Gibralter: What strateigic signifigance?

Too bad John Keegan doesn't follow his own advice and separate emotion from realism. He and Ghost remind us about Gibralter's strategic signifigance in the 18^th and 20^th centuries.

Interesting tidbits but o so beside the point. Neither addreses the most obvious question how is Gibralter stragiecally signficant in the early 21^st century. Instead, Keegan uncharcteristically slurs the Spanish, Italian and French navies when he vaguely refers to the western Mediterranean as an important sealane and British presence reassures. Indeed, so much so, that Gibralter has become one of Europe's principal money laundering and drug running ports.

Keegan and Ghost provide only one cogent reason; it isn't strategic but far more fundamental. Honour.

The Gibraltereans wants to remain British and their decision is a matter of honour for the Brits. Presented forthrightly, the socialists and the Spanish conversative parties would grumble but accept the choice. Yet, successive British governments are even less saistified by the Gibralterans unmistakeable choice in the matter than its Spanish counterparts. Why?

¿Els cristians van en guerra contra l'Islam?

Em pregunto si Badawa projecta que molts ismlaodjihistes fan contra tothom Obviament, els cristians no estan formalement en guerra contra l'Islam, encara que molts lluiten contra règims que ho son com per exemple en el sur del Sudan. ¿Perquè aquesta por?

Personalment, opino que la consciència en alguns muslmans comencen a despertar-se i es donen compte que no poden tractar els cristans o quansevulla minoritat com a merda i no patir les conseqüències. Ademés ¿què collons pensava Badawa si bin Laden ell mateix ha exhortat els seus seguidors que es tracta d'un djihad? Realment, la capacitat dels musulmans d'extreure-se'n de la realitat maravella.

M'agradat molt aquest cop teatral quan Badawa plorava. Escolta'm si vols els christans i muslmans a treballar junts i conviure potser val la pena a acabar amb la impunitat de la qual viuen aquests islamodjihadistes i la llibertat a articular l'odi contra quansevol que els oposi o simplement vogui que els deixi estar tranquil. Llavors, els cristians no s'emprenyaran tant i els musulmans no sucumbiran a la por que tothom li facin guerra.

Assualt rifles: a follow up

I visited Reverand Donald's site where I came across a post about my article on the British advocacy of the 7 mm. I want to thank him for his helpful critique. It brought to my attention an inadvertant error!

In my handwritten draft, I stated that one of the principals reasons that the Americans would adopt the 6,8mm cartidge was because the 5,56 mm didn't have enough killing power at 500-600m. When I transcriped the draft to my text editor I didn't put the verb in the negative. I've since corrected the error and decided to write a follow up.

The Reverend provides an excellent reason why combat distances between infantrymen haven't changed much since WW I- visibility is the key factor. The combination of smoke, rain, fog and other conditions rapidly degrade visual contact. Fair enough but I don't think that those factors and inability to spot soldiers at long distances will last for very long. On the contrary, the new visual detection devices like thermal imagers, infra night scopes have so radically improved that they're complicating the infantryman's ability to hide. In fact, the improved detection technologies have prompted many countries to adopt digital/pixelated camouflage patterns for their combat uniforms. These new patterns are quite effective at between 50-300m.

So what does the the adoption of the 6,8 mm have to do with digital camouflage and improved detection devices? Namely, that I opine that infantry combat doctrine in the next 30 years will be to engage the enemy as far out as possible- between 500-600 m precisely to avoid the short, sharp battles at 50-100 m which cause the high attrition that infantry units always suffer. Quite reasonably the Reverand will retort as to just how will the infantrymen accomplish such sharpshooting feats.

Simple, by the proliferation of lightweight stadiometric scopes that will allow the infantryman to see his enemy as far away as 600 m as if he were just 50 m. The technology already exists it's just a question of applying it to equipment that infantryman can easily use, maintain and survive with the abuse in all sorts of climatical and battle conditions. Remember, the Vampyr infrared system in 1945 required a backpack to carry the equipment and a hug attery. Today, infrared devices can be worn on the head with less weight than a welder's mask.

