bayonettes are too a useful device

> los@cris.com wrote:

> Anyway since we're on the subject of riot control it would make a

> As far as painting up civilians, why bother? Just use all those extra

But Irregular Miniatures make such a lovely range of Rioters. Plus an

Bayonettes are perfectly good for opening up cans, grinding coffee beans,
slitting those numerous letters from home open. They also double as a
serviceable screwdriver, steak knife and can whittle amazing toys out of wood.
How much would you pay for all of that? But wait there's more! Affix a
bayonette to your rifle and Charge! with your buddy, first one to trip and
accidentally stick it into his friend WINS!

Historically (certainly in the American War of Independence period) the
Bayonette had a major impact on morale. I think Jon is right that today they
are outclassed by useful things such as handgrenades and SMGs.

We found them to be perfectly useful In Haiti for Crowd control. A guy will
recoil away from a rifle with a bayonet in that kind of situation before he
recoils away from just the rifle.

They're also good for good old fashion silent kill. Especially if one doesn't
have the funds to afford a good combat knife in addition to a bayonet, as most
third world soldiers can't.

Los

> Peter Mancini wrote:

> Bayonettes are perfectly good for opening up cans, grinding coffee
the
> Bayonette had a major impact on morale. I think Jon is right that

> On Mon, 11 May 1998 20:24:14 -0400, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:

> We found them to be perfectly useful In Haiti for Crowd control. A guy

There is an ingrained fear factor that doesn't exist with guns. People just
naturally fear blade weapons. Funny enough, I can watch people getting shot in
movies and TV, but I get squeamish when I see someone cut their finger open in
a movie or TV show. Something weird about knives, I guess.

> Bayonettes are perfectly good for opening up cans, grinding coffee

[grin] pretty good.

For close in work, combat knives are much more useful than bayonettes these
days - or one might say that the bayonette is better when not attached
to the weapon. I agree with the previous posts about the dubious utility in
combat, but when you're out of bullets and other things that go bang in the
night, a trusty knife is better than nothing.

> You wrote:

> We found them to be perfectly useful In Haiti for Crowd control. A guy

IMHO, anyone who wargames a crowd control situation is off his rocker.
It's a loose-loose situation for all concerned.  The crowd gets fscked
up, and the military takes massive hits from the media and politicians.

> They're also good for good old fashion silent kill. Especially if one

I can afford a perfectly good knife on drill pay...

But you don't try to silent kill with something attached to a rifle.

On Mon, 11 May 1998 21:27:42 -0500 (CDT), jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
> Atkinson) wrote:

> IMHO, anyone who wargames a crowd control situation is off his rocker.

> It's a loose-loose situation for all concerned. The crowd gets fscked

Actually, Practical Wargamer included a set of rules for crowds and mobs in a
recent issue. It was a simple set of rules that spanned several eras. The way
they had it set up, it looked rather interesting. Putting a mob in the middle
of a two-way battle could be an interesting, if chaotic, game.

Of course, it assumed that there was no crowd control. The crowd was already
beyond control... :-)

> You wrote:

> Actually, Practical Wargamer included a set of rules for crowds and

Sounds cute--but how realistic?  How often do crowds seriously resist
troops trying to put them down? Maybe I'm just thinking US crowds, but
IIRC in LA once the Guard showed up with the armored Hummers w/ machine
guns on top, the city got real quiet real fast. It's of course different in
places like Northern Ireland where you have serious terrorists manipulating
the crowd and providing backbone as well as
sniper and bomb-throwing support to the riot.

> Of course, it assumed that there was no crowd control. The crowd was

All it takes is one.50 cal to regain control. Really, most mobs have no
stomach for real fighting. They're just there to loot something.

Besides, who wants to paint up a couple hundred (small mob) civillian
figures for use in a one-off sort of scenario?

