171–180 of 599 posts
4x more soldiers killed themselves than died in combat since 9/11. [0] At least 2X more soldiers kill themselves in peacetime than die in combat in every war that we as a species has tracked suicide rates for veterans. [0]( https://www.npr.org/2021/06/24/1009846329/military-suicides-... )
I'm not sure if I would have made it if I'd been born into a world without computers.
This is the kind of research I've been yearning to see on suicide. Just telling people not to, or to call a hotline, seemed like the worst most patronizing advice as it never solved the underlying thing. I've since learned that there is a subset of suicidal people where that's enough, where the suicidal tendency is a kneejerk decision that can be disrupted, but it bugged me that its not serving everyone that becomes…
One way to think about it is via the concept of body autonomy/sovereignty: your life is in your hands. IMHO dignified peaceful suicide should be a right granted to all free individuals. If one is free to live, why is one not free to die? But that is too radical of an idea, and upsets all sorts of people (especially the money men) Sometimes opting out is the only rational choice. If there is no support in society for…
It really does seem like projection.
In the US, neighbors will pay for your funeral but not your insulin. Collective disinterest in being confronted with the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't do anything without $40 billion of air assets circling their position providing cover and get pissy when you tell them they have to shave and can't paint their weapons arbitrary colors. Also they're all on drugs and will kill you if you report them for embezzling unit funds.
> Also they're all on drugs and will kill you if you report them for embezzling unit funds. This is maybe not too related to the brain damage stuff (or maybe it is?), but I don't think the wider public knows nearly enough about the frankly shocking kinds and amounts of criminality in the various US special forces units. OP is not kidding about these people operating as gangs (but worse, because they're sanctioned kil…
What the flying fuck!?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't sound like discrimination, it is discrimination, tautologically. The onus is on you to show that it is bad in this case. We discriminate routinely, children are exempt from working for example.
I believe in the specific case of gender equality, the burden of proof is on the side which claims that discrimination is justified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In WW1, so many French young men died in the battles that the average height of the French soldier declined by over an inch in WW2. It became popular for French and German women to marry old men and foreigners after both wars. By preserving the women, society can bounce back from a catastrophic loss of young men.
Luckily here in America we have hundreds of millions of men and women to give up to the altar of democracy, right? We’re not France in 1915 or 1939. Not only that, but maybe you want to consider more modern war’s attrition rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Different roles. Everyone has a part to play but SF relies upon relative superiority. Assets and ignoring military customs which do not increase effectiveness and lethality are requirements to get the job done. An infantry company is more able to defend its position than a troop of SF without heavy weapons if bogged down. Camouflage works and when you're rolling multicam with a black gun it reduces its effectiveness.…
I doubt there would be as much bitterness if the "silent professionals" didn't write so many books about what incredible badasses they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't do anything without $40 billion of air assets circling their position providing cover and get pissy when you tell them they have to shave and can't paint their weapons arbitrary colors. Also they're all on drugs and will kill you if you report them for embezzling unit funds.
> Also they're all on drugs and will kill you if you report them for embezzling unit funds. This is maybe not too related to the brain damage stuff (or maybe it is?), but I don't think the wider public knows nearly enough about the frankly shocking kinds and amounts of criminality in the various US special forces units. OP is not kidding about these people operating as gangs (but worse, because they're sanctioned kil…
Discussing or criticizing anything military related us seen as disrespectful to troops, and Killing the argument there kills more problematic questions (like 'was the invasion of Iraq a symptom of a larger problem like a too-bloated budget?')
One can appreciate those choices served, and support their assimilation into society, while at the same time questioning military ideals, spending levels, and behaviors.
And yes, training people to function well in situations that are borderline suicidal, training them to follow orders that put them in harms way, is going to have psychological effects on at least some of them. When you train people to behave abnormally you shouldn't be terribly surprised at abnormal behaviour patterns.
I say this as an ex military person myself. There are a lot of questions worth asking, but unfortunately society would prefer to remain ignorant. It's easier to live guilt free if "we didn't know".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does saying “you should expose yourself to both things if you possibly can” express that there is a difference between the two? I suppose I can imagine that GP said that you can feel the difference between levels of brain damage incurred (they did not), but even if that were the case then why would you encourage someone to expose themselves to artillery if you thought the damage was more than zero? “The damage fr…
"It's hard to describe the difference"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does saying “you should expose yourself to both things if you possibly can” express that there is a difference between the two? I suppose I can imagine that GP said that you can feel the difference between levels of brain damage incurred (they did not), but even if that were the case then why would you encourage someone to expose themselves to artillery if you thought the damage was more than zero? “The damage fr…
"It's hard to describe the difference"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would also explain why accounts of "shell shock" and PTSD rose so dramatically during WWI but were less common in prior wars where explosions were less common.
That's interesting that at the time, in WW1, it was assumed to be a physical injury to the brain caused by the shockwave of exploding artillery shells (hence the name). A few years later a consensus evolved that it's a psychological problem caused by the stress of combat, which was the prevailing opinion for about 100 years. And now it's looking like it might actually be a physical injury caused by shockwave damage t…
And incredibly it seems that the Adrian helmet still outperforms modern helmet designs in the blast protection quality. [1] It can't stop a bullet sure, but I suspect that chances of being hit by an overhead blast are higher than that a of a headshot in a typical warfare scenario.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...