discord wrote:geo: americans and their throw money at it solutions, using a javelin AT missile system against some ragheads, the guy firing it if he saved every penny he earns for a year, he would not afford the weapon system he just fired, the target could not afford it if they saved their income for their whole bloody life, that is not economically defensible imho.
why not just make the M203 under barrel grenade launcher standard kit, a hell of a lot cheaper and gives the troops the extra firepower they need in most cases(not counting tanks) but no, that is not cool enough or something.
now that i think about it, the problem is probably that it does not COST enough, not enough profit margin for the industry and too much competition.
The M72 LAW costs around $900 for the British (or apparently ~ $2000 if you're a US negotiator; I wonder if the rounds came with the Corinthian Leather accessory package?) and weighs ~5.5 pounds, the AT4 costs around $1500 and weighs ~15 pounds, and the Javelin is $78000 and weighs ~50 pounds. Soo... pretty sure that the most common missile for US infantry to fire at anyone is the LAW, followed by the AT4,
not the Javelin, which they probably only carry in vehicles, because it's freaking 50 pounds. You
don't carry a lot of those things around, you carry LAWs, and maybe an AT4 if you feel like exercising that day.
Karst45 wrote:wasp609 wrote:id rather use the orbital friendship cannon.
what about thermal discouragement beam?
Orbital friendship cannons are what you use if the scorch marks come out too easy
.
Arioch wrote:The Hellfire missiles launched from drones to kill terrorists allegedly cost about $68,000 apiece. I say it's money well-spent. Even from a purely financial point of view, a single terrorist can cause a whole lot more than $68,000 worth of damage, and losing a single soldier (in terms of death benefits and recruiting a replacement) also costs a lot more than $68,000.
Regretfully, every once in a while you can't help getting the feeling that our target choices suck. How many negotiation attempts have we ended by shooting the negotiators, now? I'm all for running out of guys to shoot, but it sometimes feels like we're taking the scenic route (through rather non-scenic
deserts, none the less) to get there...
icekatze wrote:One wonders when murdering people became a financial equation, and at what point due process became too much of a bother to worry about.
To the best of my knowledge, the first peace treaty was negotiated between Egypt and the Hittites. Given that both empires already existed, and the war was over territory, we can be supremely confident that the financial equation in war came long before that. And likely before writing. After all, even animals sometimes do it.
icekatze wrote:I can't imagine how different a world we would live in today if in 1215, while the Barons of England rebelled against King John, they rolled out high explosives instead of the Magna Carta.
I'm certain the result would have been a much more expensive intermittent war between the various aristocrats, hence a likely reason why they kept him as a figurehead. Sometimes you're the top dog, sometimes you're just the excuse used to keep the civil wars affordable...
icekatze wrote:I suppose it has always been an economical equation for those who stand to reap the profits, but for everyone else who doesn't benefit monetarily I would wager there's something else.
There is such a thing as self-defense, whether poorly implemented or otherwise, yes. Things tend to work out better for your civilization if you actually put the occasional effort into it. It's actually more important than social services, incomprehensible as that may seem. Violence (no matter how much this sentence upsets people) is a form of communication, and in the case of violence applied in reaction to the actions of another, can be an important one. Assuming that they're actually thinking about your actions, instead of indulging their emotions. To completely remove violence is the same as saying that the importance of the rules whose violation it tends to result from are greatly overrated, and not to be taken too seriously.
fredgiblet wrote:icekatze wrote:One wonders when murdering people became a financial equation, and at what point due process became too much of a bother to worry about.
The victors have ALWAYS written the histories and the losers have ALWAYS been crucified.
There are of course exceptions (e.g. Japan), but they mostly serve to illustrate the rule.
fredgiblet wrote:discord wrote:ice: war has always been an economical equation, unless it's collective insanity.
Truth, as in everything else, follow the money.
A little too specific for reliability, "benefit" or "gain" is better than "money" in the case of war.
fredgiblet wrote:It's a shitty situation, but there is NO likely bloodless solution. If we leave there's a possibility that Afghanistan will limp by and hold out against the darkness, but the likely result is a backslide and more terrorism.
The worst thing about it is that the military and police are possibly the only parts of the government worth our attention at the moment. The current assessment is supposedly that they'd keep fighting the Taliban even if the Kabul government fell, and at least then we'd have a relatively fresh slate.