3 ms·

Sorry, but that's just not the case anymore. There's a lot more to weapons systems now than simply figuring out which end to point at the thing you want to hurt

Sorry, but that's just not the case anymore. There's a lot more to weapons systems now than simply figuring out which end to point at the thing you want to hurt. Even getting a straight-leg infanteer up to speed takes more than a couple of weeks these days, and that doesn't begin to account for any of the more sophisticated tools that need trained operators and maintainers. There are some trades (MOCs) you can populate relatively quickly, but there are a whole big bunch of them that take years in peacetime (though you could break some of them down into smaller specialties and fast-track it to months at the expense of having people who know the whole system in wartime). It stopped being about getting a horde of young men to walk slowly and bravely into machine gun fire a long time ago.

Tloewald 14y ago
This may be true, but we don't need to outspend the rest of the world on defense in "peace" time. I'd also argue that we're very good at building insanely difficult to use systems. Perhaps if getting users up to speed with weapon systems were a design priority this wouldn't be true. After all, everywhere else but the military tech gets more powerful and simpler to use.
- stan_rogers 14y ago
  > After all, everywhere else but the military tech gets more powerful and simpler to use. And more disposable. If your modern whiz-bang gizmo dies in the field on civvy street, that may mean a trip to the store. Even those things that can be repaired or worked around are beyond the knowledge and capabilities of most owners/users these days. If it happens on the battlefield, you're dead if you're relying on things you don't understand and can't at least jury-rig to work when they go bing. And no, you can't reschedule. And along with the training you need to make it work, you'd damned well better have the conditioning that allows you to use the training when your own personal ass is on the line. If you are to have a military at all these days, it pretty much has to be a standing military (regular plus reserves). Ad hoc forces are cannon fodder and little more.

Tloewald 14y ago

This may be true, but we don't need to outspend the rest of the world on defense in "peace" time. I'd also argue that we're very good at building insanely difficult to use systems. Perhaps if getting users up to speed with weapon systems were a design priority this wouldn't be true. After all, everywhere else but the military tech gets more powerful and simpler to use.

stan_rogers 14y ago
> After all, everywhere else but the military tech gets more powerful and simpler to use. And more disposable. If your modern whiz-bang gizmo dies in the field on civvy street, that may mean a trip to the store. Even those things that can be repaired or worked around are beyond the knowledge and capabilities of most owners/users these days. If it happens on the battlefield, you're dead if you're relying on things you don't understand and can't at least jury-rig to work when they go bing. And no, you can't reschedule. And along with the training you need to make it work, you'd damned well better have the conditioning that allows you to use the training when your own personal ass is on the line. If you are to have a military at all these days, it pretty much has to be a standing military (regular plus reserves). Ad hoc forces are cannon fodder and little more.