[The_Gun_Nut]

Which is becoming a reality, even as we speak.

[anotherJack]

Unfortunately, this is true of our modern military. One of the biggest "issues" is the fact that we've gotten so good with saving the lives of our soldiers, we've have a lot more recovering from wounds than in previous wars. And some who have lost a lower extremity may go back out to the front lines with the advancement in prosthetic legs.

Actually, it might be intended.
I've heard of a very serious study which has proven some years ago that it's more usefull for an army to injury without killing antagonist soldiers, because injuried but still alive soldiers cost more than dead ones, and because they're very bad for the other camp moral, when dead ones mainly call for revenge.
So weapon makers were expected to deliver weapons that makes you an infirm without killing you.

[The_Gun_Nut]

Very true.  Just look at the capabilities of the M-16 round.  Unless you hit some major organs, it will simply injure.

[John Schmidt]

Unfortunately, this is true of our modern military. One of the biggest "issues" is the fact that we've gotten so good with saving the lives of our soldiers, we've have a lot more recovering from wounds than in previous wars. And some who have lost a lower extremity may go back out to the front lines with the advancement in prosthetic legs.

Actually, it might be intended.
I've heard of a very serious study which has proven some years ago that it's more usefull for an army to injury without killing antagonist soldiers, because injuried but still alive soldiers cost more than dead ones, and because they're very bad for the other camp moral, when dead ones mainly call for revenge.
So weapon makers were expected to deliver weapons that makes you an infirm without killing you.

I forget the exact numbers but I do remember reading that it takes X number of support personnel to care for wounded soldiers over X period of time. However, I wouldn't ascribe the choice of caliber for the M-16 as a result of that fact. Smaller caliber weapons, weigh less and allow the soldier to carry more ammo. Factor in that having a larger caliber bullet is going to generate far more recoil when shooting, which effects accuracy. There is no denying though that the 5.56mm cartridge is not legal to hunt deer with because it doesn't generate the required amount of muzzle energy.

[bobo69]

From experience , the Ak-47 7.62 combloc round(which is still probably the most popular round is the world) has a good knockdown and shock effect. Problem is that its not too accurate for aimed fire(due to the higher recoil of the Ak-47 and the primitive sights on most of them). However at close in fighting, accuracy doesn't really matter. Shock and Knockdown power of your guns does(that's why my buddies like carrying shotguns and Ak-47 for close in stuff). Also you can easilly get new ammo from your enemies.

However I personally like the M-16. the 5.56 round has less shock power but again the M-16 is more user friendly, more accurate, less recoil, better sights(on the new iterations). 5.56 round, less damage but stilll does the same thing.

[bobo69]

Anyways going back to desert wars.

Yeah , desert wars is very entertaining. Not only do the contestants fight Corps and their experimental stuff but also the denizens of the desert wars zone(Libya): Mutants, critters, toxic spirits, shadow spirits etc.

[Catadmin]

Well so far, its got redacted, and  redacted, plus some redacted.. OH and  redacted!!!!

Caine! How dare you give so much of the book away.

Yes, folks. The entire book has nothing but redacted in it. In fact, I've seen all the redacted. It's pretty redacted.

@=)

[Mystic]

Unfortunately, this is true of our modern military. One of the biggest "issues" is the fact that we've gotten so good with saving the lives of our soldiers, we've have a lot more recovering from wounds than in previous wars. And some who have lost a lower extremity may go back out to the front lines with the advancement in prosthetic legs.

Actually, it might be intended.
I've heard of a very serious study which has proven some years ago that it's more usefull for an army to injury without killing antagonist soldiers, because injuried but still alive soldiers cost more than dead ones, and because they're very bad for the other camp moral, when dead ones mainly call for revenge.
So weapon makers were expected to deliver weapons that makes you an infirm without killing you.

Nice theory, chum, but tell that to the troops who are getting hit with IEDs, gurella tactics, snipers, etc. That would only work if both sides would play by standard rules of engagement. And when has that seriously happened? Problem is, it's a lot harder to injure rather than kill, and when it hits the fan and your buddies are getting blown away, do you think any rational person wants to INJURE their opponent? No, they want to end the attack by the swiftest means possible. It's like the drek I keep hearing about people who think cops should shoot "in the leg" or something. You know how bloody hard it is to do that when you are standing still, at a firing range, all calm and collected, against a stationary paper target? Now try it against a target that is dodging, weaving, jumping in and out from behind cover, and most importantly RETURNING FIRE while you are dodging, weaving, jumping, etc etc while your heart is racing and adreneline is pumping in your veins.

With respect, omae, there is a reason police and soliders are taught to shoot for senter mass and to eliminate the threat when it is necessary. And in my humble opinion, to fight to injure, especially in a "war" situation, is a lot less humane because it causes undue suffering. Less than lethal (notice I did not say non-lethal because there is no such thing) options have their place, but in order to survive, one must know when and when that time arrives to be able to pull the trigger.

Just my two cents, and sorry, this is a touchy subject for me...I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[anotherJack]

Well, think what you want, I only heard this some times ago, I don't even remember where, probably on the radio, I just repeat it here what I remember.
You don't buy it, you think no human being could think a war in terms of gains and costs, because it's a too much shocking and disgusting way of thinking, you think I lie or those I heard where liars ? no problem, I don't need you to believe me or to believe them, and I won't argue, especially if it's a touchy subject for you.

[Mystic]

Chummer, I see it every day. The problem is, way to many think of war as nothing BUT gains and losses, numbers and figures, projectons and statistical breakdowns. And I bet most of those who do have never seen a battlefield or had to truly use a weapon in anger.

[John Schmidt]

War should be horrible to behold and even the thought of entering into it give pause to even the stoutest soul.

As a wargamer, I play such games not because I revel in the thought of war, but as a study of tactical (and certain games...strategic) considerations that go into it. A paintball player, I have come to appreciate factors like force multipliers, fire and maneuver, diversions, camouflage, what the fog of war means, and vital nature of communication.

I hold in the highest regard those brave individuals who have willingly gone to war, given their blood and sadly their lives for the rest of us.

When I did the write up for Desert Wars in Target: Wastelands, I was thinking of the games that the Romans held in the coliseum. Vast amounts of Roman treasure (looted from conquered nations) was spent on these games and the popularity of them was obviously considerable. I have read a number of books on the Roman games, Those About to Die (being one of the most thorough), discusses the bloodlust of the spectators. I will not recount what I read here due to the vulgarity of it. Let us just say, that in a dystopian society blood sports of this nature are a staple.

[bobo69]

I also play board wargames but mainly for historical learning purposes.

And wars are not fun to be in.

[bobo69]

Forgot to add:

I like obscure topics too(Second Sino Japanese war, Liberian civil war, etc.). WW2 eastern front etc. are too overgamed.

Anyways going back to Shadowurn,

I won't be surprised if there are actually legal televised gladiator style bloodsports in the 6th world. Probably beamed from some non UN country(eg. Congo tribal lands, Bosnia, etc.). They even get to pit anyone vs. anything.

[anotherJack]

You don't need to go that far.

[FastJack]

What the other Jack said. Aztlan has been broadcasting state executions (they say the person has been found guilty of such-and-such) for years. And it's some of the most watch Tri-D out there.