Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The way modern warfare is conducted

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
p,c,ma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Sep-2010
Location: Tennessee
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
  Quote p,c,ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The way modern warfare is conducted
    Posted: 16-Dec-2010 at 21:10
Ron I seriously worry about you sometimes.
 
I still want a shirt though.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Dec-2010 at 20:00
You must note Hunter that I do not agree with a lot of modern day etymology! That is, I find that they tend to ignore some obvious relationships, or they are unable to actually recognize them, or they merely discard them for the most accepted version, etc.!

Thus, before you get all mired down and end up searching and find out that "hippo" actually seems earily similar to "hippa", etc., and then migrate to "potamus", etc., then perhaps you might want to read this;

The following can be found at "The word detective.com"

Dear Word Detective: A co-worker and I were having a discussion on the word "potable." Where does that word originate, and why isn't it just "drinkable"? His theory is that you put water in pots, hence "potable." I say hooey. -- Matt Meade, via the internet.

I say "hooey" too. In fact, I say "hooey" so often during an average day that one of my dogs now answers to "hooey." Of course, she also answers to "tuna," "telephone" and "lint," so maybe I just need a smarter dog. But "I say hooey" makes a fine all-purpose motto, and as soon as I finish answering your question I'm going to have some "I Say Hooey" t-shirts made up.

In the case of "potable," however, I can only declare a "partial hooey" on your co-worker's theory. Although he isn't exactly right, he's not completely wrong: there is a connection between "potable" and "pot."

It all began way back with Indo-European, the precursor to most modern European languages. The Indo-European root word "po" meant "to drink," and gave us the modern words for "to drink" in French, Russian and Welsh, among other languages. In Latin, "po" produced the verb "potare," also meaning "to drink," and "potare" begat "potabilis" ("drinkable"), which led directly to our modern English "potable," which first appeared around 1572.

Now we'll take a few steps back and explain why your co-worker is not completely crazy. That little root word "po" also produced the Latin noun "potio," meaning "a drink," which eventually gave us the English words "potion" and "poison." A related word ("potus"), also meaning "a drink," survived into medieval Latin, where it came to mean "a drinking cup or vessel." This word "potus" gave us a wide variety of modern English words, among which are "porridge," "putty," and, as you've probably guessed by now, "pot."

So while "potable" does not come directly from "pot," they do share a common (and very prolific) ancestor.

As to why we say "potable" rather than "drinkable," there's no particular reason, aside from tradition and a historic preference among English grammarians for fancy-schmancy Latinate constructions. But there's nothing wrong with saying "drinkable," especially considering that we've actually been saying it since around 1611."

And to the "Word Detective", I also say "hooey!", as well as "phooey!", ahem!

I assert, as my God given right, to propose that "potamus", etc., meaning river,or stream or even "spring", also meant "drinkable!" or "fresh!" This was of course from a time when such water supplies were certainly more drinkable than todays!

Hippos, of course, means the same as "horse" and surprisingly, horses or known to drink from rivers and streams, as were men and women during the ancient past! Boiling water to drink, was still a few centuries distant, depending upon, of course, where one lived and from what place in the stream or river one drank from! Surprisingly most humans develop a resistance to water that would make us all sick, just as horses have the same resistance!

I contend that "potamus" and its various spelling, meant at one time, only "fresh water" as opposed to "salt" or "sulfur" water, etc.! Thus in those days whilst one "could not lead a horse to water", it was certain that a horse could lead a man to "fresh water!"

This is my theory and I'm sticking to it!

http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Dec-2010 at 15:47
Actyally p, c, ma / Hunter! Hippas is it! Perhaps you should get a new search engine?

This site is merely one of them;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/3918310/Book-from-1801-outlines-Christmas-family-games-such-as-Hot-Cockles.html

Note that Hippias was noted for going to a few Olympic Games!

Sosrt of warms the "Cockles of your heart!", does it not?

Edited by opuslola - 16-Dec-2010 at 15:49
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
p,c,ma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Sep-2010
Location: Tennessee
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
  Quote p,c,ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2010 at 19:52
Still not it.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2010 at 22:24
Maybe it was spelled Hippas? Like hippos, horses, etc.? Although Hippias is also important!