<topic change> On the other hand... Civillians might come in handy for some
Stargrunt scenarios. Patrol walks on one side of the board, into villiage, and
begins searching for arms and supplies. Most of the
civillian figures just wander around the board aimlessly and/or try to
get out of the troop's way, but a few draw weapons and take aim... Once a shot
is fired all legitemate civillians begin rushing out of the villiage by
shortest route, even if that accidentally takes them in line of fire.
Government troops gain three points per guerilla killed, 10 points per arms or
food cache located, loose four per soldier
killed, 1 per guerilla who escapes off-board after firing at the
troops, and 1 per civillian killed or injured. Guerillas may not target
civillians deliberately. Throw in booby traps, experience rolls to realize
certain civillians 'don't look right', and other nasty tricks. Note also that
kids tend to flock around troops that don't have a reputation for brutality
(see: US Army in Europe during WWII) and if one of them happens to have
grenade... And don't forget that baby carriages make a good place to hide
weapons, with or without baby included. Of course anyone who'd actually use
this scenario idea is sick, but that doesn't exclude many wargamers I know.
Just don't give me credit when your rampaging troops flatten the entire
villiage. Should be a reaction roll(s) to see if your troops get a little out
of hand and flatten anything that moves (and civillians who've watched too
many movies have no tactical sense--they run when a sane man hugs the
ground).

> Allan Goodall wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 1998 20:24:14 -0400, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:

I use a shotgun for hunting, but I have friends who bow hunt. The broadheads
on a hunting arrow are incredibly sharp as they are designed to cut through
bone to reach a deer's or other game animals vital organs. I think I'll stick
to a shotgun.

Allan spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> There is an ingrained fear factor that doesn't exist with guns. People

I'll second that. There is something about surgery that makes me cringe
whereas large scale destruction of the human form with firearms isn't that
bothersome (in movies of course!). And for $25 or whatever a bayonet is worth
(the Canadian one not much since I've seen them shatter when thrown at Oak
trees), they are a handy tool for many things and if you did have to close
assault a position, I'd attach it. Even if I never used it, I MIGHT get into a
situation where it would be useful, and it MIGHT be the best $25 I ever spent.
And its utility off the rifle is of little doubt. Most military
people I know tend to carry 2-3 bladed tools/weapons on their person
(a gerber, leatherman, or swiss army knife/tool,  a bayonet (issue),
and often another knife - a short or long bladed fighting knife like
a bowie or a sykes-fairburn). Knives are quiet (as pointed out),
useful, and they work in almost any environment from the artic to underwater
and don't run out of ammo*.

Tom

* excepting the bayonet shattering I mentioned above. I believe that is a
reflection of exceptionally hard steel being very brittle. And
cheap-ass manufacturing.

/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Sounds cute--but how realistic? How often do crowds seriously resist

Without sarcasm, I'd note that even the angry underclass in the US tends to
have better conditions and more experience with a legal system and a stable
government than the average person in the third world or some of the other
hotspots around Europe. And then (as you say) we throw in provocateurs and
agitators....

> >Of course, it assumed that there was no crowd control. The crowd was

> no stomach for real fighting. They're just there to loot something.

Not quite. All it takes is a.50 cal and the ROE that lets you even consider
using it. For those who remember the Philadelphia paper article on Somalia
that LOS put us on to, you'll recall the situation go out of hand really fast
because that is a country where everyone seems to have a gun, lots of folks
seem to use a narcotic substance, and the value of a human life seems
questionable even to its inhabitants. The US had.50s and all manner of other
toys, but that didn't stop an operation turning into a real cock up.

> Besides, who wants to paint up a couple hundred (small mob) civillian

True.

. Note also that kids tend to flock around troops that don't
> have a reputation for brutality (see: US Army in Europe during WWII)

> included.

In the Somalia piece, as I recall, there was one case of a man advancing
firing his AK while clutching his baby. (Or a baby). That makes for a tough
choice for the soldier facing that. I don't know about you, but I'd feel
pretty rotten if I had to (accidentally even) take out a baby. You know it
isn't the baby's fault.....

As you pointed out, civilians can make for interesting
'complications' in scenarios. Witness the VC - blend with local
populace really easily. You can understand why US servicemen eventually
developed the 'kill it. Let god worry about who it was.' approach in some
cases. But such scenarios do break up the monotony of two guys lining up on
opposite sides of the board in
attack/defence scenarios.....

Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/

> You wrote:

> Not quite. All it takes is a .50 cal and the ROE that lets you even

Fire over their heads--that gets one's attention, from what I recall of
Basic Training, with that 'sandbox' and drill sergeants firing about 9 feet
over my head. Tracers always seem a lot lower than they really are. After
that, well if it's a choice between being dismembered and facing a court of
inquiry, I'll take the investigation any day.

> At 05:59 AM 5/12/1998 -0500, John Atkinson wrote:

In Somalia, where our troops were killed, the warlords used large crowds to
shield their armed men. Adid planned to use the footage of civillians killed
on CNN against us. The crowds knew what was going on and wanted to help Adid.
Unfortunately, our administration does not understand that kind of loyalty and
so their underestimation left our troops vulnerable... Next time we do
something like that, bring in the tanks and the MICVs!

Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!

On Tue, 12 May 1998 05:59:57 -0500 (CDT), jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
> Atkinson) wrote:

> Sounds cute--but how realistic? How often do crowds seriously resist

It was cute. It was mostly for one-off scenarios, or scenarios set in
particularly unique time frames. They were about as serious as the boar hunt
rules I saw a few years ago. However, the rules did have some good ideas for
anyone who was interested.

> All it takes is one .50 cal to regain control. Really, most mobs have

If you're willing to use a.50 cal. On the other hand, the rules also handled
things like rock throwing kids in tight city blocks, and protesting students
against riot troops. Palestinian games can be quite interesting from a
strategic point of view. If the game rules force both sides to limit
casualties, you could have a really nice maneouvring game. Put too few troops
(armed with baton projectors) against an angry mob trying to get to a
government building, and the game could be quite interesting.

> Besides, who wants to paint up a couple hundred (small mob) civillian

They gave some suggestions. For modern games it's not as practical. For other
historical time periods it works quite well. A Renaissance scenario with
peasants used as the mob is good as the peasants could work elsewhere. Mob
scenarios in feudal Japan have the same advantage.

Granted it was a one-off set of rules, but it was an interesting idea,
the kind of thing people would play at cons.

> On the other hand. . . Civillians might come in handy for some

I find they are very useful for 1920s/Call of Cthulhu wargame scenarios.
Keeping collateral damage down in the civilian population is a good way of
limiting a superior force against a smaller, fanatic force.

> Note also that kids tend to flock around troops that don't

Happened to all the Allied forces. Also happened in Vietnam (it isn't the
first GI that was "sucker-punched" by an innocent looking kid carrying a
grenade...).

> Just don't give

As mentioned above, I think it's more interesting to have one or both sides
try to keep civilian casualties down. I don't find that any more sick than a
game where average soldiers are melted by a napalm strike.

Good ideas, John.

On Tue, 12 May 1998 11:10:59 -0500 (CDT), jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
> Atkinson) wrote:

> Fire over their heads--that gets one's attention, from what I recall of

> Basic Training, with that 'sandbox' and drill sergeants firing about 9

Don't forget: what comes up must come down. Those bullets have to land
somewhere...

> Thomas Barclay wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> In the Somalia piece, as I recall, there was one case of a man
...Snip...JTL
> Tom.

Tom, As the question really comes down to: choose to Live or Die. I for one
made the choice a long time ago, Life. While I agree that I would feel rotten
about the action, I would shoot first and feel rotten later.

Sorry to have offended, none is intended.

Bye for now,

> On Tue, 12 May 1998 05:59:57 -0500 (CDT), jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John

I don't know did you read the news today?

