| I mean, the way the JSDF goes around using 21st century weaponry on primitive medieval armies is almost as bad as the annihilation of native folks by Westerners (like in America, and is worse because they were indiscriminate and also because of diseases), although it's more one-sided. I mean, during and directly following the invasion in the first episode in season 1, it makes sense as an immediate military response (There were also a LOT of the enemy army). But afterwards, they could probably suppress the soldiers with just some riot shields and tear gas. In the last two episodes, it just looked ridiculous with all of the military posturing against people armed with swords and spears. Glorified massacre using modern military I guess? |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
| Pooping? If the JSDF were using tear gas and riot shields, then it would be 'pooping on medieval technology folks.' While the series admittedly doesn't show it all that well, a trained soldier with 'medieval tech' is still a foe trained and armed to kill, and would be a mortal threat to any modern soldier given the right scenario (distance, numbers, etc.) Expecting any army to put itself at significant risk in order to save the lives of enemy combatants clearly goes against basic military principles. Personally, I think the show 'pooped' on the intelligence and complex societies of these 'primitive' ages, but that's separate to what this thread seems to be about. |
Ckan said: Pooping? If the JSDF were using tear gas and riot shields, then it would be 'pooping on medieval technology folks.' While the series admittedly doesn't show it all that well, a trained soldier with 'medieval tech' is still a foe trained and armed to kill, and would be a mortal threat to any modern soldier given the right scenario (distance, numbers, etc.) Expecting any army to put itself at significant risk in order to save the lives of enemy combatants clearly goes against basic military principles. Personally, I think the show 'pooped' on the intelligence and complex societies of these 'primitive' ages, but that's separate to what this thread seems to be about. There wouldn't be at any risk at all with minimal preparation. Humans function extremely poorly when exposed to tear gas, for one. Not only that, but they could use easily tranquilizing gas. Which is why I said, it made sense for them to annihilate the empire and allied armies in the first two episodes, but it just looks ridiculous in the 23rd episode. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
| "Minimal preparation." I confess I don't remember how long they've spent in the other world as of S2, but they're still a small force relative to the unknown nation they have to operate in. Mobilising non-lethal methods would require superiority of force, preparation, and organisation. All things that become unreliable in a combat situation. The JSDF was so successful in Gate because of the huge disparity in capabilities despite the bureaucracy of humanity, international laws, and political handicapping. To become non-lethal, the JSDF would have to significantly change their methods of operation - something militaries are traditionally resistant to Then there would be the cost factor of having to refit the weapons - an obvious political sticking point back home. When riot police engage protestors, these aren't forces aiming to kill one another, yet in this scenario, one side would be? Sure, gas would have significant effect, especially on those unfamiliar with the technology. But how easily do riot shields and kevlar protect from arrows or javelins? What happens when a determined charge reaches the riot shields? Are you going to baton and taser them into submission? Or are you literally going to gas half the city in order to achieve situational control. And let's not mind the wyverns in the sky, nor the potential dangers of magic users and other superlarge beasts, since those never really came into play within the show. Even with additional manpower, some kind of gas-tottling air support, and armoured vehicles, the rescue missions of S2 would now be incredibly difficult - if not impossible. Cumbersome and conspicuous, what an even greater miracle it would be for the JSDF to get through unscathed. Modern militaries can boast immense firepower and/or operational deftness based on a variety of technologies - if you strip them of their weapons, it's a guard dog without teeth. |
Ckan said: "Minimal preparation." I confess I don't remember how long they've spent in the other world as of S2, but they're still a small force relative to the unknown nation they have to operate in. Mobilising non-lethal methods would require superiority of force, preparation, and organisation. All things that become unreliable in a combat situation. The JSDF was so successful in Gate because of the huge disparity in capabilities despite the bureaucracy of humanity, international laws, and political handicapping. To become non-lethal, the JSDF would have to significantly change their methods of operation - something militaries are traditionally resistant to Then there would be the cost factor of having to refit the weapons - an obvious political sticking point back home. When riot police engage protestors, these aren't forces aiming to kill one another, yet in this scenario, one side would be? Sure, gas would have significant effect, especially on those unfamiliar with the technology. But how easily do riot shields and kevlar protect from arrows or javelins? What happens when a determined charge reaches the riot shields? Are you going to baton and taser them into submission? Or are you literally going to gas half the city in order to achieve situational control. And let's not mind the wyverns in the sky, nor the potential dangers of magic users and other superlarge beasts, since those never really came into play within the show. Even with additional manpower, some kind of gas-tottling air support, and armoured vehicles, the rescue missions of S2 would now be incredibly difficult - if not impossible. Cumbersome and conspicuous, what an even greater miracle it would be for the JSDF to get through unscathed. Modern militaries can boast immense firepower and/or operational deftness based on a variety of technologies - if you strip them of their weapons, it's a guard dog without teeth. They did spend some months in the other world. Anyways, it probably wouldn't be thinkable to disarm military personnel, but equipping them with some non-lethals wouldn't be out of the question. I mean, the other side are soldiers, who should be prepared to die as part of their job description, but they aren't the ones that pick the fights, and they're obviously poorly armed. You'd think that even in "war," the military would get a lot of flak from foreign countries and the media (especially with the way they depicted media in this series) for not even attempting use of nonlethal force. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
