3 ms·
So now we have to deal with maimed soldiers coming home instead of killed ones? That's not the kind of kickass solution I expect from the most powerful militar
by maeon3 15y ago
So now we have to deal with maimed soldiers coming home instead of killed ones? That's not the kind of kickass solution I expect from the most powerful military on the planet on the subject of "light vehicles getting blowed up by people putting bombs under the roads".
Require a senator to travel in one of those vehicles in the war zone and the "Put a huge hole in the top" idea wouldn't go over so well. It would be replaced by a pontificating senator analyzing why we are waging war like retards.
- brianbreslin 15y agowell i think those soldiers would appreciate the opportunity to have a slightly better chance of surviving, even if they end up injured. i'd rather be hurt and living than dead.
- checker 15y agoI don't know if your statement applies to all soldiers universally. Or even to all injuries. I think it depends on the person and what happened to them.
- rdl 15y agoI've seen people walk out of utterly destroyed mrap vehicles, so if this vehicle is as protected, odds are good that especially in afghanistan, where the ieds tend tobe smaller, it will mean lots of work for mechanics and replacing trucks, not a lot more serious injuries. To the extent we are fighting the war like retards, it is the concept of using huge armored trucks when dismounted patrols are more effective. And rotating units in 4, 7, or 12 months, just as they become effective, and picking corrupt and ineffective local allies and having inconsistent and irrational goals in the first place. Senators are probably on helicopters or in armored SUVs around Kabul mre than in military tactical vehicles. The average level IV suv will get even more trashed than an up armored hmmwv in ied attacks, but Kabul was safe enough we just took local cars, so not a big deal.