Anyway since we're on the subject of riot control it would make a perfectly
feasible scenario in a SGII type campaign game. Especially where a force is
required to watch over a planet there's never enough guys to go around and
squads or teams often get detailed with jobs like check pointy security, armed
escort, cordon and search, etc. etc. It would make a good early scenario in an
escalating UW campaign. These types of OOTW (Operations Other Than War) have
been the bane of an infantyman's existance since the dawn of time, and no
doubt will continue to be so into the future. You know you're not fighting
Stalingrad of Cannae every day of your military career. You could very well
find yourself with a fireteam or squad against several thousand angry mobsters
throwing rocks. With more people than ammunition. Cutting loose on full auto
will more than likely wind you up in Jail if the crowd doesn't get you first.
REMEMBER these dudes are usually at five feet from you start with. I speak of
mucho experience.

As far as painting up civilians, why bother? Just use all those extra nappy's
you have lying around. Throw in a couple of Gs or terrorists with real weapons
and it makes the scenbario that much more interesting. <g> Crowd control can
get interesting when you get to aliens also.

> You wrote:

> And its utility off the rifle is of little doubt. Most military

I'll second that about half-way.  I personally carry a leatherman and a
second knife with a 6 1/4 inch blade.  I have yet to use the latter for
anything of substance. 90% of all knife work in the military consists of
cutting 550 cord.:) I don't know what I'd do with a bayonet if I
had one, and I wouldn't like to trust the M-9 in a fight anyway.

Y'know, I always assumed that SG incorporated bayonets into the
close-combat
rules - they will probably be standard issue forever (presuming somebody
still makes a useful one). Their representation reflects their combat utility
- not
much. If you're really close enough to stick somebody, you're going to try to
put them down with whatever you have (rifle butt, bayonet, whatever). They
bayonet seems to be less important than the charge into close combat itself.

Anyway, bayonets will always serve at least one useful purpose - a focus
of dramatic tension in war movies. They cry of "Fix bayonets!" will always be
stirring, whether in the American Civil War or the Third Rio Plata War (points
for source & combatants!)

OK - a hint the Third Rio Plata War is not in any movie (sorry) and it
is fictional. Noah V. Doyle

> John Atkinson wrote:

> I'll second that about half-way. I personally carry a leatherman and

Before you go writing off the M9 bayonet. I actually started to like it
because it has a built in wire cutter and damn good one too (as does the AK
bayonet). You pull the M9 out of it's sheath and there's a hole that attaches
to a lug on the scabbard (the scabbard detaches from your web kit). The top
side of the blade does teh cutting. It's quick and eassy for cutting barb or
concertine wire without having to carry special tools. (has a couple of other
doohickies built into it too). I've personnaly cut
1/4
inch steel canle with that sucker, though we had to gnaw on it for a while.

I also have an old M7 (?) bayonet with brass knuckles built into it (like teh
old WW1 trench knives), that was quite nice and I've carried it on missions
though not for like ten years.

BTW, if I was ordering a deliberate assault on a position I would have the
boys fix bayonets since it adds morale courage to the attackers and scares the
hell out of the enemy. I found myself in such a position several weeks ago but
the locals we were working with only had like one bayonet per every fifteen or
twenty guys (poor but highly experienced Army). They had them attached without
me having to tell them and all these guys had at least ten years combat
experience apiece.

> I'll second that about half-way. I personally carry a leatherman and a

If it can't be fixed with 550 cord and riggers tape, it can't be fixed
;-)

I'd second that comment on the M-9.

On Tue, 12 May 1998 05:59:57 -0500 (CDT) jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
> Atkinson) writes:
The only way you could scenario this, is to have the troops on one side and
the GM on the other. Wait a minute, do it this way>>> each of the squads has
one player(keeping score individually) and they all play against the GM. The
person with the best score wins!

OK it's a dumb idea, but the scenario isn't any better.

Tom Hughes

> On the other hand. . . Civillians might come in handy for some

Relax John, the stuff we do is all a game! The real nut cases don't play with
soldiers, they join militias and pretend to be soldiers (you aren't a militia
man John are you?)