| It's fun to watch them get annihilated like thaqt, reminds me of Empire Earth a lot. Gate is pretty much a propaganda film anyway. The "Self Defence Force" going around killing baddies like they're from an action flick. The enemy soldiers are faceless stormtroppers in a different suit. |
| . MortalMelancholy said: I mean, the way the JSDF goes around using 21st century weaponry on primitive medieval armies is almost as bad as the annihilation of native folks by Westerners (like in America, and is worse because they were indiscriminate and also because of diseases), although it's more one-sided. I mean, during and directly following the invasion in the first episode in season 1, it makes sense as an immediate military response (There were also a LOT of the enemy army). But afterwards, they could probably suppress the soldiers with just some riot shields and tear gas. In the last two episodes, it just looked ridiculous with all of the military posturing against people armed with swords and spears. Glorified massacre using modern military I guess? The purpose of war is to defeat the enemy and to make the enemy too scared to retaliate. It doesn't how technologically inferior the enemy is. There is no such thing as fairness in war, you don't handi-cap your troops. |
ezikialrage said: . MortalMelancholy said: I mean, the way the JSDF goes around using 21st century weaponry on primitive medieval armies is almost as bad as the annihilation of native folks by Westerners (like in America, and is worse because they were indiscriminate and also because of diseases), although it's more one-sided. I mean, during and directly following the invasion in the first episode in season 1, it makes sense as an immediate military response (There were also a LOT of the enemy army). But afterwards, they could probably suppress the soldiers with just some riot shields and tear gas. In the last two episodes, it just looked ridiculous with all of the military posturing against people armed with swords and spears. Glorified massacre using modern military I guess? The purpose of war is to defeat the enemy and to make the enemy too scared to retaliate. It doesn't how technologically inferior the enemy is. There is no such thing as fairness in war, you don't handi-cap your troops. Believe it or not, ethics exist in the 21st century, along with the Geneva convention. And just because some things might not fall under laws doesn't mean it's not ethical, and the should be getting a ton of shit from the press and other countries. It also doesn't make the soldiers look any less ridiculous, acting like it's a war while taking modern weapons against 16th century footmen. I mean, it's technically a war, but only in name. On another note, they were shooting some soldiers who dropped their weapons and were running. That's directly against the Geneva convention. Reminds me of some of the really old movies about the Anglo Zulu war, where soldiers would be using gunning down Zulu tribals in Africa with gatlings, saying stuff like "We have to save this country from these savages!" Of course, the irony is that it's the savages' country... |
MortalMelancholyMar 28, 2016 6:27 PM
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
| GATE is self-masturbatory Japanese propaganda. |
 Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. |
Deserada said: GATE is self-masturbatory Japanese propaganda. Pretty sure it work judging at the end everyone got ship. |
| Ok first of all Militaries don't have riot shields and tear gas. That's police equipment. Second of all, the shock and awe effect is important because it gives you more leverage in negotiations to have your oppenent be fully aware that they face total annihilation at the press of a button. Third of all, these people aren't party to the Geneva convention so they can do whatever the hell they want, especially since other countries aren't really watching. Fourth, you greatly overestimate the efficacy of less-lethal weapons... they don't even work that great for dispersing a crowd of unarmed protesters, what do you think it's going to do against an army? This isn't fucking call of duty where you just run up to them, schwack then with your riot shield and you win. But fourth, and most importantly: Deserada said: GATE is self-masturbatory JSDF propaganda. Petrol said: Getting back to the original topic, the weapons I believe that have changed human warfare, were (1) Greek Hellfire, (2) Catapult/Ballista, (3) Siege Towers (slow moving fortresses that were used to alter the balance of a castle.). These of course lead to modern weaponry now known as mortars, tanks and infantry transport vehicles. I have no idea how you managed to make that list without including the conical bullet (or the radio... or even just gunpowder) but the connection between siege engines and tanks is tenuous at best. The tank popped up as a means of breaking through trenches in the first world war, where an increase in firepower (due to artillery and the machine gun) was not matched by increases in mobility. Now, while it fulfills approximately the same purpose as a siege tower, how it accomplishes that and the underlying technology is completely different. You don't really draw a clear line between the two when, for hundreds of years, nobody used siege towers because you could just blow the poor sucker's castle apart with artillery. |
| I'd say something like the (1) transistor/vacuum tube, (2) gunpowder, and (3) WMDs had the most profound effect on warfare as we know it. |
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. |
| Trebuchets, Full suit of armor and Horses. |
| Elementary my dear Watson, Elementary... |
Petrol said: Castle-like fortifications indeed kept their effectiveness well into the early modern era due to changes in design and the obvious adoption of defensive cannons.Oh rly? [insert random owl here] In all seriousness, did Age of Castles have bullets or a radio, and granted gun powder had been recently discovered by the Chinese, that's correct but as a means of military asset, no, it was used for festivities. Actually, the weaponisation of gunpowder by the Chinese is well known. Designs for land mines, bombs, and rockets all existed by the time of the Mongols. That's well within Europe's medieval time frame.How did you get my equating siege tower to tank? Actually I was referring the power of a catapult evolving into a tank, use your imagination? I believe the point fst was making was that the tank was invented for reasons completely different from that of destructive siege weapons.I am merely talking about weapons of antiquity which is the original topic of MortalMelancholy. You may have been talking of antiquity, but drawing a direct link from there and skipping several hundreds of years' worth of developments to get to mortars and tanks is plain ahistorical. |
