Re: XM-25 is US Military's PK-Rocket

**SharinganTH1422** · 01-18-2010, 03:16 PM

...Plus the minor fact that you're butchering large masses of people. Just in case anyone forgot about that.

**Sluggo78** · 01-18-2010, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Cheburash

Frag-12 grenade round for a 12-ga shotgun.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c[/media]
In particular 4:25 and on. No preset detonation range option, but it has one distinct advantage over the XM-25.

That shotgun is featured in CoD MW2
sorry for re-posting that...

to add on to the convo mercenary is having...

In the fight we are in, there is nothing we can do against terrorists. More and more die, but more and more come into the fight. At this point, terrorist groups are lowering their standards in frightening people. As you guys know there have been some recent attempts on hi-jacking planes. Its come to a point where people will see reports of gunfire, explosions, or bomb threats, to be the doing of terrorists or muslims as most americans see it. In fact, thats what Al Quaeda wants... as far as i can see it, they are striking fear. In the most intelligent way possible. When you guys go on about collateral dmg is the best way to win a war... not this time, its more about intel and limited number of soldiers hitting the terriorists where it hurts. Its also kind of wierd how the military keeps inventing guns, but never uses them. They make it sound like its only for the soul use of killing excess bad guys and maybe a few civilians who happen to be there at the time. They should be focusing on leaders, and stop wasting money on airstrikes where its not needed

**Groshak** · 01-18-2010, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by sordavie

The way to win such a war is to cause as much collateral damage as possible.

what the hell!? i totally disagree! but it would be off topic if i would start that this discussion. i only can hope, that you think it is the only way, but not, that we should do it this way.

**sordavie** · 01-18-2010, 04:47 PM

I didn't say it was the only way. And I didn't say we should do it this way. But we have a very cosmopolitan view of war these days. But war is not a nice thing. War are brutal by its very nature. One wages a war by killing the enemy until they submit. That's what war is about - the butchering of people of a political community until they submit to the will of your political community. Don't think that merely targeting combatants alone because those combatants deserve to be killed somehow makes it better. Our soldiers are combatants too, they don't deserve to be killed anymore than noncombatants.

The suggestion is not to wage a campaign of genocide. Waging a war with minimal restrictions is a different concept than genocide. When we wage a war with many restrictions, the enemy, if they don't agree to follow these limiting conventions can easily exploit them. For instance by not targeting any perceived noncombatants, the enemy can attempt to disguise themselves and hide noncombatants. In some cases, they can exploit these advantages to hold out indefinitely against a superior force. In such cases, the superior force needs to change it's doctrine of warfare or else give up.

If we're not ready and willing to do that and it doesn't look like we're making much headway with our current doctrine, then we should probably give up. Because our resources could be better used doing other things.

**SharinganTH1422** · 01-18-2010, 05:08 PM

Continuing the discussion in the Sandbox since this will be locked if we keep this discussion going here, and I'd rather we continued it:

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...ml#post1432786

Admins feel free to move posts to that forum if necessary.

[/derail]

Thread Tools

Display