7 ms·

As a non-combatant with zero knowledge of military tactics, I'm glad you mention this. I stumbled over this phrase and it made me feel like it was specifically

• andrepd 4y ago
  > Glad to see 'at all costs' isn't a thing in the military. Well I'd be wary of making that conclusion based on 1 anonymous comment on hn. Especially since news that come to public often contradict that view.
  • rdl 4y ago
    The GP isn't "anonymous", he's a relatively well known field grade officer in the British military who has posted about his experiences publicly before.
• omginternets 4y ago
  When I was in basic, we were routinely told "discretion is what separates the professional soldier from the thug".
• narag 4y ago
  During conscription, the sergeant corrected someone that talked about kills and told him it's casualties. "Sure, that's an euphemism, isn't it?" Well no, a kill is one enemy less. A wounded is better: the one that's wounded and one or two more to drag him to safety + later logistics.
  • the_af 4y ago
    I read about this in the context of the Vietnam War. All sides -- the US included! -- wanted to cause casualties on the enemy that would require medical assistance. Some weapons were even designed to hurt the rescuers.
    • sorokod 4y ago
      That kind of thinking was behind the adoption of a lower calibre for assault rifles, 5.56 rather then 7.62