> As to the tactics, you are spot on right......there are those who claim that you can't fight an F-22 with an AK-47.......but they are mistaken. The way you fight an F-22 with an AK-47 is to shoot the pilot while he's on the way to the pub! Asymmetrical warfare involves thinking around the enemies strengths and using them against them.


 
Actually I've heard of our military practicing shooting the canopy of enemy fighters while they are still on the air strip using snipers. The snipers would get withing range (.338 Laupa and .50s will do that) and wait till our attacking aircraft are geting near, but before they can scramble. Then hit the canopy's to disable the defending force till the air assault hits. After than turn the guns on the SAMs to interfear with them.

So yes, there are ways for rifles to give a modern force problems. But I just doubt the terrorist in Afghanistan have the methods to deal with UAVs, laser and GPS guided munitions, spy satelites, NVDs, and all the goodies we have and are thinking up now. See, some of the newist UAVs are the size of the mouse you use on your PC! Even have a bomb built in if desired.

And guys, any of you ever hear of a UAV aircraft carrier? That is a small 1000 ton ship with purely UAVs? I suspect this will be the way to deal with pirates soon, and maybe Taliban, from affair. The 'pilots' will be munching cheesburgers back in Houston while flying over Afghanistain, or Somali.

Yes we can outlast them if we play it right. I remember Admiral Zumwalt, back in the '60s, told the president to NOT go in land heavy (that is grunts on the ground) but to go in sea and air heavy. Of course LBJ did the opposite, and learned, at great cost, we can't keep that up for ever. It got to where we were loosing over 100 GI's a day.

We have done very very well in Iraq for what it cost us. Way less than any other war. But we can and should improve.

So don't be suprised if one day the 'Terminator' is no joke.

Deaf


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 29, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Actually I've heard of our military practicing shooting the canopy of enemy fighters while they are still on the air strip using snipers. The snipers would get withing range (.338 Laupa and .50s will do that) and wait till our attacking aircraft are geting near, but before they can scramble. Then hit the canopy's to disable the defending force till the air assault hits. After than turn the guns on the SAMs to interfear with them.
> 
> So yes, there are ways for rifles to give a modern force problems. But I just doubt the terrorist in Afghanistan have the methods to deal with UAVs, laser and GPS guided munitions, spy satelites, NVDs, and all the goodies we have and are thinking up now. See, some of the newist UAVs are the size of the mouse you use on your PC! Even have a bomb built in if desired.
> 
> ...


 
The problem is, only a person who is there seeing what is going on can tell what to do. So, Arti and Naval Guns are of limited use in this kind of war (a mainly MOUT and/or hit-n-run battles). A pilot can only do so much. I said it some were earlier, but one of my combat instructors told us a US Airforce pilot hit a Marine tank during the 1st Gulf War because the nuckle head thought it was a Russian tank! An overhead view is limiting. 

A mouse-sized UAV is cool, but it's.... well, it's stupid. In a sense. I'm geussing it would come with regular and infared sights in atleast three directions (forward, down, and back), with some form of sound transmission, and probably some awe-inspiring range. I'm geussing it's also wildly expensive to make, maintain and operate (imagine the cost of a battery pack for that thing). There's probably also a delay from when something happens near the machine and when the pilot back in Offut Airforce Base finds out about it. And I'm sure there are ways to jam it's transmissions (copper wire jams cell phone signels, and might do something similar with a UAV communications). A UAV is a great tool, don't get me wrong, but the chances of it, or anything else, replacing guys in the feild completly.... well, I just don't see it happening in my life time. It's be awesome if it did though.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Actually I've heard of our military practicing shooting the canopy of enemy fighters while they are still on the air strip using snipers. The snipers would get withing range (.338 Laupa and .50s will do that) and wait till our attacking aircraft are geting near, but before they can scramble. Then hit the canopy's to disable the defending force till the air assault hits. After than turn the guns on the SAMs to interfear with them.
> 
> So yes, there are ways for rifles to give a modern force problems. But I just doubt the terrorist in Afghanistan have the methods to deal with UAVs, laser and GPS guided munitions, spy satelites, NVDs, and all the goodies we have and are thinking up now. See, some of the newist UAVs are the size of the mouse you use on your PC! Even have a bomb built in if desired.
> 
> ...


