Show Quora Questions are part of a partnership between Newsweek and Quora, through which we'll be posting relevant and interesting answers from Quora contributors throughout the week. Read more about the partnership here. Quora Question: How Much Control Do Soldiers Have Over the Customization of Their Weapon? Answer from Dan Rosenthal, OIF I/II vet, Infantry/Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Target Acquisition team: Essentially none. Every single item in your unit's armory is accounted for by serial number and hand signature. If you don't need it, it's under lock and key. It gets assigned out to you based on the MTOE -- basically a document that says who is in what position in the unit, and is assigned to what weapon system. This means that everything is exactly uniform, and exactly how is expected: your squad will have two SAWs, two M203s, and nobody has to guess about it. As I mentioned, you have to sign for everything. This is called accountability for sensitive items. Your rifle, your optics, your attachments, your NODs (night vision) -- all are sensitive items. You are absolutely screwed if you cannot produce your sensitive items for a check. This means that you won't be carrying a spare ACOG lying around. If it's signed out for you, it's being used. Otherwise, it's back in the armory. There is a bit of leeway with minor, ergonomic accessories. If you want to put a grip sleeve on your rifle, you're risking trouble with your senior NCOs, but since it's an easily removable, cheap mod, you may get overlooked. (Or, you do this right before you leave the wire). Certain things like putting a personally owned flashlight on your forward rails is generally not a problem, assuming you weren't issued one in the first place. I got away for a long time having rigged up a green laser to my PAQ-4 IR laser, so I could have a daytime visible-light laser. I eventually stopped because other units didn't know what it was. Lots of people bought those nice Magpul polymer mags and mag loop attachments. See all that 550 cord and 100mph tape on my M68 and PEQ/4? That's what we call "dummy cording", to make extra sure it doesn't come off and you lose a sensitive item. Some things simply can't be easily swapped. When you are issued a rifle, you're issued the entire rifle. To put a collapsible stock on an M16a2 entails separating the lower receiver, removing the stock entirely (something not taught in basic fieldstripping) and replacing it. But guess what? Maybe now the buffer spring assembly doesn't fit because collapsible stocks often require a different length. Or, perhaps you're encountering weapons malfunctions, because you're using the wrong spring and the weapon is not cycling properly? Good job high-speed, if you find this out in a firefight and get someone killed. Adjusting my front sight post while zeroing my rifle on the range. You may get in trouble for putting unapproved accessories on your weapon. When I was in Iraq, there was an NCO who had ordered a 3x9 scope out of some magazine to put on his M16. He got chewed out for doing so, because it was not properly zeroed and he was putting everyone at risk if someone had to use his rifle; not to mention that the M68 that was already assigned to him was a sensitive item. Once you enter the secret squirrel land of special operations, this becomes less of a concern, as you tend to be issued things like SOPMOD kits and are expected to tailor what you're using to the mission profile. As a Ranger, for instance, you may have a bit more freedom with this than someone in 82nd Airborne would; especially if you are in RRC. In SF, you end up with a lot more freedom to tailor your equipment but you still do so in consultation with the team. It's not like you're saying, "Oh, hmm, I think I'll take a bipod today because why the hell not," when you're going to be clearing buildings. How much control do soldiers have over the customization of their weapon? originally appeared on Quora: The best answer to any question. Ask a question, get a great answer. Learn from experts and access insider knowledge. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:
This article discusses the consequences for permitting Putin any success in his acts of aggression, and explores the way in which such a concession would lead to much broader consequences, especially impacting long-term stability around the world. Quora Moderation has deleted this answer as ‘spam’, so I have decided to move it to Medium. It can also be found here, in an Italian version that was published on an online business magazine: This version, which was written in response to the question “Will Ukraine give up land as part of a peace agreement”, is essentially identical to the one that was deleted on Quora: That’s neither a likely nor a desirable outcome. Such a ‘peace’ would not be peaceful. In one of my most recent answers, I stated that “Russia’s warmaking capabilities must be utterly destroyed”.