US Army likely to ban smartwatches
-
@Dashrender True. If it had been one of those Popup ads that played sound, I would have close it out. But as it were, i didn't hear anything, lol.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
Slavery was abolished over 100 years ago in the US, except for two things, joining the military and farming. My father always said farming, especially a dairy farm, is basically legal slavery. And when you join the military, you are not a person, but property of the government to be used as they see fit.
The important thing about the military is that it is voluntary, unlike traditional slavery.
Yeah, I know. More like indentured servitude than slavery.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I would assume they can be worn off base, but we will have to see
My guess is no, but if so, then the article is pretty silly.
I am not sure why they wouldn't be allowed off base. There is no control of your smartphone off base. In reality a smart watch can do nothing a smart phone can't do.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I would assume they can be worn off base, but we will have to see
My guess is no, but if so, then the article is pretty silly.
I am not sure why they wouldn't be allowed off base. There is no control of your smartphone off base. In reality a smart watch can do nothing a smart phone can't do.
Why would there be an article then? Seems pretty silly.
-
@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.