Petrol said: Oh rly? [insert random owl here] In all seriousness, did Age of Castles have bullets or a radio, and granted gun powder had been recently discovered by the Chinese, that's correct but as a means of military asset, no, it was used for festivities. No, but you never said anything about age of castles only, you said: Getting back to the original topic, the weapons I believe that have changed human warfare, were (1) Greek Hellfire, (2) Catapult/Ballista, (3) Siege Towers Which everybody else seems to have also understood as not being limited to any specific time period, but all of human history. Petrol said: How did you get my equating siege tower to tank? Actually I was referring the power of a catapult evolving into a tank, use your imagination? Because what you said was: (1) Greek Hellfire, (2) Catapult/Ballista, (3) Siege Towers (slow moving fortresses that were used to alter the balance of a castle.). These of course lead to modern weaponry now known as mortars, tanks and infantry transport vehicles. and of the three, the siege tower is most similar to the tank. The purpose of a tank is to break through fortified lines (originally trenches) by carrying soldiers and weapons across no-man's land in a protected vehicle. Sounds a lot more like a siege tower than a catapult to me. A catapult would be analogous to artillery. Petrol said: You could just blow apart a castle walls that easily? I guess you could after multiple pinpoint strikes on one single area. Believe me, those castles in Ireland and England stood and still stand today because they weren't built of straw or wood. Well there's a reason they stopped building castles and started building forts, and then stopped building forts and started building bunkers, etc. Spoiler alert, the reason for that was artillery getting better and better (and later airpower too). Nobody built a castle on the western front for protection against artillery. Petrol said: What lead to the evolution of warfare was fire weapons, was long range projectile weapons and siege weapons, and it was evolved from there. Long bow and sling-slot and the sword short were also on my list if I were trying to making a top ten list. I am merely talking about weapons of antiquity which is the original topic of MortalMelancholy. Could have been more clear about that. Oh, and before I forget: Ckan said: d rockets all existed by the time of the Mongols. That's well within Europe's medieval time frame. How did you get my equating siege tower to tank? Actually I was referring the power of a catapult evolving into a tank, use your imagination? I believe the point fst was making was that the tank was invented for reasons completely different from that of destructive siege weapons.No, the opposite, they were invented for approximately the same purpose, to break through fortifications. |
fstMar 28, 2016 9:18 PM
| fst are you alright dude? |
| Elementary my dear Watson, Elementary... |
ScotlandYard said: fst are you alright dude? Petrol said: I suppose no one is forcing you to write or think in a coherent manner. If it makes you feel better, please do take the opportunity to bow out with a snarky insult. With both profiles, if necessary.Okay you win, I have no idea what you're trying to say because you make no sense but you win. :) Take care and try not to fall on your head because I suspect that's what happened to you. lol |
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. |
MortalMelancholy said: ezikialrage said: . The purpose of war is to defeat the enemy and to make the enemy too scared to retaliate. It doesn't how technologically inferior the enemy is. There is no such thing as fairness in war, you don't handi-cap your troops. Believe it or not, ethics exist in the 21st century, along with the Geneva convention. And just because some things might not fall under laws doesn't mean it's not ethical, and the should be getting a ton of shit from the press and other countries. It also doesn't make the soldiers look any less ridiculous, acting like it's a war while taking modern weapons against 16th century footmen. I mean, it's technically a war, but only in name. On another note, they were shooting some soldiers who dropped their weapons and were running. That's directly against the Geneva convention. Reminds me of some of the really old movies about the Anglo Zulu war, where soldiers would be using gunning down Zulu tribals in Africa with gatlings, saying stuff like "We have to save this country from these savages!" Of course, the irony is that it's the savages' country... The ethics of war is to defeat the enemy, not to play fair. |
Petrol said: Deserada said: I'd say something like the (1) transistor/vacuum tube, (2) gunpowder, and (3) WMDs had the most profound effect on warfare as we know it. (Throws hands up in the air) I give up! Medieval Age folks. Never-mind... (Hops on a dragon and flies away!) you should have told fst that from the beginning. |
| Elementary my dear Watson, Elementary... |
Deserada said: ScotlandYard said: fst are you alright dude? Petrol said: I suppose no one is forcing you to write or think in a coherent manner. If it makes you feel better, please do take the opportunity to bow out with a snarky insult. With both profiles, if necessary.Okay you win, I have no idea what you're trying to say because you make no sense but you win. :) Take care and try not to fall on your head because I suspect that's what happened to you. lol Ow... That hurt but sadly you're mistaken. |
| Elementary my dear Watson, Elementary... |
ezikialrage said: MortalMelancholy said: Believe it or not, ethics exist in the 21st century, along with the Geneva convention. And just because some things might not fall under laws doesn't mean it's not ethical, and the should be getting a ton of shit from the press and other countries. It also doesn't make the soldiers look any less ridiculous, acting like it's a war while taking modern weapons against 16th century footmen. I mean, it's technically a war, but only in name. On another note, they were shooting some soldiers who dropped their weapons and were running. That's directly against the Geneva convention. Reminds me of some of the really old movies about the Anglo Zulu war, where soldiers would be using gunning down Zulu tribals in Africa with gatlings, saying stuff like "We have to save this country from these savages!" Of course, the irony is that it's the savages' country... The ethics of war is to defeat the enemy, not to play fair. That was 60 years ago. This is now. If it was the case now, then they'd just send in their tanks, raze every militant organization to the ground, and immediately start mining resources and building industry. Then, in one or two generations, Japan will essentially have something like another planet's worth of resources and rule the world. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