[1]I called for the toppling of Putin’s regime, and for a colossal, crushing and public humiliation of Putin and everything he stands for. And thankfully, the way things are going, that looks to be the most probable outcome of this war. But some commenters challenged this assertion, suggesting that it was dangerous and that such a humiliation would leave Putin backed into a corner. It’s advice that seems to ignore the common wisdom of never pressing a cornered enemy. So I’d like to take the time to explain why this is necessary, and why making an example of Putin is the lesser risk, compared with any other outcome. Putin made that decision for us, when he chose war. 1: Nuclear Gangsterism and the Long Peace. When Putin invaded Ukraine, he took care to threaten the entire Western World with nuclear retaliation if they tried to intervene.[2] A few days later, he announced that he had put his nuclear forces on ‘special alert’, and has recently conducted ICBM drills and submarine exercises. Putin’s nuclear posturing has been building quietly but steadily over the last few days and weeks. If you extend your timeline back further, say, over the last decade or so, you see more of the same pattern of steady escalation. He’s doing it quickly now, but before that Putin was escalating slowly. In particular, he’s used the strategy to isolate intended victims from external help. When he invaded Georgia, this dynamic was rather explicit, but now it’s thoroughly broken into the open over Ukraine. The first step was 8 years ago, when he took Crimea and turned Donbas into a warzone with only limited consequences, but now after the full-scale invasion this aspect of his policy doesn’t even have a fig leaf of plausible deniability anymore. Everything’s out in broad daylight now. There’s a term for what Putin’s doing: nuclear blackmail.  The normalisation of this behaviour is a prospect that has long concerned diplomats and strategists, really since the earlier phases of the Cold War. The fear was that a nuclear power, whether minor or major, would use the threat of a nuclear strike to gain concessions that they might not be able to attain by other means, and also that rogue actors including states could press their demands on the international community in a way that could erode global stability and empower madmen. This was considered a very plausible consequence of the spread of nuclear weapons at the dawn of the atomic age. Why didn’t an epidemic of nuclear blackmail break out across the world at this time? The truth is that it very nearly did, only some very scary crises and the steady buildup of huge nuclear arsenals in America and the Soviet Union led to the pre-eminence of a much more terrifying template for nuclear war, that of ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ (MAD). Under this stably dangerous situation, the two nuclear superpowers, and the rest of the world alongside them, ended up in a kind of geopolitical equilibrium[3]where the consequences of large scale state-to-state warfare between the two Cold War ‘rival camps’ were so terrible that both parties chose to ‘play within the rules’ and avoid direct confrontation. MAD created an upper limit on state-to-state warfare that was awful enough that the ‘big fish’ were deterred from fighting each other. Furthermore, they invested a lot of effort in preventing the little fish from getting hold of nukes, with mixed success. From the 1980s onwards MAD was eroded by alternative theories of nuclear escalations, such as NUTS,[4] which allowed for more limited nuclear warfare, at least in theory. Since then, innovations in things like low-yield nuclear weapons, cyberwarfare, and the developments of doctrines of ‘hybrid warfare’ which the Russians have practiced against states they view as rivals, have all eaten into the concept that direct war between major nuclear powers would necessarily lead to MAD. Despite this, no-one has been willing to directly test that idea for real. Major military powers have therefore refrained from waging direct war on each other since the Second World War. That’s one of the two legs on which the Long Peace has been based. To anyone unfamiliar with the term, the Long Peace refers to the 80-odd years since WW2 which have been some of the most peaceful in all of human history. Of course we’ve had wars during this time, but not to the same extent, nor at the same level, nor of the same intensity as in nearly any other period of history. The Long Peace has been facilitated in part by the network of treaties, common agreements, and consensuses that we now refer to as the rules-based international order. It has been propped up by growing links and ties between countries around the world, by education promoting cross-cultural understanding and a global outlook, by networks of trade and commerce and and a demystifying of the ‘other’ helped along by a