> At 10:28 PM 5/12/98 EDT, you wrote:

Hmm. Only Third Rio Plata War I can think of is from GDW's 2300AD, between...
um... Brazil & Argentina? (Not entirely sure here.) I'm also not sure where
you'd get the 'cry of "fix bayonets!"' out of that. <shrug>

On Tue, 12 May 1998 11:10:59 -0500 (CDT) jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
> Atkinson) writes:

If you fire a.50 cal in the situation you described you will probably
kill about 5/10 civilians who are just siting on the roof tops watching
all the fun, and harming no one! The bullets come down somewhere, and if you
aren't aiming at someone then they may well hit some poor child
playing in his/her crib. If you live anywhere near one of our Yankee
urban ghettos you may well have already heard the story on the evening news
where pistol bullets have done this. GOOD troop commanders try to train their
troops to stop short of this idiocy. It's stupid to over react.

> On Tue, 12 May 1998, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:

> In Somalia, where our troops were killed, the warlords used
Next
> time we do something like that, bring in the tanks and the MICVs!

In general, whenever troops are used to put up a military presence somewhere
where the local population doesn't appreciate it, things are bound to get
nasty sooner or later. If one wants to avoid that, one should consider it
before sending in the troops.

Somalia was, in this regard, IMHO a huge miscalculation.

> You wrote:

> If you fire a .50 cal in the situation you described you will probably
It's stupid to over >react.

Define overreact in the context of a couple hundred nutcases, probably on
drugs, throwing rocks, molotovs, and covering the fire of a couple dozen guys
with AKs. My perspective is that it's better to live with having waxed a
couple of idiots who are too stupid to live anyway (defined as anyone who
thinks a riot with live ammo is a spectator sport) than to cease living.

Also note that there is a difference between putting down rioting American
citizens (or other people you are charged to protect) and dealing with rioting
Third Worlders who are aiding your enemies.

To make this relevant, how many of the troops normally used in
Dirtside/Star Grunt games care about that?  Certaintly not Foreign
Legionairres (OK, rename them Colonial. Safe diff) nor ESU personell
(come on, they consider T-59s crowd control in their capital city!) nor
a lot of other cultures.

> You wrote:

> Before you go writing off the M9 bayonet. I actually started to like

I'm an engineer, so I've usually got a small bolt cutter to cut the
wire team.  I guess M-9 is a somewhat decent second best, but as far as
using it in a fight?

> BTW, if I was ordering a deliberate assault on a position I would have

Which is already taken into account in reaction checks and confidence checks
for close assault.

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> ...Snip...JTL

It's a tough one. I'd like to think I had made that decision when I donned my
uniform and accepted an obligation to country, mission, and fellow soldiers.
However, as history proves, one never knows what one will do for sure until
one is put in the situation.

> While I agree that I would feel rotten about the action,

No offense taken. I hope I didn't sound prissy or righteous. I was just
pointing out that it might present a difficult quandry. I think in the Somalia
article, the guy in question eventually shot the assailant (or a Delta guy
came along and did it for him). But it was a tough call. The hesitation could
kill you. But it would be hard not to at least think twice. And be very damn
careful of your point of aim.

War is itself an attrocity. I don't think what happens in war (civilian
deaths) is necessarily avoidable or necessarily anything but a tragic loss.
But it should be the think that keeps us focused on the importance of being
ready for war but not looking for war. If we maintain calm armed vigilance and
use diplomacy, economic pressure, and small military displays and missions, we
stand the best chance of avoiding All Out War with all its attendant horrors.
(OTOH, I'm not an Chamberlain appeasement groupy either... you have to draw a
line somewhere, but make darn sure you're doing it for the right reasons and
know the consequences).

To make this GZG related, I'd pose the question of whether (by 2300) any new
international conventions on weapons and warfare had been instituted (either
by the UN, or through the UN with common
agreement) - perhaps a renewed or reformed Geneva Accord or some
treaties banning certain weapons etc? Opinions?

Tom.

Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/

> It seems like, the way things are going, more and more weapons are

We're all so lucky that its fought out by gentlemen. Sometimes its a great way
to clear out the gene pool, eh? Get rid of all those stupid underclasses, eh?
Not to mention a great way to win elections, restart an economy, or propogate
ideologies, eh? Why after having a good think about it we really should have
more wars! At least it
gives those grotty third-worlders something else to do rather than
starve and hell its a great market for us first worlders to sell them all the
weapons they could want. And they can afford them too because after they've
shot everyone in their country they won't need as much money too feed
everybody. Finally all our third world debts will be repayed! Sierra Leone
might just be the start a grand new age for US all. What a glorious vision! It
sounds like a new world order to me. May it come quickly."

Whoops..Where did that come from. I must be missing the political rants or
something. Its been so long since we last had one...

Still Indias actions over the last few days just prove the point about banning
weapons systems. Although you must admit they had a point about the large
countries wanting to maintain their monopoly on the nukes.

By the way this is just my total frustration with some of the trends on this
list lately. If you want to talk politics go somewhere that people want to do
that..I for one do not.

To make this GZG related, I'd pose the question of whether (by 2300) any new
international conventions on weapons and warfare had been instituted (either
by the UN, or through the UN with common
        agreement) - perhaps a renewed or reformed Geneva Accord or some

treaties banning certain weapons etc? Opinions?

Tom.

It seems like, the way things are going, more and more weapons are going to be
banned. I personally feel that this is a load of crap. If there is a future
full scale war, I hope not, anything will go. Look at previous wars, look at
your self. If someone over a hill is trying their best to kill me and my
family, I'll do anything to stop him.

I know I'm on a soapbox but all this banning is so that people will think that
war can be sterilized or made less than terrible. They can ban whatever they
want but if a war breaks out and one of the parties involved needs something,
they'll make it. War is an insane act not a gentlemen's sport.

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Define overreact in the context of a couple hundred nutcases, probably

> on drugs, throwing rocks, molotovs, and covering the fire of a couple

The point here I think is something that you might not be addressing (or maybe
you disagree with). As I recall how the Canadian forces teach their UN guys
how to deal with this stuff (from War College information) is

*NEVER ESCALATE*

That means you always use minimum force necessary to contain the situation and
you never escalate (say by firing first). Now, if you're shot at with small
arms, you reply with same (you don't escalate to tanks guns or autocannons).

In general, you try to avoid putting your personnel in these situations. I
think Intel failures are usually what puts ground pounders in these situations
(or stupid politicos).

> Also note that there is a difference between putting down rioting

Yeah, the American's likely have better firearms. (*grin*)

> To make this relevant, how many of the troops normally used in
nor
> a lot of other cultures.

Whoooooah there John. 300 years is 300 years. Are you telling me (by making
those comments about FSE and about ESU) that I should take from that that the
modern Americans (NAC) have no respect for aboriginal rights and plan to heard
them together and have them killed? I think every country has moments in its
past to be ashamed of. And I think China (who you are referring to) has
changed governments and character thereof a few times in the last 300 years.
I'm sure that their are a lot of Chinese who really didn't think much of the
Tianamen affair. As an aside, why is it you seem to like to dwell on the past
of countries? The future would seem more relevant given the direction of the
GZG games. If we look at trends, the trends toward increased freedoms and
capitalism even in China are clear. I think in 300 years, the US (NAC) might
end up eating the dust of the powerful ESU economy. The average asian inolved
in commerce seems to have a harder work ethic and a better understanding of
'doing business' than your average North American.

I think it's silly to tar countries with the actions of more than one
generation back. (in 300 years, any country could be anything....). Otherwise
I'm going to have to ask the that you tar the NAC with all the crimes of the
US, Britain, and its other constituent countries for the last 300 years. Which
is not only probably unjust (IMHO), but also not reflective of where the
countries are actually headed.

Here endeth the sermon (I just noticed how preachy that all
sounds....).

Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> It seems like, the way things are going, more and more weapons are

Sure, I don't disagree if you are talking about all out war. The US hasn't
seen one of those in 50 years. The other wars have been to varying degrees
less than fully engaging. Sure they've trotted out nasty new weapons from time
to time (some have suggested that is why the US likes to have these little
wars, but I'm not sold on that). But the point is most wars aren't full out
wars, but limited conflicts. How do you keep them limited? You limit the scope
of the conflict by limiting areas of operation, weapons deployed, force
levels, doctrines, etc. The point is, if you don't want all out war (which
you've pointed out is neither a gent's sport nor sane, then you try to ban
things (and hope that is enforceable) that lead down that path.

