US Army likely to ban smartwatches
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would there be an article then? Seems pretty silly.
I think what you call off base would matter. You live in a house on base (or barracks if single), so even at home you couldn't ware it.
-
I'm betting the wearing of the watch is limited to while on duty specifically. For example, the not walking while talking on a cell phone would only apply while either on base (military installation) or in uniform regardless of location.
But if you are off-base walk and talk all you want.
The same would probably go for the watch. -
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would there be an article then? Seems pretty silly.
I think what you call off base would matter. You live in a house on base (or barracks if single), so even at home you couldn't ware it.
That is awfully annoying. But the price you pay for living on base, I assume. Isn't that housing free?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That is awfully annoying. But the price you pay for living on base, I assume. Isn't that housing free?
Kinda. they get housing allowance to pay for it.
-
and any hand-held unit must never (ever) encumber a soldier from giving a snappy salute to a superior officer.
Good thing the military knows that saluting, and not protecting civilians, is what matters in these decisions.
-
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
War in the Middle East is un- winnable.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
I don't consider Desert Storm a win since we accomplished effectively nothing and we are still there (yes, technically with a short break.) And since the other side famously considered it a win for them at best it was a draw, but in reality, it was a minor loss.
Now not only have we lost in Iraq for a second time (highlighting how badly we lost the first time) but now even the little bit that was left is falling apart.
Vietnam was a dramatic loss. Korea was a draw, sort of, but overall on the negative side of a loss. If you consider WW1 to be a separate conflict from WW2 (which is a stretch) then WW1 we managed to win with the assistance of a ton of other countries. That we chose the winning side of a distant conflict where we had the luxury of joining only the side that we felt would win and only after observing the conflict for a while is pretty weak as wins go.
-
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
War in the Middle East is un- winnable.
That would depend on your stated goal I guess.
-
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
War in the Middle East is un- winnable.
That would depend on your stated goal I guess.
What goal is winnable in the Middle East?
-
@IRJ said:
What goal is winnable in the Middle East?
Seems like it's to force democracy on people who don't want it. meanwhile the US government is becoming more socialist.
-
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
War in the Middle East is un- winnable.
That would depend on your stated goal I guess.
What goal is winnable in the Middle East?
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
-
@Dashrender said:
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
Not the first time. Sadam is the one who declared victory after the first one.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Seems like it's to force democracy on people who don't want it.
Which, by definition, means it is not democracy.
-
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
War in the Middle East is un- winnable.
That would depend on your stated goal I guess.
What goal is winnable in the Middle East?
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
He kept the region stable. Now there is no one to do that. As you can see putting any type of western government wont last very long.
-
@Dashrender said:
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
When murdering one person is the goal of an entire war, you've lost already.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
A goal of removing Sadam from power - that was achieved.
When murdering one person is the goal of an entire war, you've lost already.
Wasn't that basically WWII with Hitler?
-
@IRJ said:
He kept the region stable. Now there is no one to do that. As you can see putting any type of western government wont last very long.
No other government has yet resorted to killing people and mailing the bill to the family for the bullets they used.
Edit: or forcing them to attend the execution and applaud afterwards.
Edit2: The interesting thing about Sadam is that we actually have video of his take over of the government. I won't go into details but the man was just.... despicable. I've watched the video & would not recommend.
-
@handsofqwerty said:
Wasn't that basically WWII with Hitler?
No, Hitler was one of the most admired people in the world at the start of the war. The US entered the war primarily against Japan, not Germany, and not until after the war was Hitler a hated figure. Remember that Hitler was Time's Man of the Year and was implementing policies that came from the US, not from Germany, and many Americans thought very, very highly of him even during the war. The impression that you have of the American impression of him is a product of history books and doesn't reflect the time period.