more-globalised media environment and the internet. It has been eased along and consolidated by peace programmes, by commitments to de-escalation and to de-armament, and negotiation and compromise in place of warfare. That is the second leg upon which Long Peace rests. But the bottom line is that this ‘rules-based international order’, and this Long Peace upon which it rests, have ultimately been maintained and are finally underpinned by the fear of nuclear war. The nations of the world were scared straight. That is why WW3 didn’t break out in the decades following WW2. And now it’s all under threat. Surely only a madman would jeopardise such a peace? This huge assault, from a dictator who many naively thought of as a known quantity, seems to defy all reason and sanity. What kind of a maniac must Putin be to risk such a venture, when the consequences are so obviously terrible, and when he has so much to lose? On the face of it, from a rational and civilised perspective, actual insanity looks like the best explanation for this invasion. While I won’t rule out that Putin suffers from some kind of neurodegenerative condition or age-related decline, this isn’t necessary to explain his actions. Despite superficial appearances, he is highly likely to be following a ‘rational’ strategy, based on what we know about him and what he seems to want. It just isn’t a civilised strategy. I’ve stated previously that Putin wants the re-establishment of an Imperial Russian/ Soviet ‘sphere of influence’ and the strategic humiliation of the West.[5]How do we know this? He’s told us himself already, many times over the years, both in what he’s written and what he’s said and followed through on. What this means is that he wishes to expand into, and puncture, the current balance of world power and reorient the geopolitical world order into one that accommodates a new, Imperialistic Russia. Whether this is delusional and questions of whether Russia could actually support this venture in the long run aren’t relevant for the moment, what’s important is that Putin wants to do it. What this means is that unlike during the Cold War, Russia and the West are not at strategic equilibrium. Rather, Russia seeks to disrupt the current equilibrium, and re-establish a new one that favours its imperialistic ventures. This is a problem for the West, and the World, because all the measures enacted during the Cold War to avoid a nuclear exchange were predicated on the premise that both parties were invested in maintaining their respective situations. Cold-war measures designed to avoid nuclear war such as public signalling of peaceful intentions, the Red Telephone[6] and so on are tools that were developed in an environment when both parties were ultimately invested in keeping things on an even keel. What this means is that much of the prevention policy of the West focuses on clear communication of intentions. This prevents the major hazard in a strategic system at equilibrium but high tension: that a misunderstanding could quickly and disastrously escalate into a catastrophe. Unfortunately, when one of the ‘players’ in a strategic confrontation is not invested in the status quo, but has plans of conquest, this strategy is very dangerous. It empowers the rogue party. Signalling predictability in a conflict with a bad-faith adversary merely allows him to anticipate your next move and counter it. It allows him to know before time what your move will be and plan accordingly, to maximise the disruptive effects of his strategy in undermining the whole system. It allows him to win. In this case, the West’s public signalling of its peaceful intentions led to war. All the efforts to accommodate Russia, to address its ‘fears’, led right here. Why? Because Putin always intended to unleash this war, and we didn’t stop him. It’s only thanks to the bravery and determination of the Ukrainians that Putin’s strategy has faced likely fatal setbacks. And the fact remains that his use of nuclear blackmail has still demonstrably stymied and hamstrung the West’s response. Putin, because he is a gangster fascist,[7] has been gaming and subverting the very underpinning of the Long Peace and weaponising the desire to avoid nuclear war against us all. And the truth is that up to now, this aspect of his strategy has not been ineffective. He has managed to normalise nuclear blackmail to a certain extent. He has set an example. That example cannot be allowed to stand. This is why he must fail here, be humiliated utterly. His regime cannot be allowed to survive this war. It must be seen that this madness he has unleashed led him to total ruin. There can be no ambiguity in interpreting the outcome. When the history of this war is written up, let the final word on Putin be only the observation that those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. This has to happen, because others are watching. 