| First and foremost: There is only one point in the entire series where they engaged in true mass slaughter, and that was the operation to occupy Alnus and secure the gate. In that situation, only the most epically moronic nitwit would not send the troops, fully armed, with the expectation that they would make full use of their modern weapons. They had almost zero idea what would be waiting behind the gate. And, when confronted with a massive army that outnumbered them probably over 100 to 1, swords, spears, and bows suddenly look very, very dangerous. So long as that enemy continued to advance, they were not only right, but expected, to continue firing. They also still did not have full measure of the enemy's capabilities, so letting them get too close could be dangerous. As such, they eliminated the threat in the most expeditious and safest manner possible. Expecting anything else from them is basically saying "let the other guy kill you." Furthermore, a massacre is actually a potentially better method of preventing more bloodshed - it discourages future attacks. Stopping the army attacking Alnus with a nonlethal or less extreme method would have certainly resulted in the Empire regrouping and launching subsequent attacks, amassing ever more soldiers each time. Annihilating them made it clear to the Empire that force of arms was useless against the JSDF. This was, without a doubt, one of the best possible outcomes. What about the other times? As for shooting retreating soldiers? This was addressed in Desert Storm and you know what? Not a war crime. The Geneva Conventions provide no protection for enemy troops that are running away, but still armed and capable of fighting. Only soldiers that not only disarm themselves, but completely surrender, are protected under international law. Shooting fleeing forces? Not a crime. The reason should be obvious: fleeing enemies have not necessarily given up the fight. They can still regroup and attack. They can turn around then and there and attack. The fleeing itself could be a tactic to draw the enemy in. No nation would allow its military to be so badly neutered when the situation could still turn against it, and none suggested a law to do so. Finally, many here seem to completely misunderstand what the nature and capability of nonlethal weapons are, as well as what are available. So what are they and why shouldn't they be relied on? |
| Fucking guy can't put together a coherent paragraph and yet I'm the one who fell on their head. OK. |
I already said the first two episodes' military actions actually made sense. They massacred a shit-ton of the barbarian nations' soldiers, but it's obviously not teaching them much. Smarter soldiers would be probably bending over for the JSDF by the end of the Alnus battle. Nonlethal chemical weapons are significantly cheaper and more efficient than infantry with firearms (especially against people who definitely don't have gas masks. If they actually wanted to bring their "A game," they'd have sent mostly helicopters and vehicles, and maybe just have infantry clean up. What happened in the 23rd episode was just a flamboyant show of retardation. Paratroopers? Maybe in an full-on invasion where they have anti-air capabilities and your objective is to annihilate enemy forces and control strategic locations. Not in any sort of rescue operation, especially against... Medieval barbarians. Your point about shooting fleeing soldiers is interesting, but those are properly soldiers, not unarmed fleeing medieval barbarians, and the Geneva convention specifically forbids shooting unarmed persons, retreating or not. Of course, in actual war, it's generally overlooked as unintentional, but those people were pretty poorly armed in the first place. I guess it could make sense to shoot 'em up if Japan has a weaker ethical code than the United States, as history suggests. Regarding nonlethal weapons, who gives a shit if they're not completely non-lethal? It's cheaper and more efficient than sending infantry to shoot them up with firearms and explosives. That shit's expensive, and it puts soldiers at more risk. Anyways, we could argue about the best course of action in regards to suppressing natives, but that wasn't really my main question. I was mostly pointing out the ridiculous posturing by the JSDF sodiers. A platoon leader (it seems) guns down a bunch of unarmed medieval soldiers in their barracks. Mmh, it was a necessary action. And then he SMILES. The sick bastard had to have been thinking to himself , "Mmh, I love the smell of barbarian blood," or "Heh, suckers. It's just too bad you aren't a real military" And then you have soldiers saying pointless shit like "dis niqqa be really fired up, right?" "Yeah, it's his first battle, I'm sure he's excited! (To shoot these humanoid fish in their phalanx barrels! Because I sure am! Living target practice is totally my thing!)" Even my roommate, who's a US marine veteran (he's been in actual combat and killed people too), said "that shit's all fucked up. They're enjoying killing essentially defenseless people, and real soldiers don't even act retardedly like that" and went on about how the way they were fighting would've gotten THEM massacred by a real fighting force like the US marines. Anyways, what people seem to have said is that this sort of thing is propaganda that just gives the JSDF people a hard-on or something. Nothing better than a show of excessive force on some poor barbarians, I guess. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