 We can't outlast them.......we lack the cultural attention span to outlast them.  If it takes more than a TV season to resolve a complex situation in America, we think someone has screwed up.  Decades? What the hell is that?

We are technology heavy as a nation, and we rely too much on it.  We think we can create a techno-marvel to deal with every problem.....F-22's, UAV's, the next new super-widget........those things are great, but ultimately wars are not won that way.  

Wars are won by will........and as long as our enemy believes all he has to do is outlast the current administration, we're always behind the power curve.


----------



## searcher (Dec 29, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> And guys, any of you ever hear of a UAV aircraft carrier? That is a small 1000 ton ship with purely UAVs? I suspect this will be the way to deal with pirates soon, and maybe Taliban, from affair. The 'pilots' will be munching cheesburgers back in Houston while flying over Afghanistain, or Somali.
> 
> Deaf


 

The way to deal with the Taliban is _Tactical Nuclear Weapons_.   I knwo that it might be considered a little over the top, but it would save American lives.   And with controlled payloads, it would minimize collateral damage.


And while I am at it, remember what happened when the Terminators were created.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> The problem is, only a person who is there seeing what is going on can tell what to do. So, Arti and Naval Guns are of limited use in this kind of war (a mainly MOUT and/or hit-n-run battles). A pilot can only do so much. I said it some were earlier, but one of my combat instructors told us a US Airforce pilot hit a Marine tank during the 1st Gulf War because the nuckle head thought it was a Russian tank! An overhead view is limiting.
> 
> A mouse-sized UAV is cool, but it's.... well, it's stupid. In a sense. I'm geussing it would come with regular and infared sights in atleast three directions (forward, down, and back), with some form of sound transmission, and probably some awe-inspiring range. I'm geussing it's also wildly expensive to make, maintain and operate (imagine the cost of a battery pack for that thing). There's probably also a delay from when something happens near the machine and when the pilot back in Offut Airforce Base finds out about it. And I'm sure there are ways to jam it's transmissions (copper wire jams cell phone signels, and might do something similar with a UAV communications). A UAV is a great tool, don't get me wrong, but the chances of it, or anything else, replacing guys in the feild completly.... well, I just don't see it happening in my life time. It's be awesome if it did though.



What success has been gained in Afghanistan and Iraq have been low-key, small unit operations.  This is a 4GW conflict that can't be won with 500 pound bombs.  There is much truth in the notion that ever dead non-combatant killed as the result of collateral damage creates 10 insurgents.  

But the military has done a wonderful job adapting to that reality in the past couple of years, and using tactics that work to fight this kind of conflict.   Ultimately, though, I still don't believe we have the political will to sustain it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2008)

searcher said:


> The way to deal with the Taliban is _Tactical Nuclear Weapons_.   I knwo that it might be considered a little over the top, but it would save American lives.   And with controlled payloads, it would minimize collateral damage.
> 
> 
> And while I am at it, remember what happened when the Terminators were created.


 Tactical Nuclear Weapons to deal with the Taliban is like burning your house down to cure a roach problem.  Such things are a visceral joy to say, but they really don't make sense in practice.

Moreover, you have 1 Billion Muslims on the planet, with 10 percent qualifying as 'fundamentalists'.......drop a nuclear device in such a conflict on a Muslim population and you've just declared war on the entire religion.......and created sympathy and support for them from Russia and China.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 29, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> The problem is, only a person who is there seeing what is going on can tell what to do.