2: Anarchy or a New Axis? A world in which nuclear diplomacy becomes normalised, or in which major state-to-state war becomes decoupled from the fear of nuclear armageddon, would be very different to the one we live in right now. We’ve got the barest taste of it already, with the new ballistic missile tests being conducted by North Korea right now. And that Iran nuclear deal doesn’t seem to be going so well at the time of writing. But in a world of nuclear diplomacy, these situations become exponentially worse. Every tense standoff or frozen conflict where nuclear weapons are an actual or potential factor snowballs and escalates. Every little crisis or hybrid war or gray conflict morphs into something much fiercer in a very different security environment to the one we’ve become used to. Pakistan-India? That’s gonna be interesting. Iran-Saudi-Arabia-Israel? Anyone eager for more nuclear escalation in that conflict? China-Taiwan? Just the beginning. So many simmering conflicts and regional tensions around the world, just waiting for the fun to begin. So much violence kept in check by our ‘rules-based international order’. But how long will it stay in check? And that’s before we consider the wider ‘great power’ conflict that’s already underway, that confrontation between the autocracies and the democracies of the world, the threat of a true WW3. At the moment, China is very hesitant to openly support Russia. They were undoubtedly taken aback by the intensity of the response to the invasion from a newly-galvanised West, and will have watched the military humiliation of Russia unfold with great dismay. Their long-desired adventure in Taiwan suddenly doesn’t seem like such a great idea, their bragging proclamations that the heavily fortified island nation will ‘fall in hours’ not so credible. And the sanctions handed out by the West against Russia have been devastating. This more than anything will have sent a chill down China’s spine. But sanctions are a double-edged sword. The penalties that have been applied by the West are one-time use. They will never be able to be used again against Russia, nor realistically against any other nation in the same way. Other nations, especially China but also others, are currently in the process of assessing how to insulate their economies from the shock that such financial punishment would have on them. They are working to become independent of the US-led global economy, and especially of the petrodollar. We are already beginning to see clear signs of this new dynamic forming up.[8] Of a possible coming shift to a ‘multipolar’ world in which the walls fly up again and nations align themselves according to the affinity or influence of different superpowers. Russia isn’t the only country with Imperialistic ambitions looking to overturn the ‘rules-based international order’. The realcontender, China, watches this all unfold with great interest. Just like Russia, China does not seek equilibrium with the current world order, it seeks to overcome it and rearrange it in a way more in line with its ambitions.[9] Unlike Russia, China truly is a superpower, at least in the economic sphere. And we’re now at a crossroads in how China and Russia will relate to each other in the coming years. The West’s sanctions against Russia have firmly pushed it out ‘into the cold’. At the moment, Russia is in the beginning of an economic upheaval that will likely rival and probably exceed that which it went through in the ’90s. But if this shock doesn’t actually lead to the collapse of the Russian war effort, and then of the regime, then the sanctions will cause a hormesis effect, whereby they will force the state institutions into a more durable, functional and permanent reliance on China. As Nietzsche said, “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. If these sanctions don’t kill the regime, if the West’s response doesn’t topple Putin, if the state is given the time to reorganise and reinvent itself, then it will be reborn as a gigantic North Korea. Russia will become a brutal, poverty stricken Chinese vassal constantly menacing the European continent, its ability to wage war underwritten by China. It will be far less wealthy and prosperous than before, but as long as the current clique remain in power, it will continue to pursue its Imperialist ambitions. And it will learn from the mistakes that were made in this war. There will be a new Axis alliance stretching from the Baltic to the South China Sea. However, if the regime does fall, Russia will be given a chance to democratise, and there will be an opportunity to avoid this eventuality. If that comes to pass, China is likely to back off from further attempts to form close links with Russia, a prospect about which they have serious reservations right now already. Hopefully, the transition towards a more multipolar and distributed world could then be managed more smoothly, without the formation of gigantic power blocs of