MortalMelancholy said: Nonlethal chemical weapons are significantly cheaper and more efficient than infantry with firearms (especially against people who definitely don't have gas masks. Source or gtfo MortalMelancholy said: If they actually wanted to bring their "A game," they'd have sent mostly helicopters and vehicles, and maybe just have infantry clean up. What happened in the 23rd episode was just a flamboyant show of retardation. Paratroopers? Maybe in an full-on invasion where they have anti-air capabilities and your objective is to annihilate enemy forces and control strategic locations. Not in any sort of rescue operation, especially against... Medieval barbarians. I disagree with this in multiple levels. First, the very nature of the mission requires boots on the ground and very fast movement. This means it is not precluded by bombardment which you do when you have time. Desert storm was a 100 hour ground war, but that was only possible because it was precluded by 5 weeks of airstrikes. Takes too long to wear them down from the air. Second of all this is the jsdf not the US military. They have far less helicopters and vehicles available, and fewer logistics to support them in the field. Their a game is not as impressive as what you may be used to from Western war films. Third, the combat drop was a prudent decision. They needed to transport a large volume of men a long distance quickly. This precludes sending them by ground. The only purpose of the drop is speed. And also cause it looks cool, since this is a TV show... But mostly speed. You DO NOT do a combat drop when the enemy has significant anti air. They must be suppressed before you do the combat drop. Historically large scale combat drops are done to deliver an invasion force behind enemy lines. That's pretty much what they were doing here.control strategic locations? Eliminate enemy forces? What the hell do you think the jsdf was trying to do? That's exactly what they were after. MortalMelancholy said: Your point about shooting fleeing soldiers is interesting, but those are properly soldiers, not unarmed fleeing medieval barbarians, and the Geneva convention specifically forbids shooting unarmed persons, retreating or not. Uhh, these "barbarians" are armed. They're also uniformed soldiers. MortalMelancholy said: Of course, in actual war, it's generally overlooked as unintentional, but those people were pretty poorly armed in the first place. I guess it could make sense to shoot 'em up if Japan has a weaker ethical code than the United States, as history suggests. That's irrelevant because in this work of propaganda, the jsdf moral code is 100% pure. MortalMelancholy said: Regarding nonlethal weapons, who gives a shit if they're not completely non-lethal? It's cheaper and more efficient than sending infantry to shoot them up with firearms and explosives. That shit's expensive, and it puts soldiers at more risk. What, and tear gas and rubber bullets aren't expensive? Again, gonna need a source for that. That shit don't grow on trees. MortalMelancholy said: I was mostly pointing out the ridiculous posturing by the JSDF sodiers. A platoon leader (it seems) guns down a bunch of unarmed medieval soldiers in their barracks. Mmh, it was a necessary action. And then he SMILES. The sick bastard had to have been thinking to himself , "Mmh, I love the smell of barbarian blood," or "Heh, suckers. It's just too bad you aren't a real military" And then you have soldiers saying pointless shit like "dis niqqa be really fired up, right?" "Yeah, it's his first battle, I'm sure he's excited! (To shoot these humanoid fish in their phalanx barrels! Because I sure am! Living target practice is totally my thing!)" Even my roommate, who's a US marine veteran (he's been in actual combat and killed people too), said "that shit's all fucked up. They're enjoying killing essentially defenseless people, and real soldiers don't even act retardedly like that" and went on about how the way they were fighting would've gotten THEM massacred by a real fighting force like the US marines. Well yea. We're the authors biases not obvious already? But in any case, if you take most works of fiction, fighting like they do in them would also get them killed by a real military. Because real war is boring to watch. MortalMelancholy said: Anyways, what people seem to have said is that this sort of thing is propaganda that just gives the JSDF people a hard-on or something. Nothing better than a show of excessive force on some poor barbarians, I guess. Some people are just into that shit. |
| MortalMelancholy - Geez dude, calm down we all get it. You simply hate this show and you hate Japan. You also know literal shit about military and war. This much is obvious so move on. Read again what the other users wrote in reply to you, no need for me to repeat the obvious. Bashing the JSDF in this anime for doing what any other military even your beloved Americans would have done in this situation is beyond retarded. There is a time and place for waving high morals in to peoples faces but war is not one of them so go show how awesomely humanitarian you are somewhere else. PS it was one of the things that bugged me just how much was Japan playing around and going easy on empire despite the empire picking the fight by murdering and enslaving Japanese civilians first. The empire in gate is a bunch of evil assholes. If it were up to me there would be no negotiation. The empire would have to go down, just like nazi germany had to go down in WW2. |
Tom_KoskenMar 29, 2016 12:33 PM
 |
fst said: MortalMelancholy said: Nonlethal chemical weapons are significantly cheaper and more efficient than infantry with firearms (especially against people who definitely don't have gas masks. Source or gtfo http://fas.org/irp/threat/an253stc.htm Metal is mined from the ground and processed. Chemicals are synthesized in gigantic-ass vats. It's common sense, but at this point, I'm not sure I should expect much of that out of you. fst said: MortalMelancholy said: If they actually wanted to bring their "A game," they'd have sent mostly helicopters and vehicles, and maybe just have infantry clean up. What happened in the 23rd episode was just a flamboyant show of retardation. Paratroopers? Maybe in an full-on invasion where they have anti-air capabilities and your objective is to annihilate enemy forces and control strategic locations. Not in any sort of rescue operation, especially against... Medieval barbarians. I disagree with this in multiple levels. First, the very nature of the mission requires boots on the ground and very fast movement. This means it is not precluded by bombardment which you do when you have time. Desert storm was a 100 hour ground war, but that was only possible because it was precluded by 5 weeks of airstrikes. Takes too long to wear them down from the air. Second of all this is the jsdf not the US military. They have far less helicopters and vehicles available, and fewer logistics to support them in the field. Their a game is not as impressive as what you may be used to from Western war films. Third, the combat drop was a prudent decision. They needed to transport a large volume of men a long distance quickly. This precludes sending them by ground. The only purpose of the drop is speed. And also cause it looks cool, since this is a TV show... But mostly speed. You DO NOT do a combat drop when the enemy has significant anti air. They must be suppressed before you do the combat drop. Historically large scale combat drops are done to deliver an invasion force behind enemy