Fortunately, that is no longer true.  There are most certainly some jobs that can ONLY be done by a human on location, in fact, there are many jobs that require a man.  But technology is moving fast and there are people behind the controls of any unmanned vehicle.  And they can see just as much, if not more than the men in the field.  Of course, I'm thinking from a much more broad perspective than banging down doors.  UVs are not robots or AI, they are an extension of a person.



CuongNhuka said:


> So, Arti and Naval Guns are of limited use in this kind of war (a mainly MOUT and/or hit-n-run battles). A pilot can only do so much. I said it some were earlier, but one of my combat instructors told us a US Airforce pilot hit a Marine tank during the 1st Gulf War because the nuckle head thought it was a Russian tank! An overhead view is limiting.



I realize that you heard this story from someone and if you search the news, you will find plenty more instances of pilots firing on the wrong targets...including embassies, hospitals, friendly tanks, troops, you name it.  But remember, there are plenty of ground troop friendly fire instances as well.  Despite what you may see in movies, target selection isn't a bunch of guys flying around blowing up what they feel like.  It is based on a great deal of intelligence and targeting tracking and identification technology that is beyond what you can probably imagine.  When mistakes like this happen, the system broke.  It happens everywhere.



CuongNhuka said:


> A mouse-sized UAV is cool, but it's.... well, it's stupid. In a sense. I'm geussing it would come with regular and infared sights in atleast three directions (forward, down, and back), with some form of sound transmission, and probably some awe-inspiring range. I'm geussing it's also wildly expensive to make, maintain and operate (imagine the cost of a battery pack for that thing). There's probably also a delay from when something happens near the machine and when the pilot back in Offut Airforce Base finds out about it. And I'm sure there are ways to jam it's transmissions (copper wire jams cell phone signels, and might do something similar with a UAV communications). A UAV is a great tool, don't get me wrong, but the chances of it, or anything else, replacing guys in the feild completly.... well, I just don't see it happening in my life time. It's be awesome if it did though.



Wow....I would say that you better get used to the idea and a lot sooner than you think.  The Marines and Army are already using UAVs that are about the size of a bird.  EOD in all services uses Robots that come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes for a wide variety of USES.  If I had a Chemical detection UV, no matter the size that could go sample without putting a human in harm's way - I'll take it.  Nanotechnologies are progressing at rates that you can't imagine.  The size of boards and speed of processing is doubling almost every year.

As for how UAVs actually work and whether they can be interfered with or jammed....well, I really can't talk about that in open forum, but let's just say that we don't have to worry about it happening....we've thought of that.  REALLY REALLY smart people have thought of that.

Personally, as the person who would have to write a letter to a parent, damn the cost, if we can replace ANY troop with a UV or UAV, I say do it.  The technology is there to see MUCH more than any human can.  We still have a ways to go in terms of dexterity and there are some jobs that will NEVER be taken over, but we WILL see unmanned land combat vehicles in our lifetime.....even in our military tenure.  I believe that we will also see the practical elimination of manned combat flights.  Having a live pilot doesn't make sense any more.  A UAV can do more, faster, more effectively for FAR cheaper with no danger to a human.  Yes, UAVs are cheaper than manned aircraft.

BUT, I fear that we have again moved pretty far from the beaten path of this thread.  Our art's founder's use of weapons and the creation of a gun martial art is pretty far from where we've gotten to!


----------



## The Last Legionary (Dec 29, 2008)

I love you guys. Letting a boot bug you out.  Give it some time.  Soon as his cherry pops and he's brownstained his shorts, he'll get it. He don't get that he's talking vets who've already been there, done that.  Rather than telling you lot his boot tales shouldn't he be Yes Siring ya'll?

How do you make a booty drop and give you 40 on a chat site?  :rofl:


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 29, 2008)

The Last Legionary said:


> I love you guys. Letting a boot bug you out.  Give it some time.  Soon as his cherry pops and he's brownstained his shorts, he'll get it. He don't get that he's talking vets who've already been there, done that.  Rather than telling you lot his boot tales shouldn't he be Yes Siring ya'll?
> 
> How do you make a booty drop and give you 40 on a chat site?  :rofl:



hahaha.....I consider it training tomorrow's NCOs!

