A soldier has an expectation that his life is at risk on the battlefield.

His death does not have an equivalence to that of a civilian shot in his bed.

there is no honor in war or killing someone

I respectfully disagree.

"Veteran: One who signed a blank check to his country for his limb, life and soul but survived."

there is honor in besting someone physically like there is honor in besting someone mentally

but war isnt fair

and it will never be

those gooks that are currently getting bombed the shit out of them?

Yes, anyone who says war is fair is a fool.

nothing honourable about that

If you have 100 thousand men to their 10 thousand, you don't have 90 percent of your forces sit at home to keep things 'fair'.

it would be the honorable thing to do so but it doesnt happen

Says who?

You? Why?

sounds like pretty much the definition of honor to me

when you enter in a war your point is to win right?

doing X with fairness

and to win the war will you leave 90% of your army? no you wont because winning and surviving is more important than honor

Not if your goal is be honorable in the win. Though that rarely is the goal.

So, you do not recognize honorable conduct or rules of war in warfare?

https://www.facebook.com/gamersdb/videos/532121207262060/

can I post this here

Self evidently.

you can handle opponents with honor after you have won like respecting prisonors etc but winning? noone takes compromises for honor at the cost of winning

and you wouldnt either

Speak for yourself, please.

You may decide genociding a nation is a proper victory, but I do not.

can you quote me on genocide?

Rules of war, such as not firing on unarmed combatants is part of honor. People do comply to that even when trying to win.

Reason why there are POWs. If you wanted to win, it would be more effecient just to kill them.

"Honor is war is a luxury few can afford."

i wouldnt say o as pow's can be traded and makes people more eager to surrended etc

the reason we dont shoot surrendered is because it will lead to other soldiers refusing to surrender

there are indeed rules of war but those aren't based on honor as much as they are based on humanity

there goes alot more into not shooting a civillian than just protecting your honor

Treating prisoners humanly is something that is encouraged by rules of war, but seldom seen.

thats is an entirely different topic but i cant disagree

in ww2 for example alot of soldiers who captured germans had alot of built up anger for them, so even from the allied side there where quite a bit of war crimes

Yeah. Especially as the (Western) Allies occupied into the Reich and found the German "Camps".

yes and i can completely understand why they did it i dont agree with those people but i understand why

the russians went at it aswell

The Soviets have never abided by the rules about humanly treating POWs.

yeah

but point is nobody is perfect enough to fignt an honorable war

as well just resort to what helps us the most

its in our human nature

Soviet "Advisors" went into Vietnam to "Question" (Torture) US pilots downed over the North.

And, according to Insane, all of these actions were justified by the realities of war and the Soviets couldn't and shouldn't be held morally responsible for them.

It was simply their nature.

The KPA was never a signatory to the Laws of War, the VC were never signatories either... the Red Army was a willing signatory. So it is one of those things where they took up that mantle.

Alright, so you'll recognize the illegitimacy of oathbreaking.

So, then, the actions of the VC were not morally wrong, due to the necessities of warfare.

Of course, by Insane's reasoning, oathbreaking is also an acceptable act if it is judged to be a part of attaining victory in war.

The VC had a habit of murdering whole families of Civilians for the reasons of ideology. So I would say that is well outside of the "Acts of war."

Right, but the torture of men, the sacrifice of civilians, blending into them, the use of children, I believe?

All a legitimate part of wartime strategy.

And of course, the big one.

That war was two horrible regimes killing each other.

The south Vietnamese government was fucking awful.

It would certainly be a huge detriment to the war effort to try and feed millions of undesirables when trying to provide logistics to soldiers.

Thus, the Holocaust is a permissible wartime strategy, per Insane's reasoning.

The holocaust had nothing to do with feeding them.

Let's go with that, then, and say that the German Reich had more than enough resources to feed everyone.

In a hypothetical germany where they *didn't* have the food, the Holocaust would have been permitted by Insane.

The Holocust was "Lets just kill all of these people we hate!" regardless of citizenship, or military justifications.

No, the Russians didn't have enough food to feed their own army, but they didn't commit a genocide to feed them.

And Stalin was pretty nuts.

Though I guess you could argue he might simply have not thought of it.

What's your point?

If it's that Stalin was more moral than this hypothetical Germany, I guess I'd agree with you.

In that one regard specifically.

No my point was more that even the insane wouldn't necessarily resort to that measure.

The holocaust was an ideological solution, not a pragmatic one.

But if they did, it would be justified under the current reasoning put forward by Insane, correct?

