VJ Day (Victory over Japan)

[SARGE]

I've been playing devils advocate somewhat here - although I believe that children, woman and men going about their normal daily duties should be considered as innocent, even if others in the locality were involved in directly supporting Japan's war effort (and this includes farming I guess?). Justified targets to me are members of the armed services, those in direct supporting roles of the armed services (including industrial facilities - which can be specifically targeted), military apparatus (including buildings) members of national security organisations and first in line, every time, the politicians.

1) defense / early warning capabilities - Radar installations, AA/ missile batteries, lookout towers
2) Command and control - government buildings, command structure, communications (including civilian broadcasting)
3) infrastructure - Roads,bridges,runways, power generation, water
4) industrial capabilities - factories, mines, agricultural facilities
5) standing military.. anything that can fight back, ammo dumps

[Biff]

1) defense / early warning capabilities - Radar installations, AA/ missile batteries, lookout towers
2) Command and control - government buildings, command structure, communications (including civilian broadcasting)
3) infrastructure - Roads,bridges,runways, power generation, water
4) industrial capabilities - factories, mines, agricultural facilities
5) standing military.. anything that can fight back, ammo dumps

Yup - fully agree.

Shame about the collatoral damage targetting quasi-civilian facilities does though.

[Hitcher]

Shame about the collatoral damage targetting quasi-civilian facilities does though.

You mean people get killed or maimed?

[Biff]

You mean people get killed or maimed?

Accidently of course.

[mstriumph]

............................But your understanding of the word pacifist is totally different to mine (and the dictionary, my desktop dictionary describing a pacifist as "one opposed to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action".), so on this point we are indeed miles apart.

.....................The really GREAT thing about language is that it's a living thing ........ and it evolves.
This makes dictionaries an acceptable historic record but a questionable current authority.... nevertheless, the stated definition describes me at least in part.

this is interesting - but going off in too many directions for the thread ....... good talking to you though

[mstriumph]

Thanks.....................

1) defense / early warning capabilities - Radar installations, AA/ missile batteries, lookout towers
2) Command and control - government buildings, command structure, communications (including civilian broadcasting)
3) infrastructure - Roads,bridges,runways, power generation, water
4) industrial capabilities - factories, mines, agricultural facilities
5) standing military.. anything that can fight back, ammo dumps

[SARGE]

... and glorify sending their sons to their deaths by suicide ...

lotta that going around nowdays too...

[TwoSeven]

But they do make a very nice vehicle for transport of our troops, comment is made that we need amphibious/tracked vehicles...i'm not convinced. If we need to get across a river that's what the engineers are for. This discussion could go on forever. I think Lav's are choice.

I was of the same school of thought, but a quick study of the NZDF explains why wheeled LAVs and not Tracked ones. I'll try and explain it, but the explanation requires some knowledge of the effects of military doctrine.

The easist explanation is cost. A tracked vehicle costs more to run that a wheeled one (at least double). Very hard to justify when you have a population limiting fixed budget

The best known Tracked vehicle is the british Warrior with a 30mm Rarden cannon, a Hughes chain gun, and lmg. It has crew of 2 (important) and carries 8 troops. The other vehicle is the tracked AFV432 which is due to be replaced and does a similar role to the LAV.

The reason why the British use these two vehicles is one of doctrine. Their entire combat facing force is now structured using the concept of the battlegroup. In fact, each one that exists is now a fully armoured battlegroup. Each battlegroup consists of 600 personel and equipement to be fully self sufficient. They are also joined together when needed.

The big key point is that their Battlegroups are combat forward facing. This means they are likely to see combat in a combat scenario (you need to understand the 3 layer positional doctrine they use). So equipment needs to withstand being shot at by some pretty heavy muck when working in the layer 1 role.

In layer 2, soldiers are not directly facing and interacting with the enemy. They may come into a hostile scenario, but its usually only because they are attacked (dont confuse this with rear echelon, or supply/logistics/engineers - these guys are still combat troops, but they are to hold objectives, rather than seize them).

In layer 2, you dont need heavily armored muck, but you do need mobility - this is what LAVs are used for - and every country uses them (NZ is not unique). They only use a 7 man squad rather than an 8 man squad which also changes the way the infantry unit can be used (not to mention crew sizes).

If you study NZs proposed military doctrine, you will find that the NZ armed forces are being designed (unfortunately, the local military planners are crap) to be layer 2 only. So they wont be put in forward facing combat roles (eg. fat chance of going to Iraq), but they may find themselves being attacked (mad mullahs in afganistan).

So, why waste money on purchasing expensive equipment designed for strategic combat when you will never use it. Its much better to spend that money on getting stuff that you really will use.

Personally after some thought on the issue, I agree with the strategy. NZDF personell are much better suited to layer 2 at the moment, primarily because to move forward to layer 1 means a shitload more communications and transport and artilary systems need to be purchased and that isnt due to happen for at least the next decade (although they are going to do it). From a more personal view - l dont think the key people in the army (in command situations) actually have the skill to work at layer 1.

[SARGE]

you seem to have a great grasp of the Military TwoSeven.. im guessing NZ Army?.. good for you man..sending greenies your way for your service

[TwoSeven]

i'm a pom - so no NZ army.

I just study the politics of military stuff - its related to business strategy, which is something I do

[Hitcher]

Personally after some thought on the issue, I agree with the strategy. NZDF personell are much better suited to layer 2 at the moment, primarily because to move forward to layer 1 means a shitload more communications and transport and artilary systems need to be purchased and that isnt due to happen for at least the next decade (although they are going to do it). From a more personal view - l dont think the key people in the army (in command situations) actually have the skill to work at layer 1.

Condemned to a future as pogues only. Sad, very sad. So the LAVs are designed to take NZ forces forward for medical attention if they get paper cuts...

[inlinefour]

And why do we need to celebrate it? The only good thing about past wars is that they are over...

[Lou Girardin]

And why do we need to celebrate it? The only good thing about past wars is that they are over...

I don't know that we celebrate them, but remembering is a good thing. It helps us avoid future conflicts, it's a shame that so few do remember. The Merkins for one, if they remembered Vietnam, they wouldn't have gone to Iraq.

[TwoSeven]

There is an old quote: Learning from the past helps avoid the mistakes of the future.

The thing that worries me is that kids (under 20s) no longer learn history. All they learn is from those celibrations each year. Half of em dont even know why they celibrate stuff.

[rammstein636]

-Who ever it was that said we could purchase a rover for each person in a LAV probably dosn't realise a 5.56 round would be lethal to anyone in that vehicle.

-And after that huge message about the LAV's Two Seven, I'm almost convinced you know what your talking about. Yeap perhaps we are 'behind the lines' for the most part, but we do have people in Iraq. (but yeap not frontline).
However your P3 project joke calling needs revision, Constists of 1 orion being kitted with Thales systems?

How about 6 orions being completely overhauled with new navigation and communications equipment, new crypto equipment enabling the messages to be sent straight from air instead of relaying via HF/other old methods, Ground radar imaging, and top of the line video monitering enabling the tracking of both naval vessels and aircraft from a huge range thus massively increasing the SAR/Maritime patrol capability.

And to the nuclear topic...I don't really know the true effects of it, but isn't it greener than using gas? I mean sure there is a very small risk of meltdown or whatever, but the actual waste is fairly minimal and easily contained...and as for it being huge and ugly......i'd have to say that's what a hydro dam is.
I'm all for windpower though. Not sure that's efficient enough though...but pretty cool.