lines. That's pretty much what they were doing here.control strategic locations? Eliminate enemy forces? What the hell do you think the jsdf was trying to do? That's exactly what they were after. Their goal was (supposedly) a rescue mission. If they wanted to wage an actual war, they (supposedly) would've done so a long time ago instead of chilling on the hill and sending envoys. This isn't desert storm; they just have to secure one embassy building from medieval soldiers. Paratroopers are less than ideal, especially when their weapons can only hurt unarmored infantry, who'd be exposed to the limited anti-air that they do have (arrows). And the only reason the empire knew they were under attack in the first place was because everyone could see the niggas dropping down from the sky. I mean, if they're really strapped for cash to the point where their only method of air-transport for troops is dropping paratroopers... Then that's just unfortunate. We could discuss how useful paratroopers are, but as I said, that wasn't really what I was asking about. I was just mentioning these because it seemed ridiculous, given the resources that they appeared to have. [quote=fst message=45375238] MortalMelancholy said: Your point about shooting fleeing soldiers is interesting, but those are properly soldiers, not unarmed fleeing medieval barbarians, and the Geneva convention specifically forbids shooting unarmed persons, retreating or not. Uhh, these "barbarians" are armed. They're also uniformed soldiers. I was talking specifically about the unarmed ones that were fleeing. Which I specified in both instances that I made this point. Was this anime directly intended as propaganda? Who's idea was it? I'm a bit curious. fst said: What, and tear gas and rubber bullets aren't expensive? Again, gonna need a source for that. That shit don't grow on trees. Errmm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hevea_brasiliensis Rubber, behind petroleum and paper products, is one of the cheapeast materials that exist. And the majority of chemicals can be mass produced relatively cheaply. It requires significantly less resources to produce. Of course, rubber bullets would have to be in addition to the weapons they already have, so that would probably be an additional cost. But that was just one example of nonlethal force; it probably wouldn't be that useful against soldiers in metal armor. Concussive explosives would probably be the second best choice, after (nonlethal) chemical weapons. fst said: Well yea. We're the authors biases not obvious already? But in any case, if you take most works of fiction, fighting like they do in them would also get them killed by a real military. Because real war is boring to watch. What gets me is the author's morality. It reminds me of stuff like cigarette company executives laughing about how they can trick the machines that measure tar filters. I mean, as you say, it's fictional and propaganda, but it's in very poor taste. I can't really imagine a right-minded individual having a positive opinion watching this, just because they add a bunch of girls and have ships. I was already of the opinion that any representation of military in anime is stupid/shit, but this anime is taking it somewhere that's ethically repulsive. And they focus quite a bit on that stuff in this anime, which leads me to question why. Are the writers and fans just that fucked up? Or are they ignoring it in favor of the harems and ships? That is unfortunate. I mean, at least in Overlord, the guy was massacring "bad guys." This whole anime is a humanitarian disaster, now that I think about it. Tom_Kosken said: MortalMelancholy - Geez dude, calm down we all get it. You simply hate this show and you hate Japan. You also know literal shit about military and war. This much is obvious so move on. Read again what the other users wrote in reply to you, no need for me to repeat the obvious. Bashing the JSDF in this anime for doing what any other military even your beloved Americans would have done inn this situation is beyond retarded. There is a time and place for waving high morals in to peoples faces but war is not one of them so go show how awesomely humanitarian you are somewhere else. Being a humanitarian is about trying to make people feel guilty about the things they enjoy/take for granted. I can't help it; it's my raison d'etre (I'm lying. It just bothers me). I don't hate the JSDF or Japan either; I mean, fiction is fiction. |
MortalMelancholyMar 29, 2016 12:33 PM
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
MortalMelancholy said: Being a humanitarian is about trying to make people feel guilty about the things they enjoy/take for granted. I can't help it; it's my raison d'etre (I'm lying. It just bothers me). I don't hate the JSDF or Japan either; I mean, fiction is fiction. Fine, enjoy being a dead humanitarian hypocrite or whatever. I hear high morals are very useful to dead people. Anyway, I prefer my friends, family, countrymen and comrades alive and well. I do not take kindly to being messed with. Whether the attacker is barehanded or armed is irrelevant. My safety comes first. Maybe if the military today was less pussy and more down to business and realistic we would not have such a big problem with terrorists and what not but since troops now a days have to worry more about not breaking a window or lord forbid insult a bad guy we got islamists freely running around butchering people. But I dont blame the actual soldiers, I am sure our troops would love to clean house, however the problem here is the mass media, politicians and folks like you who care more about the safety of the enemy than about their own people. I am done with this pointless discussion. |
|
MortalMelancholy said: I did point out that use of even nonlethal chemical agents constitutes a war crime. Riot agents are explicitly forbidden in Article 1, Section 5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Nonlethal agents are only available for use on their own territory against their own people. Any use in the "Special Region" constitutes a war crime. This renders all other points anyone else has made in the chemical argument mute.Nonlethal chemical weapons are significantly cheaper and more efficient than infantry with firearms (especially against people who definitely don't have gas masks. If they actually wanted to bring their "A game," they'd have sent mostly helicopters and vehicles, and maybe just have infantry clean up. What happened in the 23rd episode was just a flamboyant show of retardation. Paratroopers? Maybe in an full-on invasion where they have anti-air capabilities and your objective is to annihilate enemy forces and control strategic locations. Not in any sort of rescue operation, especially