No.

Because all actions towards attaining victory in war are permissible.

The Nazi's weren't insane.

Okay.

It's an easy copout but it's not true.

One should confuse insanity with villiany. There are plenty of sane and rational people who have no problems justifying the worst acts imaginable.

The Nazis were loyal to an evil ideology.

I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this conversation. Best of luck.

The lesson of the Nazis isn't that insane people can come to power, or that evil can win. It's that otherwise good people can be convicted it's in the "greater good" to commit truly horrible acts @Bookworm .

That's fair.

Pretty much.

Going back to Vietname do you guys know about the Meili massacre?

It was a slaughter of women, children, and civilian men by US troops. They weren't raised wrong, or an abortion, it was a total break down of civilization.

If these soldiers were in any other situation with an exception of a very few they would have been honest hard working citizens, but were drug down into a pit that allowed them to become avatars of the worst aspects of humanity.

@Bookworm Of course, by Insane's reasoning, oathbreaking is also an acceptable act if it is judged to be a part of attaining victory in war. can you quote me on saying that i by any means agree with that. i said it happens not that i in any way condone breaking oaths

i said its neccesary to obtain victory in war

you can handle opponents with honor after you have won like respecting prisonors etc but winning? noone takes compromises for honor at the cost of winning.

The post I was referring to.

Which in hindsight, I realize is less you claiming it is acceptable and more you saying that people do so.

So, then, Insane, what is and is not to be condoned in the attainment of victory in warfare?

warfare is in itself taking something that is not yours by force. it dishonors conversation and logic its leads the victory of he who is strongest not he who is right

warfare is in itself anti human

Warfare is the ultimate form of conflict resolution. You could even say it is the ultimate form of economic distribution.

A resource is allocated to those willing to pay the highest price for it. Warfare is saying "I am willing to kill, and die, and so is everyone on my side for this."

warfare doesnt distribute economics as the person with the economic advantage has a way higher change to end on top

I never said it distributed resources equitably.

then how does it in your opinion distribute recources outside of a nation

How does war distribute resources?

The victor of the war gets the resources, on account of being able to dictate terms.

and that is, in your view, the ultimate form of economic distribution?

In that death is the highest price a man can pay, yes.

yes but the person wielding the most resources at the start of the war has an advantage wouldnt "distributing those recourses" be more like claiming them?

if a man pays with his life, he gets no resources in return. Whoever is leading him to his death does.

thats a very good point

Yes, but in warfare death is not certain. And of course, there's group concerns to think about.

Just because his life is the greatest thing he can give up personally doesn't mean that's all he cares about.

@Bookworm is there any honor in sending people to a higher change of death in exchange for resources?

Inherently? I don't think so. But there certainly can be, yes.

explain further?

Every great nation and society was built upon the blood of its soldiers.

Every advancement and opportunity paid for with their lives. Their sacrifice deserves respect.

>Yes, but in warfare death is not certain. And of course, there's group concerns to think about.
So you can't think of a scenario where that wouldn't be the case? You really can't imagine a better form of economic distribution?

I'm not sure what you're asking, Crow.

thats not an argument for war containing honor that is an argument for war being usefull to certain nations

@Bookworm you give the impression that since warfare leads to distribution of resources its the best way to do so

i think thats what crow means

and he asks for your standpoint on that

you said warfare is the ultimate form of economic distribution. Are you really telling me you can't think of a better form of economic distribution?

Ah. No, absolutely not. Warfare is incredibly costly, in terms of resources and human lives on both sides. In that regard, it's the *most* inefficient method of resource allocation. Almost everything less than warfare is generally preferable if possible, because you want to obtain the resources for as little as possible.

I call it 'ultimate' because it is the final escalation of cost. You cannot pay more.

one where, idk, "the 1%" send the "the 99%" to harvest resources for themselves at the cost of their lives with the survivors among the "99%" getting mere scraps in return

right

guess thats how america ended up with its 1%

both in situation of war or loans

Well, mostly through resource gathering and smart but ruthless business practices, yes.

smart warfare? like vietnam

or syria

Economics has evolved to the point where few people get rich directly from warfare these days.

or afghanistan

yes but the few people that get rich get so rich they are very close to owning the world

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/399403686285148162/510585570616016896/tumblr_n2t6upqooN1s8kz63o1_500_zpsq12xghog.png
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/399403686285148162/510597384573550593/image0.jpg?width=547&height=684

FORBIDDEN PASTA

Cordite

You know what would go good with that?

https://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/sites/sbs.com.au.yourlanguage/files/styles/full/public/-mine.wikimedia.jpg?itok=7wN_NP6n&mtime=1521116668

Some *Forbidden Tuna*

Japanese rope bondage for a shotgun?