Anyway, I'm in the Air Force....I don't think I've EVER made someone do push ups.  I have told people to knock off all the saluting and "sir"ing though.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Dec 29, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> Fortunately, that is no longer true.


 
You know very well that I meant that only in refernce to Arti and Naval guns in a MOUT enviroment.



MBuzzy said:


> I realize that you heard this story from someone and if you search the news, you will find plenty more instances of pilots firing on the wrong targets...including embassies, hospitals, friendly tanks, troops, you name it. But remember, there are plenty of ground troop friendly fire instances as well. Despite what you may see in movies, target selection isn't a bunch of guys flying around blowing up what they feel like. It is based on a great deal of intelligence and targeting tracking and identification technology that is beyond what you can probably imagine. When mistakes like this happen, the system broke. It happens everywhere.


 
I know, but I have a feeling that it is easier to tell the nationality of a tank if you have a front view.



MBuzzy said:


> Wow....I would say that you better get used to the idea and a lot sooner than you think. The Marines and Army are already using UAVs that are about the size of a bird. EOD in all services uses Robots that come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes for a wide variety of USES. If I had a Chemical detection UV, no matter the size that could go sample without putting a human in harm's way - I'll take it. Nanotechnologies are progressing at rates that you can't imagine. The size of boards and speed of processing is doubling almost every year.


 
I hope I am wrong. I just have a feeling that there is going to be quite a long time till the entire military is being operated out of a computer room somewere under a mountain.



MBuzzy said:


> Personally, as the person who would have to write a letter to a parent, damn the cost, if we can replace ANY troop with a UV or UAV, I say do it. The technology is there to see MUCH more than any human can.


 
And I agree. But, do the pencil pusers in Washington agree? Thats the problem. For pretty much everything (expect flights) a UAV would be massivly more expensive. Thats why I think it will be awhile before we see the large-scale use of UAVs in the military.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 29, 2008)

Yoshiyahu said:


> Would you say an AK-47 is a better weapon when it comes to not jamming?


 
yes, AKs are famously reliable & will operate in the most extreme conditions.

as sgtmac said, they shoot better than most shooters.

jf


----------



## searcher (Dec 30, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Tactical Nuclear Weapons to deal with the Taliban is like burning your house down to cure a roach problem. Such things are a visceral joy to say, but they really don't make sense in practice.
> 
> Moreover, you have 1 Billion Muslims on the planet, with 10 percent qualifying as 'fundamentalists'.......drop a nuclear device in such a conflict on a Muslim population and you've just declared war on the entire religion.......and created sympathy and support for them from Russia and China.


 

And we all saw how that didn't work with Japan in WWII:shrug:.   I did not say it was an ideal situation, but I still think it would serve its purpose.


----------



## jarrod (Dec 30, 2008)

searcher said:


> And we all saw how that didn't work with Japan in WWII:shrug:. I did not say it was an ideal situation, but I still think it would serve its purpose.


 
one of the major differences is that japan operated with a centralized government which could issue a surrender.  in this case, we're not at war with a nation, but with "terror".  i don't know who surrenders on terror's behalf.

jf


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 30, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I realize that you heard this story from someone and if you search the news, you will find plenty more instances of pilots firing on the wrong targets...including embassies, hospitals, friendly tanks, troops, you name it. But remember, there are plenty of ground troop friendly fire instances as well. Despite what you may see in movies, target selection isn't a bunch of guys flying around blowing up what they feel like. It is based on a great deal of intelligence and targeting tracking and identification technology that is beyond what you can probably imagine. When mistakes like this happen, the system broke. It happens everywhere.


