09eb96a0   
   From: dwalker@cs.rochester.edu   
      
   On 14 Nov 2003, FixinDixon wrote:   
      
   > >   
   > > I would guess it's meant to be "extraordinarily profound" in the sense   
   > > that it led to big changes.  It could easily be argued that the   
   > > development of automatic weapons was the biggest factor in the evolution   
   > > of infantry in the 20th century.   
   >   
   > A) Guns aren't pretty, cool or elegant.  IMO, they are cold, blunt and   
   > about as subtle as a sweaty man's BO.  The machine-gun is a pet hate   
   > of mine.   
   > B) The role of the General Infantry man has not changed since 1914,   
   > when most of them were still using rifles.  Granted the machine gun   
   > was present in WW1, but not at a GI level.  Tactically, the GI is   
   > still used as a seizing force, used to obtain positions, manoever   
   > where vehicles can't etc.  The loci of wars have changed (thankfully   
   > we no longer grind men to dust in trenches), but IMO the GI   
   > him/herself has not changed.   
   >   
      
   I was referring to development of infantry in terms of not getting killed.   
   And I agree that it's not a pretty, cool or elegant device, but the thrust   
   of my argument was that it has had an extremely powerful effect on the   
   development of warfare, and thus the use of "profound" is warranted (in a   
   specific sense of the word, of course).   
      
   > I'm not sure what will be its   
   > > 21st-century equivalent, perhaps these super-strong lightweight ceramics   
   > > that were featured in an issue of Chemical & Engineering News a few months   
   > > back.  Of course, this will be more a defense revolution than offense.   
   >   
   > Weapons and armour have always evolved like this.  Club causes shield   
   > causes sword causes chainmail causes arrows causes plate mail causes   
   > stilleto daggers causes REALLY THICK plate mail.  Stalemate until   
   > rifles are perfected (around 1610-40 in Europe).  Rifle causes heavy   
   > chest plate causes cannons causes slow reduction of armour.  1345 -   
   > Battle of Bannockburn.  Those who could afford it, and most of those   
   > who couldn't, we're armoured.  1745 - Very little armour indeed.  1945   
   > - still no armour except tanks.  Vietnam - flack jackets make an   
   > appearance.  Now armour is standard issue again, so weapons are   
   > becoming better (e.g. armour peircing bullets etc).  Which means we're   
   > due armour improvements and then a new weapon in the next 50 years or   
   > so.   
   >   
      
   Not to mention all the artillery/vehicular developments that the Pentagon   
   is calling for.  The U.S. really is in an arms race with itself, and it's   
   all being covered with taxpayer dollars.  I'm almost wishing we had some   
   sort of direct democracy system with respect to the budget so that the   
   people would have some sort of direct influence on how money gets spent.   
   But then we'd have to deal less with the problems of corruption and more   
   with the problems of people being uninformed.   
      
   > > I think Michael Moore ...   
   >   
   > The only man that stops a great number of people claiming that all   
   > Americans are ignorant.  The man kicks proverbial.  Just had a   
   > thought...is he Canadian?   
   >   
      
   Not unless you count Flint, Michigan as part of Canada.  Though that is   
   pretty close.  A lot of people think he is Canadian since his work is   
   funded largely by Canadian organizations, but he's just as American as me,   
   even if people don't want to admit that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)