Drugs & war...

[Artnez.com]

Solodude reminded me of a little thought provoking theory I had "discovered" and told my friend about earlier...

Originally Posted by solodude23

Theres your reliable 5.56. No but many insurgens also have been known to overdose on injected adrenaline...

Nowadays, we're seeing alot less casualties in combat situations around the world. Unless a highly populated civilian target + bomb is involved, the most casualties per engagement are usually below the body count of 10. Injuries are usually triple the amount of the fatalities, regardless.

If you think about it, the US is currently involved in some pretty serious combat over in Iraq for quite some time now, yet the casualty rate has been very low, to say the least.

One might argue that this is partly due to the fact that the United States is alot more careful about endangering the lives of its soldiers than many other countries due to the amount of press that each fatality attracts. If you take a good look though, this trend has been pretty consistent around the world.

The interesting part is, this is trend is only affecting more developed countries like Russia and the United States.

Take the conflict in Chechnya, for example. The amount of casualties there has significantly dropped, while insurgent attacks continue almost daily.

In Iraq, the United States has suffered under 2,000 casualties approximately 2 years -- which is an amazingly low count.

In Sudan, the casualty rate is estimated anywhere from 200,000 to 400,000. Not a marginal difference.

In my opinion, this has alot to do with the use of narcotics during a wartime conflict. Some history:

- The vietcong were known for their use of numerous narcotics before a battle, which explains their relentlesness when in combat. This is still considered an "epidemic" there:
http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2003/AF030318.html

- The japanese in World War 2 (no to mention, Hitler himself and US Air Force pilots) were known for abusing Methamphetamine (Meth) when on mission. In fact, it was the japanese who invented Meth in 1919
http://www.bartowagainstmeth.com/education.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine

This was not as regulated as it is today. Soldiers will recieve serious punishment if they are caught using drugs during service because they are a potential risk to their unit.

This would seem to explain the staggering drop in casualties during war time, as soldiers are more alert and, more or less, scared shitless when getting fired on.

[GABBA]

I'm confused are you saying drugs + war is good or bad?????

[Wolfmaster]

i think he's saying drugs + war = more casualties.


i'd say drugs + anything = casualites

[Enforcer1975]

Yes, but i think the thinking of today's people is different than that of past times. f.e. in the american civil war, ppl would love to die for a cause. They didn't have a problem running into gunfire in an open field, because it was their duty and not doing it would dishonor the person. Today it's totally different, you let the other one die first. The war itself totally chanced. Even in WW2 they still used the massed attack tactics. Throw a lot of men towards the enemy and hope you can overwhelm him before all are dead. Today it's all about intelligence and disguise. You use small units with greater firepower and better training compared to those in the early wars.
Maybe they needed those drugs to dull the fear so they can perform their task, but often it backfired.

[Artnez.com]

Originally Posted by Enforcer1975

Yes, but i think the thinking of today's people is different than that of past times. f.e. in the american civil war, ppl would love to die for a cause. They didn't have a problem running into gunfire in an open field, because it was their duty and not doing it would dishonor the person. Today it's totally different, you let the other one die first. The war itself totally chanced. Even in WW2 they still used the massed attack tactics. Throw a lot of men towards the enemy and hope you can overwhelm him before all are dead. Today it's all about intelligence and disguise. You use small units with greater firepower and better training compared to those in the early wars.
Maybe they needed those drugs to dull the fear so they can perform their task, but often it backfired.

I'm one to believe that "dying for the cause" is a little different than you think it is.

Heroics are normally performed by the near fanatical and those are in few number. As its an instinct for a human to worry first about himself (self preservation) than anything else, being heroic, or "dying for the cause", is more of something that has to do with a person's metal stability.

Take Palestine and Israel for example. There are plenty of palestinians in Gaza that know they are completely outmatched by the Israeli army, yet they still fight and, ultimately, get slaughtered in nearly every engagement. Suicide bombers are another example.

Are these people heroic? Or are they crazy? How about just metally unstable. They either:

a) Have no realization of what death really is and what getting shot really is. If they were born and raised in an environment of death and destruction (more or less) their sanity goes out of the window the second they see a 10 year old making a home made fragmentation grenade.

b) Will be outcast (with their family) from their society if they do not fight. This, I think, was the case in the american civil war and revolutionary war. People couldn't just pick up and leave... the land was a dangerous place & survival was unlikely if you were on your own with your kids. If they refused to fight, they could either be hanged or kicked out of the city. Men would have to put themselves in front of their family, which is an action powered by love for their family and guilt.

c) Are hopped up on drugs. Self explanatory.

d) Have no fear. Everyone has fear, but there a selected few people that can say "fuck it" and just do something. I am partly like this, as I have done some dangerous things before. Even though I was scared out of my mind, I was able to say "fuck it" and get it done -- sometimes with undesirable consiquences. How I would perform in a combat situation I don't know, and don't want to know.

I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all, as this is simply my opinion. I'm one to believe that every action we take has a cause.

I absolutely DO NOT believe that people can be judged in manner of "he is a better person". I think that if you are a naturally born risk taker, commending you for doing so isn't so special.

I think this is one of the biggest dilemmas of mankind. People judge each other and put others on a pedistal, while completely ignoring the fact that these people were formed this way by their environment and genetical disposition.

[Enforcer1975]

1. I didn't judge anybody

2. I bet the "fuck-it" mentality is part of every man. If you don't say "fuck-it" on some point in your life you won't be able to achieve anything ( dangerous or not ) Me or my point have done this, too ( no dangerous things ) Sometimes it's a must be.

To those living in the hot spots of our world. Most don't have a choice or are missdirected or are raised in a world of lies ( f.e. what some preacher pass a koran ) Books that have absolutely nothing to do with the real thing. As long as we have a lack of education in those countries such things will never stop ( imo they still live in the dark ages over there, and they once have been ahead of the western world in most cases )... we could talk a lot more about such things, but we will never be able to create a better world. There are to many differences.

OMG!!! We got way off topic

[Artnez.com]

Right, but it's my topic, lmfao. Mine mine mine!

[Enforcer1975]

And this is how i pay my tribute to it...

[DAWG]

Originally Posted by Enforcer1975

Yes, but i think the thinking of today's people is different than that of past times. f.e. in the american civil war, ppl would love to die for a cause. They didn't have a problem running into gunfire in an open field, because it was their duty and not doing it would dishonor the person. Today it's totally different, you let the other one die first. The war itself totally chanced. Even in WW2 they still used the massed attack tactics. Throw a lot of men towards the enemy and hope you can overwhelm him before all are dead. Today it's all about intelligence and disguise. You use small units with greater firepower and better training compared to those in the early wars.
Maybe they needed those drugs to dull the fear so they can perform their task, but often it backfired.

Makes sense, charging someone using a musket or black powder weapon = slim chance of survivle, if you can reach him without getting shot, then stab the bastard, todays weapons, well, charging a defended position or an armor column is suicide, might as well put gun in mouth and end it there.

The drugs just made people feel bullet proof and subservient, have you ever seen a man on LSD, they are nuts, new a guy once through himself out a 2nd floor window, fortunately onto wet grass, cuz he felt like superman. I did suggest he try taking of from the ground, but by that point he was out the window and gone with a sickening thud. I had to take him to casualty and explain what had happened, not good. Although I do believ that most militaries still use low doses of amphetamines and barbituates for special cases.

[BrokenArrow]

just reading the title=bad mix.