fascist dictatorships and the kind of economic and ideological balkanisation that could trigger a World War. Avoiding bad outcomes like World War, a simmering Cold War between the world’s autocracies and democracies, or the breakdown of the ‘rules-based order’ into worldwide nuclear extortion and gangsterism, should be the priorities in dealing with the changing global situation over the coming years. For these outcomes to be avoided, the Putinist regime has to fall. 3: Conclusion. Once again I’ve written a bleak and harsh piece; I do not wish to sugarcoat the reality of the threat that I believe the world is facing. I’ve also tried to impress on people the reality that this is not a threat that is readily understood by the ‘modern, liberal Western mindset’. Not everyone is the same as you guys. There really are people, groups, whole nations which follow strategies that are ‘rational’, but whocan’t be reasoned with. There exist uncivilised threats. In dealing with such threats it is sometimes necessary to think like an uncivilised adversary to understand their intentions and counter their methods. But I also want to emphasise that despite the evils of Putin’s regime, despite even the seeping gangster fascism that has so permeated Russian society and threatens us all, the essential nation of Russia itself, its culture and people, still deserve our regard. Don’t give way to hating. Headlines like this sadden me: Cardiff Philharmonic removes Tchaikovsky performance over Ukraine conflict Russia has given much good to the world, and I hope it will give much again, once this regime is dealt with. Many brave Russians are currently languishing in jail or worse for daring to stand up the horror squatting within their own nation. When the time comes, they will need all the help they can get to rebuild their country. But in the meantime, don’t flag in resolve. This regime must be broken. Putin irreversibly and inevitably proved that when he ordered his armies across the border on February 24th. The decision was made for us. A weak ‘peace’ will not be peaceful in the long term. We must not flag in doing what’s necessary to destroy the war machine ravaging Ukraine right now, nor in ensuring that it can never inflict such damage and horror again. We need to do more. Because the stakes are too high. Putin must fall. I’d like to share this video, because it highlights the reality of what fully-fledged state-to-state warfare means in the modern era. It’s long, but well-worth it if you have the time: The Long Peace may be frustrating, unjust, and even violent at times. But it vastly beats the alternatives. Unfortunately, peace is an aberration in human history, not the rule. It must be guarded, constantly. Sometimes maintaining it requires vigilance. And when a warlord appears whose actions threaten to drag the world back into an era of blood, he must be prevented from doing so. ‘Never Again’ is a promise that was made to the World for all time. Let’s not permit it to die on our watch. Slava Ukraini. As usual, troll comments will be deleted and their accounts blocked+reported. Note: Since I’ve been advised that my last two answers on Ukraine were possibly automatically collapsed because of the high number of links I included, this answer contains far fewer footnotes than usual. Drop me a comment if you want more information/clarification on anything. Let’s see if that makes a difference to it being collapsed or not. Footnotes [1] Alan Gould’s answer to Is Russia’s intervention in Ukraine the start of World War 3? [2] Would Russia really launch nuclear weapons? [3] Nash equilibrium — Wikipedia [4] Nuclear weapons in the 1980s: MAD versus NUTS. Mutual hostage relationship of the superpowers (Journal Article) [5] Alan Gould’s answer to Is Russia’s intervention in Ukraine the start of World War 3? [6] Moscow–Washington hotline — Wikipedia [7] Alan Gould’s answer to Has Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, taking almost one month and failing to capture more than a single major city, exposed Russia’s ‘military might’ as a Paper Tiger? [8] Saudi Arabia Considers Accepting Yuan Instead of Dollars for Chinese Oil Sales [9] How China is responding to escalating strategic competition with the US How can we use education to change the world?Education can stimulate economic growth less directly, by increasing innovation, productivity, and human capital. And education also has a history of fostering positive social change, by encouraging things like political participation, social equality, and environmental sustainability.
Is education our most powerful weapon?"Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandela.
What is the powerful weapon to change the world?“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” -Nelson Mandela – Toano.
|
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world quora
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 decemle Inc.