Edited by opuslola - 03-Dec-2010 at 22:25
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
p,c,ma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Sep-2010
Location: Tennessee
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
  Quote p,c,ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2010 at 19:46
I tried, but I kept getting the tyrant Hippias.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2010 at 18:17
I will also suggest that often or not, sometimes the "Jousts" were a means of settling differences!

Of course in the Greek world, there does exist a chance that the Olympic Games performed the same? Please look up the ancient game called, I think "Hippias?"

It is merely a childs way of practicing for a joust!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
p,c,ma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Sep-2010
Location: Tennessee
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
  Quote p,c,ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2010 at 16:59

That could be explained by the recycling of arms and armor.

Also mock battles did kind of take place among the people of the classical world in the form of single battles.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2010 at 22:32
Yes, if it were really so today!

But, in our past, we really do not know if what I wrote was true or not?

There have been numerous investigations into the fields of ancient battles that have returned "NOTHING!"

Just like the casualties a Chess Game would produce!

Edited by opuslola - 02-Dec-2010 at 22:34
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
p,c,ma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Sep-2010
Location: Tennessee
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 119
  Quote p,c,ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2010 at 22:26
Im not saying that its true that past wars were decided by a chess game, but it would be both interesting and life saving for modern wars to be decided by single mock battles.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2010 at 15:31
Actually Deano, I sometimes feel that many of those great battles that we now read about, were merely the accounts of great "chess games!", and I am not really kidding!

Chess or one of its comparable games which may well be extinct, could have easily allowed one "despot" to fight via slow mail, a war without death?

All one needed was a writer, who watched the match, and then prepared great events onto paper, or papyrus, or vellum, and left them for posterity! Ergo, then these "fictionalized" accounts were found and taken as "fact!" They (the chess battles) were then entered into "history", and especially "chronology", as "fact?"

Much the same could easily be done today with computer simulations! Why risk so much when a mere game with a "bet" is much easier for each "cousin" to accept? I use the word "cousin" because within the royal families of Europe and the surrounding area, most all rulers were related by "blood!" As they are today!!!

Seriously, just who knows?

Edited by opuslola - 13-Mar-2010 at 15:32
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Deano97 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2010
Location: Little Rock, Ar
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
  Quote Deano97 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2010 at 19:50
But think, will that not become the warfare of our future.Will wars be conducted by using only man operated machines, and at some point or another machines not powered by man at all?How long till Robots fight on the plain of battle as every part in the military.We already have Predator Drones and Recon Robots...But will it be 100?50?even 20 years till the Computer generation is running the military?
I fart in your general direction!Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of Elderberries!
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2010 at 20:17
It really seems that all of those children we have trained to fight via remote control on the inter-net, are ready made warriors of the 21st century! Just move the man, ship, airplane, rocket, etc., and press "shoot!"

Remote control death! Just how soon it is reality is merely a guess?

Regards,

"It is only a flesh wound!"
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Deano97 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2010
Location: Little Rock, Ar
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
  Quote Deano97 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2010 at 17:53
Its changed in the way that theirs absolutley no such thing as the low tech army any more.Almost half of ur fighting is now not done by humans.The times of 1 million soldiers meeting half a mile apart in two trenches is now over.
I fart in your general direction!Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of Elderberries!
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2010 at 15:33
The following site, might well tell you what is is like in Iraq, and maybe that other place that Obama is sending troops?

I obviously posted the wrong address!



Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 08-Jan-2010 at 16:43
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 20:20
Personally it frustrates me that high-tech armies such as the US, Europe and Russia (I consider them to be in this category) are developing more and more technology when it won't help them win in their current conflicts. Obviously having an edge in technology over an opponent is an advantage but any war between two high-tech armies would break both their banks.
 
The Land-warrior technology, the gun that shoots around corners and bombs that can destroy 80 tanks at once are cool, yes, but how will any of them defeat 4th generation war (different from 4th dimensional war). Russia's problems are with Chechnyan rebels, France lost a war to Algeria and Indochina, Israel almost lost the war with the Palestinians and the US has lost to Vietnam and Somalia and is now involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would say political will is the greater weapon in today's war, with information as its underlying principle.
 