"gun controll"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/matteo-salvini-italy-gun-laws-ownership-control-assault-rifle-shootings-lega-a8623546.html?fbclid=IwAR0q57ZctRI0AMOzqeY6xJcl0oeAgJ_c_vUmjUHimFNWZfJruEuBR1RDE28

!rank

hmm The picture posted!

Question for everyone, what is your favorite flavor? I stock .22LR, 10mm, .45ACP, .300BLK, 7.62Soviet, .308 and 12ga my self

Hot fire. Throw some beer on it.

is that a Catlashnikov?

**Forgotten Weapons** Uploaded a new youtube video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxLrz1vTloI

mini 14s are gay

indeed

God bless you, Salvini.

kek

Ever since i discovered that a .50AE is the same length, and double the width of a fn5.7, i have wanted to see someone do a p90 in 50ae, it would go from a 50rnd double stack to probably a 20rnd single stack

.50AE would blow a P90 apart

probably

Yeah, I know it would.

P90s are Blowback operated, the pressure of the .50AE would blow up a Blowback action. Now you could build a new firearm to match the stock of the P90, but it would need vastly different internals.

also someone did this once

rim lock made it not gooood

Yeah,

definitely. P90 is simple blowback.

you could have a much heavier bolt and spring, but it would batter itself to pieces due to polymer construction.

and that shotgun mag again begs the question of why no one has made a rimless shotgun shell

They have Atkins, the thing is that the vast majority of Shotguns are built to headspace off of the rim of the shell. Nobody has really pushed the rimless Shells since they never went into major production.

just start with a 50bmg case that hasnt been necked down yet

Unless FN, Remington, Colt, HK and a few dozen other working with NATO and Interpol push a new 13g semiauto shotgun, rimless shotgun shells will not take off.

Actually thinking about it... The EU could be the way to make rimless shotgun shells... but it wouldn't be avalible to the public.

why EU, of all things? And why would they be unavailable for the public?

"Military and police ammunition shall not be made available to civilians." principle. Introduce a new shotgun for police and EU security services, but make it illegal to sell the ammo and firearms to all not police or military agencies.

that seems really counterproductive, especially for a shotgun shell. Sure you could argue it makes sense to restrict warheads if you make e.g. HEAT or gas cannister warheads for military use, but not really anything beyond that

a shotgun is hard to conceal, doesn't penetrate body armor, can't carry a ton of ammunition...

basically if you allow your population to own any weapon at all, a shotgun is probably the safest you could let them own. And since most EU countries already allow semi-automatic pistols and the like, no sense in restricting a semi-auto shotgun

That is why .308 Winchester is not avalible to the public in Germany, it can be chambered in 7.62NATO firearms and vice-verse. Because of this HK makes a none .308 Winchester versions for sale on the comerical market in Germany

that's Germany local laws, not EU laws

Those laws are not exclusive to Germany.

Some countries ban 9x19 because it is a military caliber, France is one of them or was... they recently changed the laws.

and what, police ammunition is 9x19mm, you can't own a regular ass pistol in Germany?

you sure as hell can in Finland, a friend of mine has a Saiga-12, semi-auto 12g shotgun as well

That would be a reason for the new shotguns and ammo being exclusive and thus they can exclude commercial sales.

yeah but why would they?

This is all hypothdical anyways. There needs to be some major push for developing new shotgun and ammo.

There isn't right now Crow, there is more than enough rimmed shells and most shotguns are made with tube magazines so the rim is not a major concern.

no I'm asking why they would restrict it and not allow it on the commercial market

how does that decision make sense?

the other option is belt feed. rim doesn't matter so much then

allowing it to civilians cuts cost, which is very important for what's a very niche product (not like every police officer is going to carry around a shotgun, it'll be one per every three vehicles or something like that depending on funding), and if you're already allowing civilians to own pistols and rifles and the like, allowing them to own a shotgun isn't a security risk. It's arguably safer to have a thousand pistols and a thousand shotguns out "in the wild" than to have two thousand pistols and no shotguns

Crow, the reason is elites wanting toys for themselves but not for the peasants. Think of it this way, when was the last major improvement on shotguns introduced? And I mean major improvement? the 1920's? In order to justify making a brand new shotgun shell and new shotguns at this point they would need to come up with something spectacular. The EU leadership would be willing to put that improvement in the hands of security but not the presents.

that makes no sense

What does an 8mm Lebel do better than a .270 Winchester round? Nothing. But since the end of WW2 French firearms collecters could have Lebels and Berthies, but couldn't shoot them since they were banned from having military caliber ammo.