 
But to take the kids side, when a flyboy ****s up and drops a few 500 lb'ers on a hospital the end result is gonna be worse than when a few grunts fire off a bunch of rounds in the wrong direction. Boots on the ground was..is...and will always be the only way to impose your military will effectively on an enemy nation IMO.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 30, 2008)

jarrod said:


> yes, AKs are famously reliable & will operate in the most extreme conditions.
> 
> as sgtmac said, they shoot better than most shooters.
> 
> jf


 
Depends on the range...a Marine would never be able to do at 500 M with an AK what he can do with an M16A2. For that matter I dont think I could hit the 300 M Army pop-up with an AK as easily as I did with the M16. For the range and purpose it was designed for though, and for the level of care and training the soldier carrying it was to get, the AK was the ideal design..


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 30, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> But to take the kids side, when a flyboy ****s up and drops a few 500 lb'ers on a hospital the end result is gonna be worse than when a few grunts fire off a bunch of rounds in the wrong direction.



That's a great point, they have a lot more latitude to cause MUCH more damage.  I suppose that is why they have so many more checks and balances.  I mean, the only thing that keeps an infantry member from firing into a crowd or popping off some civilians is training and morality.  It is a little harder for a pilot to fire, they get more training, and are monitored a lot more closely, but they still screw up.  And you're right, when they do, it is MUCH worse than when someone on the ground screws up.



Archangel M said:


> Boots on the ground was..is...and will always be the only way to impose your military will effectively on an enemy nation IMO.



I think that the only way to effectively impose your will is through the combination of military capability.  At least in today's world, ground troops are much less effective without air support and air support can clear out some OPFOR before the ground troops get there.  Air Support can't occupy territory or talk to locals.  And NO ONE can get ANYWHERE without the Navy or AF's transportation.  

In the end, the ground troops are the ones who occupy territory and kick down doors.  But there is a long tail of the spear....they can't do it without the help of all of the other services.

This is of course in today's world.  Before airplanes, Air Forces weren't needed....but now other people have planes, so we need them to compete.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 30, 2008)

searcher said:


> And we all saw how that didn't work with Japan in WWII:shrug:.   I did not say it was an ideal situation, but I still think it would serve its purpose.


 WWII was industrial war where we were fighting a government with an industrial base, that industrial base being the strategic resources.  In any war the way to win is to attack the strategic resources of the enemy.  

The problem is that you've misidentified the strategic resources of the Taliban.  This is 4GW......not only would your idea not be 'ideal'.....it would only SERVE the purpose of the Global Jihadists.  Yeah, you might nuke a couple thousand Taliban......and create a MILLION more global jihadists in the process.

Japan is a very poor analogy, as Japan was a nation-state, a government, that the people were loyal to.  Remove the government or make it capitulate, and the conflict is over. In fact, with long established nation states like Germany and Japan, once the central government capitulates there is no question that fighting will shortly end due to the long tradition of civil government

Fundamentalist ISLAM is not a government, it's an ideology, and it's leadership is decentralized.  It's not like fighting an enemy with a single brain.  It's like fighting a roach infestation in your house.....burning the house down isn't a solution.  You have to fight the problem on a multitude of levels.....you must attack the individual bugs themselves by attacking and killing them, but you must also work to clean up the cultural and political situations that attract them and allow them to grow!


----------



## elder999 (Jan 7, 2009)

Blindside said:


> I understand the origin of the term, but a koryu art on the use of matchlocks isn't exactly the same as clearing a jam in an AR.


 

Yeah...of course, there's this little gem I acquired recently:


----------



## Carol (Jan 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Yeah...of course, there's this little gem I acquired recently:



Thats because in Japan, all fighting with modern weapons begins while standing in Nanami Heiko Dachi :rofl:


----------



## tellner (Jan 7, 2009)

Elder, if I ever have to fight someone who has been trained in gun and knife technique I sincerely hope it's one of this clown's students.


----------