against... Medieval barbarians. The goal of the operation was to rescue and extract "friendlies" (essentially hostages) while naturally inflicting minimal collateral damage. The infantry operation wasn't just essential, it was the core aspect. You saw the forest around the Jade palace, right? You saw the city around the prison, right? Ground vehicles are too slow - they can be seen coming well away, and are easily blocked and delayed (remember the part about this being deep behind enemy lines?). Aircraft can't see what's happening in alleys and inside buildings, or under trees. Plus, they have a great deal of difficulty engaging enemies in cities without risking civilians. Only troops on the ground could ensure a safe extraction. If you don't send the infantry first, you risk the prisoners/hostages all getting killed. As for the barracks: Special Operations 101 dictates destroying or otherwise interfering with enemy forces that could interfere with the primary operation. In any military operation, a key goal is to minimize the chances of anything going wrong. This was simple prudence. However, the airborne drop might have been a slightly suboptimal maneuver intended as a show of force to intimidate the enemy. Airmobile insertion is faster, safer, and more versatile. But the UH-1H/J and CH-47 have very short range. So, if the distance from Alnus is greater than 200 km, it would have to be paratroops anyway. Your point about shooting fleeing soldiers is interesting, but those are properly soldiers, not unarmed fleeing medieval barbarians, and the Geneva convention specifically forbids shooting unarmed persons, retreating or not. They are the official military force of a sovereign nation. You don't get to classify them as "barbarians" just to accord them extra protections. They are either hostile military, hostile non-military, or civilian. Those soldiers were soldiers. If they run around with weapons and intend to use them, they are combatants. Tech level doesn't matter. Of course, in actual war, it's generally overlooked as unintentional, but those people were pretty poorly armed in the first place. I guess it could make sense to shoot 'em up if Japan has a weaker ethical code than the United States, as history suggests. As for unarmed. If they are combatants, and temporarily unarmed, they are still combatants and still fair game. International law is clear on this. Protection is only accorded to those who "lay down their arms," which, at the time it was created, as well as today, means to surrender. Dropping a weapon and running is not "laying down your arms." Getting caught without your weapon is not "laying down your arms." There is no law against shooting them. Welcome to war. Regarding nonlethal weapons, who gives a shit if they're not completely non-lethal? It's cheaper and more efficient than sending infantry to shoot them up with firearms and explosives. That shit's expensive, and it puts soldiers at more risk. Chemical agents are forbidden even if non-lethal. The other non-lethal weapons are either ineffective against armored opponents (rubber/plastic bullets/slugs, electroshock weapons), or are of limited range and utility. They also fail to discourage the enemy from trying again. As noted, these guys don't learn all that well.I was mostly pointing out the ridiculous posturing by the JSDF sodiers. A platoon leader (it seems) guns down a bunch of unarmed medieval soldiers in their barracks. Mmh, it was a necessary action. And then he SMILES. The sick bastard had to have been thinking to himself , "Mmh, I love the smell of barbarian blood," or "Heh, suckers. It's just too bad you aren't a real military" While not accurate, those are stereotypes that you can find throughout western media, but especially so in Japan. That's because they're negative stereotypes, and the majority of Japanese are anti-military. A few of them were definitely misapplied, but that's most likely because the writers of the anime didn't know any better. The writer of the LN should.And then you have soldiers saying pointless shit like "dis niqqa be really fired up, right?" "Yeah, it's his first battle, I'm sure he's excited! (To shoot these humanoid fish in their phalanx barrels! Because I sure am! Living target practice is totally my thing!)" There was indeed some real pandering - the special operation at the resort was pretty blatant - but most of what you think is giving them a hard-on is just as easily attributed to bias and prejudice against soldiers. |
ErwinJAMar 29, 2016 1:42 PM
| [quote=ErwinJA message=45377357].../quote] Oh, I missed the part about all chemical warfare agents being outlawed. Well, I guess they have no choice to but to massacre them =/ But that doesn't mean they should enjoy it. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
MortalMelancholy said: As I said, that's a popular stereotype that can be found everywhere. Look at the film Jarhead. The entire point of the film is how much the main character wants to see some action, yet constantly misses it. It feels out of place only because of the lower threat the enemy here poses. In which case, it's more likely to have just been the writers porting over that stereotype without considering the unique situation portrayed in this series.Oh, I missed the part about all chemical warfare agents being outlawed. Well, I guess they have no choice to but to massacre them =/ But that doesn't mean they should enjoy it. By the way, if you want to see a situation where medieval beats modern, go watch the last 45 minutes or so of the film G.I. Samurai (Sengoku jieitai in Japan). |
ErwinJAMar 29, 2016 2:15 PM
MortalMelancholy said: That was 60 years ago. This is now/b]. If it was the case now, then they'd just send in their tanks, raze every militant organization to the ground, and immediately start mining resources and building industry.[/b] Then, in one or two generations, Japan will essentially have something like another planet's worth of resources and rule the world. That what military should be doing. But unfortunately we let anti-war trash dictate the rules of warfare. ISIS and ever other terrorist group would be be a shit stain on the side walk if anti-war trash were not dictating the rules of warfare. If our military was allowed to go in without their hands tied behind their back then there would be no ISIS, ALqueda or other terrorist groups. In warfare you use every advantage you have to defeat the enemy. This idea that the superior military should take it easy on the weaker military is nothing more than nonsense by anti-war people trying to cripple the military. |