Someone pointed out to me the hypocrisy of the US thumping India for nuclear
testing (US more than 2000, India 4....). That's like us in the developed
world riding the 3rd world about pollution.... we just got away with it
because we did it sooner and in ignorance. It's pretty hypocritical to be all
upset over that. HOWEVER, I'm in favor of the US, japan, etc. coming down like
a ton of bricks on India. Why? The world doesn't need more nukes. It doesn't
need more folks learning how to make better, faster, stronger, less easy to
stop,
etc. - better bombs basically. I'm quite happy having 10 or so
countries with the bomb and the others kept out of the club by the clout of
those ten, specially since I live near the largest one and they will (for
their own reasons) protect me and represent my interests in most ways.

I'm thinking powerful states in the future will continue to collude to keep
their smaller competitors limited, AND they'll use economic, political, and
diplomatic means to do so. And it will probably be moderately (but not
completely) successful, just like it is today.

It seems to me the powerful states would embargo, sanction, and generally
pressure the smaller states into following their ideas and conventions (which
are probably quite civilized) for small wars. Of course, when a BUG pops his
head in, or when someone bloodies the nose of the big power or threatens the
life of a big state, then obviously these conventions (as the Geneva
Convention is witness to) go out the window with remarkable haste.

In short big powers will force their will on others, and act to limit conflict
which isn't in their interest. General war is not good for business, and most
large states revolve around huge economies.

People on this list have suggested monowire would be banned. I might think
their might well be a ban on indiscriminate use of land mines, and on certain
types of nuclear or particle weapons.

Other ideas?
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/

Have to pretty much agree with all of Tom's remarks here. BTW Canadian forces
are reknown for their restraint in the following type situations.

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

Also the best way to deal with a crowd is to deal with individual instigators.
Take them out of the equation or (if you can) turn them over to your side with
reason if possible, force if necessary.

In the terms of Stagrunt Squad)level operations the squad or military force is
almost always outnumbered by a huge margin and in grave danger of being
overwhelmed and torn apart even with their armament. They'll usually be under
orders to AVOID confrontations or incidents. Once rocks start to fly,
regularly equipped squaddies are already in a world of hurt, and normally
won't go firing indescrimmanantly into the crowd even if they are taking hits.
Where things start to go down hill is when you get:

A. The order to go in and grab someone out of the crowd AFTER the shit has
started. (you can usually take them before the shit has started without much
problem). This necessiates leaving protective barriers or formations. OR B:
Crowd members begin to attack the soldiers at point blank range. (i.e. a guy
is ten feet from you and he's winding up with a brick or a pipe.)

These two situations will often result in a shooting. If whoever is
instigating the crowd is smart, he will have individuals with weapons
(pistols, guns, molotovs), start to open up on the troops sometime after the
rocks start to fly and the crowd is in an uproar.

Also don't mistake the behaviour of third world (or alien) crowds with what
hippies in America of Canada will do. Some will show a blatant disregard for
their safety even after the firing starts. Also some crowds (A good example is
Haiti and a lot of tropical Africa countries) become much more dangerous if
you DON't resort to violence and take action against the perpatrators (They'll
become imboldened and think you are afreaid, which is basically a green light
for them to hack you up) while in other countries (Central America, Asia) The
crowd becomes deadly after you've taken action. It all depends on how you read
them. One thing that's a constant. You must leave it absolutely clear in
everyone's mind (especially yours) that you will kill any f**ker that tries to
take a swipe at you or any of your mates. In a situation that you are grossly
outnumbered like that you're dead if you show fear.

Also don't overestimate the effect of you being armed to a dangerous crowd.
Especially if you're not there with a whole company. The instigators running
the mob are doing the same math in their heads as you are doing in yours.:

"Let's see, I've got 500 people at arms length. There's ten of us. If I open
up on full auto I'll be out of ammo in like three seconds. Then I'll have to
reload. The surge from behind will carry the crowd forward and they'll be on
me as I'm trying to reload."

