with all their history of modern warfare do it too.
Don’t ask … just read this snippet for a clue:
The tank crews who participated in the first Chechen war insistently demanded that the tanks were equipped with closed machine-gun installations, such as is present on the T-90. But officials in cosy offices did not understand the risk to the tank commander if they were to climb out of the hatch, under the crossfire of bullets and shrapnel, and open fire from the mounted heavy machine gun …
—then go think that perhaps the differences aren’t really all that great. They too (the damn’ Russkies) have guys who ‘make fortunes selling inferior bootlaces to the armed forces’ ~ no?
had the answer to such criticisms in World War One when the damned pilots were asking (out loud, for Gawd’s sake~!) (in public, even!) why it was that if The Hun had his plane shot out from underneath him, or set on fire, he could simply get out and walk; but they …
The Brits in their time-honoured way stated that it was far better if their pilots didn’t have parachutes—’cos without them they’d bring the planes back and wouldn’t be tempted to abandon still serviceable aircraft. Now we know …
not to make any form of comment here: it is claimed that the US Navy recently fired off fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles at … lots … of dollars each, and some twenty-three of them actually hit Syria. Wow!
there’d be a few fewer wars and other unpleasantries if the guys who sell the stuff to the forces are made to go along with their masterpieces and use ’em. Or at least if we did still have wars we could guarantee that the tools would be the very best the makers could produce …
that insisting that anyone voting for a war have his own flesh-and-blood serving in the front lines—not as officers, but as basic grunts at the front—would be a dream too far? (Donald—are you copying all this?)