Undoubtedly, the same infantry doctrine will ensure that when close quarter combat occurs, the infantryman will be properly trained to fight. However, I still opine that close quarter battles will be avoided, unless inevitable, under the new infantry doctrine.

To answer the readers' question as to why the 6,8 m or 7 mm cartridge is ideal for the military, herewith are my answers:

• The cartridge has a good balance between weight and killing power. The soldiers can carry many rounds with them due to the relatively lightweight and the cartidges have enough kinetic energy to kill or severely wound an enemy soldier at the usual combat distances (50-100m).Further, if combat conditions warrant the cartidge's kinetic energy allows soldiers to shoot at 300m+


• The recoil is tolerable. It doesn't hurt the solider's shoulder, thus the low recoil permits him to shoot his rifle in automatic fire and still maintain aiming accuracy. For an infantryman, accurate shooting is life or death. If he can fire more bullets faster and hit the enemy soldier, he survives. Further Western armies have been utterly uncompromising for centuries in training its soldiers to shoot accurately. Accurate automatic fire is just another skill for infantryman to master correctly

I'll audaciously conclude this followup with an assertion: there's going to be a huge debate between the proponents of close quarter combat and those in favour of long distance engagements. The debate will be similar to the one about tanks in the 1930s.

El nou document del Vaticà sobre el rol de les dònes i homes

El periodisme es bastant graciós pel seu llenguatge enganyós i fotos equivocades. Heus ací un bon exemple. Mireu la foto de la papa amb el titular sobre el nou document vaticà sobre la col·laboració entrehomes i dones Veiem l'imatge del papa enfadat™ i es pot imaginar que el papa xiscla: ¡Ratzinger es absolutament intolerable que les dones sortien de la casa i desobeixen als home. Esriu-me un document que expressi l'ideari més rancid, més endarriet, el més reaccionari possible sobre les parelles i el rol de la dóna en la vida cristaina! Jawohl Heigles vater! responderia Ratiziner.

Deafortunadament, no es així. Entenc un mica el tó aggressiu per que hi ha un corrent del feminisme que es molt misantropic que influeix molt. Si ningú em creu ací son alguns fets sobre la societat nortamericana

• 80% dels estudiants que prenen Ritalin son nens


• En Quebec, 50% del adolescents mascles no acaben le secondari; mentres que 80% de les nenes no sols acaben ans passen a l'universitat dD'on ja constituteixen la grand majoria del alumunat.


• Quant al avortament, un home no pot ni piu però si la dóna decideix de tenir el fill, encara que no sigui el seu fill, ha de pagar la pensió alimentària sense que pogui protestar so pena d'embrac am retenció o la presó si es reclacitrant. Es a dir que el homes no contem per a res...excepte a ser una cartera


• En les comèdies populars estadaunidenques l'home sempre es el fanfarró que ningú pren en seriós, el tonto de la sèrie o l'incompetent que axafa tot i l'esposa ho resolva. Àdhuc en els anuncis es tracten com a imbècils

Doncs que el papa ens recorda es que la diffèrencia biològica entre les homes i dónes serveixen per raons bastant clares. Alguns son téologics; com per exemple la raó per que les dones mai podran accedir a esdevenir capellans; altres socials: el casament es entre un home i dona per pujar els fills. Estudis infinits han mostrats que els nens i nenes creixen ambs menys trastorns psicologics, més equilibrats, més segurs, més contents en la si d'una familia amb un pare i una mare. Ademés el Vaticà llança un tir d'avis contre la societat de consum i els patrons.

Ambdós volen qu'algú altre tingui nens. Pujar fills no sols es car ans també deordena la productivitat, entrabanca els plans, atarda l'eficència. Això els els fastida molt. En conseqüència, moltes pares se senten divides en llurs lleitats. El papa recorda la societat que no es pot pressionar la família d'aquesta manera sense que repercuti a tothom de manera negativa. Escau a la societat d'organitzar el treball i la vida de tal manera que els pares poguen pujar els fills sense por de cóm es ganyran la vida o que faran dels fills si els parens hagin de treballar. La societat informàtica es prou flexible i sofisticada per resoldre aquest dilemas. Només falta la voluntat de implantar-les.