It's sort of like the math a prison guard does in his head.

> In a message dated 98-05-13 15:27:29 EDT, Thomas Barclay writes:

<< People on this list have suggested monowire would be banned. I might think
their might well be a ban on indiscriminate use of land mines, and on certain
types of nuclear or particle weapons. >>

Indisscriminate mining and nukes I can see, but particle beam weapons? I
dunno, they would just seem to be a different kind of beam weapon (with system
failure effects in DS/SG/FT!!!).  Maybe I'm missing something.  Fill us
in?

> You wrote:

> The point here I think is something that you might not be addressing

What more can you do to escalate if someone throws a molotov cocktail?
It's at the worst case situation I know of--deadly force being employed
against your fellow soldiers.  Wrong answer--and that's where I lock
and load.

> Whoooooah there John. 300 years is 300 years. Are you telling me (by

You can make any call you like. Let's just agree to disagree. We can
discuss American culture vs. others off the list via e-mail, and I'm
happy to do so with anyone with anything more cogent to say than
knee-jerk America bashing.

> of. And I think China (who you are referring to) has changed

That's not the read I get off the background material--sounds to me
like the Communist Chinese overran most of Russia (?) and that's that.

And I would be very interested in anyone who could provide (via e-mail)
evidence of a pre-Communist Chinese government with an abiding interest
in kinder, gentler riot control procedures.

> I'm sure that their are a lot of Chinese who really didn't think much

I'm sure most of them are aware exactally how much the central government
cares about their opinions, too.

> dwell on the past of countries? The future would seem more relevant

I'm a history major, not a soothsayer. I can't make a call based what *will*
happen, and since I'm not a GZG employee, I can't make a call as to what their
*definitive* background says. All I can do is extrapolate from what their
published background says. And it looks
like nations have retained their historical character--French and
Germans still fight each other, Scandanavians still stay out of the shooting
as much as possible, Muslims hate everyone who's not like them (including
heretic Muslims, whom they hate worse than us mere infidels), ESU makes noises
about 'Imperialist agressors' (now is that classic Marxist Rhetoric [tm] or
what?), etc. If someone disagrees with my guess or my extrapolation, fine.

But please try to come up with a slightly more original answer than 'But
didn't you meannastycruelbaduglyAmericans pick on the
goodgreatwonderfulpeacelovingnaturecommuningtreehugging American Indians? You
baaaad people.' Sorry, it's a little more complicated than that (Hollywood is
no more a reliable guide today than it was when Indians were the bad guys, and
that's all the research most people do,
either American or foreigners), and it's way too off-topic to discuss
here.  Happy to discuss via e-mail.

> trends toward increased freedoms and capitalism even in China are

Keep thinking that. Remember, 10 years ago it was the big bad Japanese,
Koreans, Singaporeans, etc who were going to overtake us. Well, their
idiotically run economies are now in the toilet, and in Japan their culture
prevents them from fixing the basic problems that caused it in the first
place. Again, further discussion will be via
e-mail only.

> On Wed, 13 May 1998, John Atkinson wrote:

> Define overreact in the context of a couple hundred nutcases, probably

> on drugs, throwing rocks, molotovs, and covering the fire of a couple

That's only a viewpoint away from enraged free men whose only weapons against
oppression are bricks, molotovs and a couple of guns...

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

It's not the guys throwing the bricks and molotovs and shooting the guns that
you should to worry about... the motivation is what you should watch out for.

> Allan Goodall wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 1998 21:27:42 -0500 (CDT), jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John

On the "Evil Empire 6 mm Mailing List" (not it's real name...) we came up with
rules for crowds. Basically the humans tried to keep them alive and the bugs
tried to eat them, with some odd rules for "The things that look like humans
but are green with big teeth" capturing them. Self moving capture and hold
objectives that are effected by barrage weapons, more or less.