Oolite Bulletins

absolutely. just because they're used to kill people doesn't mean they're not beautiful

good few years back they replaced the gorgeous Chieftain tanks w/ the Challenger (i think) ~ took a huge load of them up to Otterburn here and blew them up. i coulda cried

CptnEcho wrote:

While they may not be operational now, I think their nuclear reactor specifications are capable of powering an entire city.

Imagine, a powerplant that can be sailed to disaster zones to aid with relief efforts. If that isn't practical, how about an oceanic research vessel?
Or an oceanic pirate hunter?

<snip>

Imagine, a Typhoon class Luxury Yacht.

Oh, I am sure that these monstrous weapons can be somehow transformed into something useful. However, that's not the point. If a government wants to build a transportable emergency power plant—which may actually be a brilliant idea, mind you—it should build it into a vessel that fits exactly this purpose. Why take the huge deviation to build a weapons system first, and then convert it into something else? I am certain it would be hugely less expensive to build that actually useful something else in the first place.

Unfortunately our politicians—and the public—have accustomed themselves to a military centred thinking. Whatever problem there is: we look for a military solution. Floods: send the military; earthquakes: send the military; arresting terrorists: send the military; oversee a peace process: send the military. It is like for every situation imaginable the powers that be have only one single answer: send the military. As if the military was a one-size-fits-all solution. I'll reveal a well-kept (behind an impermeable think-barrier) secret to you: It isn't.

I think it would be hugely more efficient to build up and run a disaster relief force. I mean, those people would be trained and equipped to bring in supplies, to do engineering, whatever is needed in the aftermath of a disaster. They would have a basic knowledge in the local language. They would not have wasted a lot of time and energy for being trained to kill people (which is what the military is actually all about, please don't forget that), therefore they would be much better equipped and trained for disaster relief and reconstruction. This covers the first two examples. In the case of apprehending terrorists it would be hugely more efficient to have a trained and well equipped police force than to invade random foreign countries. And in case of peacebringing and peacekeeping missions it would be hugely more efficient to have well trained and equipped professional peace workers.

All of this would be vastly more effective and (by the way) vastly cheaper than to continue to use only the military for every task it is not actually meant to perform and therefore not actually trained for. Remember: their specific point of competence is killing people. There are surely situations in which exactly this skill is needed, and I would propose to use the military approach in exactly these situations.

It's like in your household: if you have to put a nail in your wall, use a hammer. But it would be gargantually stupid to use the same hammer (and only the same hammer) for everything else as well: extracting nails, eating, shaving your beard, sleeping in it. Well, there you have what we've become used to, as far as the military is concerned in this truly militaristic world.

Commander McLane, I have to seriously disagree with you on several issues. If a government wants to create a transportable emergency power plant, it should also have the ability to provide clean water in addition to electricity. It should be able to provide advanced medical services to those in need. It should be able to transport a moderate about of emergency supplies (tents, etc), and receive incoming supplies from its home country. It should have the ability to transport your police force. The force should be volunteers but headed by professionals who have organizational skills to manage the vast amount of incoming materials and personnel. They should have medical professionals for treating the wounded, engineers for rebuilding key infrastructure, armed individuals capable of establishing order and prevent looting and rioting.

Interestingly enough, that "Transportable Emergency Power Plant" is called an US aircraft carrier - complete with a nuclear power plant, a hospital complete with 3 ICU beds and operating room, a full dental clinic, pharmacy, orthopedic cast room, laboratory, and the capacity to desalinate 400,000 gallons per day.

The professionals on board are either paid volunteers or paid professional officers. They are not "trained killers" but are paid soldiers who are trained to protect their country. In addition to that training, they receive a LARGE amount of training on disaster relief. And as anyone who has worked in business can tell you, your largest cost is any operation is LABOR. So, it is FAR, FAR, FAR cheaper to train your existing labor force in any additional skills needed for disaster relief than it is to develop and staff an entirely separate branch of government.

Now, I agree that the US military's purpose is not to render aid in any disaster. It is not the US military's purpose to provide free electricity, free clean water, free medical services, free police force, or any of the other capabilities they have to a foreign nation. But they have the capacity to do so. We, as a nation, chose to use our military to do more than just defend our nation. We choose to help.