(Currently I'm doing an independent study on guerrilla warfare/insurgencies after being very impressed with The Sling and the Stone by Thomas X Hammes, worth checking out.)
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 21:18
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Other nations (Russia, China etc) while they have high tech components, don't base their strategies around them.
 
Why do you say that?  The Russian Army that took Chechnya certainly was based around high technology military.  They even copied the NATO/US method of press conference to show the before and after effects of their air strikes. 
 
The PLA is in a midst of modernization.  China has 2 foreign policies: secure energy to fuel its economic growth and prevent Taiwan from independence, by force if necessary.  They are building their high tech military around a doctrine that MAY one day require them to invade Taiwan.
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 21:14
Originally posted by IDonT

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

The last 40 years has shown that low tech determined armies who import their stingers on the backs of donkeys* can effectively challenge high tech state of the art armies.
They can do this because they have better morale, better training, and a greater desire to win. When Israel fought Hezbullah many Israeli soldiers were freezing their sperm in case they were killed before going into battle against Hezbullahs forces that would happily die to defend their country. That is why Israel lost the war. Because of morale.

Just like in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan, high tech fancy armies lost to low tech armies. Therefore I do not consider networked soldiers to be a useful investment. You'll spend more time repairing the computer than you will shooting at the enemy!
This is just a way for IT companies to win defence contracts.


*Who are a part of the complex and efficient logistics network. Low tech doesn't mean disorganised.
 
1.)  Not effectively challenge.  The right world is outlast.  Low tech armies, fighting on their own backyard can generally outlast, through attrition, high tech expeditionary armies. 
 
2.)  While the Vietnamese and Afghans surely did outlast the Soviet and US armies, they never won a single battle.  That is the weakness and strengh of the low tech guerilla armies.  Currently no low tech army can prevent the movement nor deny land from a Brigade or Division size professional army of either US, Russian, Chinese, and European origin.   They can however make their lives very unconfortable the longer they hold the territory.  They never win in the battlefield, but win in the political field.  As a military tactic, it not the best way to defend (but you play the hand that your dealt) 
 
3.)  Guerilla based armies are historically impossible to destroy because they never stood their ground and fight and are best suited for defensive campaigns of wearing down the attacker.  Their offensive strength are marginal.  They could never take an entrench position or gain ground.  The Hezbollah was playing a defensive war for their survival.  In that conflict, defined on those terms only, they "won".  However, Hezbollah could never take and hold Israeli ground from the Israeli army.  Doing so will nulify their greatest asset, despersion and stealth.   
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 21:11
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

The last 40 years has shown that low tech determined armies who import their stingers on the backs of donkeys* can effectively challenge high tech state of the art armies.
They can do this because they have better morale, better training, and a greater desire to win. When Israel fought Hezbullah many Israeli soldiers were freezing their sperm in case they were killed before going into battle against Hezbullahs forces that would happily die to defend their country. That is why Israel lost the war. Because of morale.

Just like in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan, high tech fancy armies lost to low tech armies. Therefore I do not consider networked soldiers to be a useful investment. You'll spend more time repairing the computer than you will shooting at the enemy!
This is just a way for IT companies to win defence contracts.


*Who are a part of the complex and efficient logistics network. Low tech doesn't mean disorganised.
 
1.)  Not effectively challenge.  The right world is outlast.  Low tech armies, fighting on their own backyard can generally outlast, through attrition, high tech expeditionary armies. 
 
2.)  While the Vietnamese and Afghans surely did outlast the Soviet and US armies, they never won a single battle.  That is the weakness and strengh of the low tech guerilla armies.  Currently no low tech army can prevent the movement nor deny land from a Brigade or Division size professional army of either US, Russian, Chinese, and European origin.   
 
3.)  Guerilla based armies are historically impossible to destroy because they never stood their ground and fight and are best suited for defensive campaigns of wearing down the attacker.  Their offensive strength are marginal.  They could never take an entrench position.   
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 02:01
I'd say only Europe, Israel and the US have high tech armies, and they don't seem inclinded to fight each other.
 
Other nations (Russia, China etc) while they have high tech components, don't base their strategies around them.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.