on Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:22:59PM -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > Of course, wounding the enemy is nearly *always* more desirable than > outright killing him. That is because every wounded soldier takes at > least one other soldier (or other person, even if not a soldier) in > order to care for his wounds in the short term. So, from a resource > perspective, wounded soldiers place a much heavier burden on a military > force than corpses. >
I disagree. Antipersonnel weapons from the lowly infrantryman's rifle to napalm and various cluster weapons, mines, and suchlike are designed to kill first, maim second. In the rapidly moving combat environment you want to make sure the opponent is thoroughly dead, so you don't have to worry about it later. Maiming is an added bonus around the perimeter of the kill zone, but not the primary objective of the engagement. It takes a lot more resource to train an entirely new recruit than it does to patch up the old and send 'em back in. Wounded soldiers will only be tended to when it's safe to do so. The business of killing the enemy comes first. Regards, Dave -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