ezikialrage said: MortalMelancholy said: That was 60 years ago. This is now/b]. If it was the case now, then they'd just send in their tanks, raze every militant organization to the ground, and immediately start mining resources and building industry.[/b] Then, in one or two generations, Japan will essentially have something like another planet's worth of resources and rule the world. That what military should be doing. But unfortunately we let anti-war trash dictate the rules of warfare. ISIS and ever other terrorist group would be be a shit stain on the side walk if anti-war trash were not dictating the rules of warfare. If our military was allowed to go in without their hands tied behind their back then there would be no ISIS, ALqueda or other terrorist groups. In warfare you use every advantage you have to defeat the enemy. This idea that the superior military should take it easy on the weaker military is nothing more than nonsense by anti-war people trying to cripple the military. No, that's not how this works. Extremist islamist groups like Al Qaeda are not the same as a conventional military force. You can't just go in there and blow everything up without a care for collateral damage and civillian casualties. All that does is turn people against you, and create even more terrorists. If you go into a place, bomb the fuck out of it, raze everything to the ground... sure you killed a shitload of terrorists, but you've also displaced millions of civillians who were not extremists, who now hate your guts because you took everything away from them, and are now thinking about blowing up a train station because fuck everything. That could be prevented if you just kill everybody, but now you're talking about genocide. And even that wouldn't be the end of it; one does not simply get away with genocide. Anyway if you want to hear it from the horses mouth. If you're too lazy to watch the video, that's a Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan saying that doing things like randomly barging into and searching people's houses for insurgents and weapons is not the way to go. This is one of those cases where overwhelming brute force simply is not the solution. If it was, then we wouldn't be in the current situation. |
| Yeahh... Honestly, if you want to "wipe out" a terrorist group with just force, it'd amount to something on the level of ethnic cleansing. And no right-minded individual would tolerate that. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
Deserada said: this... pretty much sums up GATE, and especially, the second season, they are just killing the powerless (relatively speaking) "medieval" soldiers like they are nothing and just excessive in most cases, but of course in propaganda, the moral code for all this is 100% pure.GATE is self-masturbatory Japanese propaganda. |
fst said: ezikialrage said: That what military should be doing. But unfortunately we let anti-war trash dictate the rules of warfare. ISIS and ever other terrorist group would be be a shit stain on the side walk if anti-war trash were not dictating the rules of warfare. If our military was allowed to go in without their hands tied behind their back then there would be no ISIS, ALqueda or other terrorist groups. In warfare you use every advantage you have to defeat the enemy. This idea that the superior military should take it easy on the weaker military is nothing more than nonsense by anti-war people trying to cripple the military. No, that's not how this works. Extremist islamist groups like Al Qaeda are not the same as a conventional military force. You can't just go in there and blow everything up without a care for collateral damage and civillian casualties. All that does is turn people against you, and create even more terrorists. If you go into a place, bomb the fuck out of it, raze everything to the ground... sure you killed a shitload of terrorists, but you've also displaced millions of civillians who were not extremists, who now hate your guts because you took everything away from them, and are now thinking about blowing up a train station because fuck everything. That could be prevented if you just kill everybody, but now you're talking about genocide. And even that wouldn't be the end of it; one does not simply get away with genocide. Anyway if you want to hear it from the horses mouth. If you're too lazy to watch the video, that's a Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan saying that doing things like randomly barging into and searching people's houses for insurgents and weapons is not the way to go. This is one of those cases where overwhelming brute force simply is not the solution. If it was, then we wouldn't be in the current situation. A former marine speaking at liberal university in the land of fruits and nuts means nothing and does not change the fact that proportional force in warfare is idiotic. Disproportionate force is a absurd concept concocted by anti-war idiots. You use every advantage you got in warfare. I do not know about you, but I never heard of any drill instructors in the military telling men and women that if the enemy has lousy weapons then they must use lousy weapons as well. I never heard my drill instructors in the army say that we got to use proportionate force. |
| Nobody is saying that when some fucker shoots at you with an AK, you don't use your mark 19 on the bastard. What they're advocating is not going in, blowing up everything wholesale, and then just leaving a power vacuum. Because that pretty much what got us where we are today. The point of rules of engagement is to limit collateral damage. The point is, collateral damage does not help you win anything. |
| The overwhelming overpowering of enemies by the army was awesome, pity there wasn't more. I've been left a little disappointed by this show however, when I first saw some video of Rory in yt and learned about the show.. I expected very dark and bloody stuff, but it was mild at best. Honestly I think they should have killed the prince and the entire enemy army, full-scale massacre and have the princess take over from scratch. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Gate: Jieitai Kanochi nite, Kaku Tatakaeri 2nd Season Episode 12 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Mar 25, 2016 |
335 |
by SpaceDgn
»»
Nov 18, 12:00 PM |
|
» Season 3? ( 1 2 )AshAkinola - Mar 25, 2016 |
59 |
by josio
»»
Sep 30, 1:21 AM |
|
» Am I The Jacka**? Episode 10 GATE: PART 2 (Arguement)FlydayEthan - Sep 28 |
9 |
by TrickyHunter0506
»»
Sep 28, 10:12 PM |
|
Poll: » Gate: Jieitai Kanochi nite, Kaku Tatakaeri 2nd Season Episode 11 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 )Stark700 - Mar 18, 2016 |
191 |
by PedroKarim64
»»
Jul 17, 3:20 PM |
|
Poll: » Gate: Jieitai Kanochi nite, Kaku Tatakaeri 2nd Season Episode 6 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 )Stark700 - Feb 12, 2016 |
170 |
by PedroKarim64
»»
Jul 17, 1:23 PM |