Same went for 7.5 French Service.

It isn't about logic, it is about control.

>the reason is elites wanting toys for themselves but not for the peasants.
The elites wouldn't be using this. A few police grunts and very specific military units (e.g. MPs) would use it in limited numbers, as a rifle is vastly superior in all other scenarios
>when was the last major improvement on shotguns introduced?
Late 1880's, rifled slug
But when was the last major improvement in rifles or pistols? Blowback operated was late 1800's for pistols/SMGs, gas operated rifles in early 1900's, nothing since.
>they would need to come up with something spectacular.
And rimless isn't it.
>The EU leadership would be willing to put that improvement in the hands of security but not the presents.
Why?

MP as in Military Police, not Member of Parliament

US Army so yeah MPs.

Rimless would just be one measure to ensure it isn't used by someone who already has firearms and wants to try and simply rechamber. Rechambering from Rimmed to Rimless rounds it a hell of a lot harder.

WHY WOULD THEY EVER CONSIDER SUCH A MEASURE

it makes no fucking sense to do so

look

here's how it works:

Frankly this is all still a mute point since I can't see any "Magic" upgrade that would justify it.

in EU, there's one directive everyone has to follow, it prohibits missiles and launchers, automatic firearms, disguised firearms, ammunition with penetrating or explosive warheads, and expanding projectiles for pistols (except for hunting and targeting pistols)

then specific countries can add stricter directives if they want to

if Germany has retarded gun-laws on par with the US, that's on Germany

I could even see a historic justification for it, for example there could be a lot of older pre-legislation armor-penetrating ammo in military calibers floating around (or ammo that's "disappeared" after the Berlin wall fell, for example), e.g. there could be mountains of AP ammo for the 7.62x39mm East German AKs floating around in Germany, which means it makes (a bit of) sense to restrict weapons loading that specific ammunition

Well I still don't see this being a real word talk for the forseeable future. As I said, I can't foresee any major changes to push rimless shells.

yeah we can easily ignore that bit of the discussion, and focus on the notion that EU would arbitrarily restrict them to military and police

I think a major advancement in shotgun technology that would justify making new shells and making them rimless would be used by elites at the EU and EU member governments as further justification for limiting the ability of the people to have firearms like they always do. How many times do we hear politicians call for restricting firearms after any sort of notable action with firearms?

basically never, as it's almost all done on a national level

From where I sit in the US, the EU stands not only for the European Union, but also the shared intrests of it's member states. So the fact that France, Italy, Germany and others have very similar laws it becomes an EU norm.

wut

norm, in the sense that several countries happen to have similar local gun laws, and those countries by population count make up a big chunk of the EU, sure

but that's completely irrelevant for this discussion

as the laws are on a national level, not EU level, and there are many, many countries with much laxer gun laws than e.g. Germany

here you can easily own a semi-automatic shotgun with a capacity of I think 11

Well 10+1 is probably the real limit

Look at what happened when Merkel made a decision on migration, she took it to the EU and forced it on everyone. If there was a really onus to change firearms laws, the EU would set a new standard either after the change swept the national governments (NG) or one of the big player made it a mandate for all the NGs

Yeah the EU is Germany's 4th Reich.

yep, and half the countries declined that decision, fucking Germany beyond belief (and it's getting Merkel outed next election)

EU isn't like the US

the individual nations are all a lot more independent than the US states are

If this hypothetical new shell came to or out of the US, it would be everywhere (Except NY, NJ, or CA) The only reason HK's Nuclear Bullet isn't at Academy is because HK refused to sell Tittle 1 Firearms in it's caliber. Hence why I can get 5.7FN at my local FFL but not 4.6HK.

For now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cy_XJasqcQ Anything Prussian is technically firearm right?

Well this is multiple fetishes merged into one unholy "I need Eye Bleach Moment!" https://www.deviantart.com/a022412/art/Girls-frontline-LWMMG-727452874

C E A S E

I looked up the Girls Frontline on Deviantart and that came up.

How does it compare to you for inflation fetish?

Not into Inflation, don't mind girls in vac-tight

I still don’t understand that fetish, if it was done as a joke or to gross people out it would make more sense, but it is apparent that people are just getting off on it.