Commander McLane wrote:

... Remember: their specific point of competence is killing people...

As an Honorably Discharged Marine, I'll just say this...

Every Marine is a "rifleman", but every Marine also learns a whole lot more than how to use a rifle.

As Cmd. Cheyd pointed out, a good military is already well versed in getting all the logistical requirements of joining combat into a geographic location. In a diasaster relief scenario, they're capable of delivering food, supplies, medical services, language interpreters and Military Police.

Given the frequency that militaries of the world have been assigned to relief efforts, their experience & training has expanded to handle non-traditional roles.

Improvise, adapt and overcome.
"...Not just pretty words." (1)

Anyway, however this thread wanders, I'm glad we can enjoy the luxury of good conversations and exchanges of viewpoints.


(1) - quoted from Morticia Adams in The Adams Family movie.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Addams ... %28film%29

drew wrote:

...However, there is a poignancy in seeing a vessel, through no fault of its own, slowly being allowed to decay.

Been there, done that, seen it happen around me... so I can fully appreciate how Jason felt about the "Argo".
However, when in operation these missile subs were supposed to remain hidden, alert to one thing: Armageddon. If it didn't happen, it may have been in a large part due to their existence on both sides; nevertheless I'm relieved that the world got rid of these menaces.

Cmd. Cheyd wrote:

Interestingly enough, that "Transportable Emergency Power Plant" is called an US aircraft carrier - complete with a nuclear power plant, a hospital complete with 3 ICU beds and operating room, a full dental clinic, pharmacy, orthopedic cast room, laboratory, and the capacity to desalinate 400,000 gallons per day. (...)
(...) Now, I agree that the US military's purpose is not to render aid in any disaster. It is not the US military's purpose to provide free electricity, free clean water, free medical services, free police force, or any of the other capabilities they have to a foreign nation. But they have the capacity to do so.

Capacity? Most certainly... It's really a pity that these abilities are so seldom used to benefit humanity.

Cmd. Cheyd wrote:

We, as a nation, chose to use our military to do more than just defend our nation. We choose to help.

And here, with an apology to all posters and readers, I will be less than friendly:

Please, Cmd. Cheyd, refrain from spouting propaganda!

[rant]The US military hasn't been used to defend your country since the end of the cold war, but to warmonger for economical gain and bully other nations. Even when they were supposedly trying to help like in Somalia (hidden agendas, anyone? Large mineral deposits, great strategic location for another Guantanamo), your nation's forces barged in without concern or respect for the locals to the point that even the general populace would lynch any corpses they could recovered.

Or maybe that's not entirely fair. You did start by testing out your new riot-supression weapons on them before reverting to simply shooting them...

In comparison, see what the Brazilian UN peacekeepers did in Haiti: even with lack of just about everything, they installed refugee camps, tried hard to improve sanitation, transportation, infrastructure and communications, provided health care (limited by the lack of medicine to treat the endemic cholera), policed and disarmed the population - many with a football match between the national teams in which the ticket costed a firearm! Instead of being hated as the invading army they are de facto, they're pretty much respected and even loved by the locals.[/rant]

Hijacking the thread

Not for the first time, Brasil played for peace - and everybody gained
http://www.heritagekonpa.com/Brazil%20t ... 20game.htm

In 2004 the Haiti UN US contingent was replaced by a Brazilian force...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3768291.stm

...who, even facing "a daunting task", undertook the mission their own way
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3852095.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3575292.stm

Some more humanitarian football
http://www.unhcr.org/4c075efd6.html

Two year old thread. Doubt anyone cares if it's highjacked now.

That said, I said my peace back then. We will have to choose to disagree, both on substance and on what is propaganda. Or even who is espousing it. I am not here, nor is anyone else I believe, for the purpose of debating these types of topics.

Cmd. Cheyd wrote:

Two year old thread. Doubt anyone cares if it's highjacked now.

Indeed.

Cmd. Cheyd wrote:

I am not here, nor is anyone else I believe, for the purpose of debating these types of topics.

Indeed - and I shoud point out that being "less than friendly" doesn't mean I want to troll or start a flame war. In agreeing to disagree, we indeed reached an agreement... so we move on.

Well done lads.

<Closes lid on Thread emergency kill switch>