Education UCL student union bans military

That's not really true. The development of intermediate cartidges to succeed the bolt-action and semi-automatic rifle cartridges wasn't based around the idea of maiming (the military heads at the time generally opposed the idea of smaller cartidges, they wanted to be able to kill outright at long range and to hell with everything else) - it was based around the idea of finding a rifle round that could be loaded into a rifle that had automatic capabilities/the ability to be rapidly fired in semi-auto with a large mag and still be able to maintain a modicum of accuracy or usefulness.

When the first generation of new intermediate rounds was being chosen the UK military favoured a small high velocity round (these more often than larger rounds tend to wound), which the US flatly opposed because the top brass wanted high power. They wanted to kill a man in one shot. And now as you'll see in Ze Irak and The Afghanistanitalebaneland soldiers are increasingly switching to higher calibre weaponry when they have the choice. The entire military wants 1 shot kills. And increasingly the arms manufacturing industry is catering to this, re-introducing high power high calibre rifles. Guns are not being designed to wound, they're designed to be as lethal as possible and yet still be small, light, and capable of rapid fire. Although it would seem that western doctrine is starting to realise that if you fullfill the goals of small, light, and capable of rapid fire you get a gun that many soldiers aren't happy with because it will not kill outright. Hence we're seeing many variants of guns being introduced in the 7.62x51mm calibre alongside 5.56x45mm (see FN SCAR, HK417, and the reintroduction of the M14 as a DMR)

As for the oppositions weaponry, that ain't changed in 60 years. They've been using AK's since the AK was invented, and those things were always designed to kill in one. They'll probably still be using them effectively in another 100 years too.

 

That's guns. I'm thinking of anti-personnel mines and grenades, which are designed to remove limbs and create nasty burn injuries.

 

Sorry for the delay - was off being warry over the weekend and have only just found the time to reply...

OK, so right now the Barbarians aren't at the gate. That isn't necessarily always true - the Jihadi types coming out of the middle east at the moment certainly would qualify if for any reason they were closer, and in my opinion the Red Army also qualified back in the day.

It worked for Frederick the Great, but he was probably the exception rather than the rule. In reality, motivation is a function primarily of leadership, with factors like pay, equipment, political leadership, etc. playing a role.

Uh huh. That's why there are so many people coming back with major injuries like missing limbs, blindness, traumatic brain injuries, etc. Those aren't small injuries. Medical care isn't a great deal different no matter where you go. In the middle of a firefight you don't provide any medical care to them as it's simply too dangerous for everyone involved. Once you win it, the platoon medic takes over things and organises evacuation to a field hospital (which can provide care as good as any in the UK). The length of evacuation varies slightly, but not a lot.

True when you're fighting a civilized army. Against Jihadi types - our current enemy - it isn't true. They don't provide their wounded with care, and in general don't stop fighting if injured. Furthermore, the weapons they use - AK-47s, Mortars, unguided rockets, RPGs, etc. were either designed before this became a common doctrine (AK-47s), are designed for anti-tank work (RPG) or as artillery have varying kill/injure distances.

Largely true, although more fully-automatic than semi-automatic. The M1 Garand for instance was a semi-automatic firing full power rifle cartridges and predates assault rifles.
The other point about the original full power rifle cartridges is that they were designed at a time when cavalry was a major threat, and are the minimum size required to reliably stop a horse. That requirement went out at about the time of the Boer war.

Anti-personnell mines have always been designed to remove feet, etc. rather than kill - mainly because it allows them to be made smaller and cheaper for the same incapacitating effect on the enemy. In any case, most Western countries can't use them because they've signed the Ottawa convention - the UK is one of these countries.
Grenades have a different limitation - they're deployed by hand, which means you have to be awfully close to them when they go off. That sets a power limit on them as you can't use a weapon that will kill or injure you whenever you try to use it - particularly as doctrine normally calls for you to post a grenade into a foxhole, rather than throw it at the enemy. That means you're going to be awfully close.

 

Or rather, the illusion of such. The reality is poor pay for long, dangerous hours, scarcity of vital equipment, substandard health care and living conditions, and poor pension and compensation arrangements. And that is in peace time.

In war time, desertion is a capital offence.

 

Not anymore.

 

Yes, and? All that is true, and always has been in the British army. From Wellington's "scum of the earth, enlisted for drink", through Kipling's "Tommy" to today, soldiers are always poorly paid, work crazy hours (I think I'm currently getting paid at about half minimum wage on average), have poor living conditions and are treated like something they stepped in by the general public. Leadership is what keeps these men and women going on when civvies like yourself would have given up the ghost long before...

 

You say leadership, I say indoctrination and coercion.

 

is there a big difference between the two? if someone is undoctrinated to follow the orders of a superior, is that superior a "leader"? its an interesting point but completely offtopic

 

Yeah, there is a hell of a big difference. I've had superior officers so deficient in leadership that only their rank has prevented me attacking them with a shovel. I've had others I would happily follow through the gates of hell itself. One is a leader and can maintain morale in the face of the sh*t the government keeps throwing at us. The other isn't, can't, and will generally find their troops leaving and themselves being kicked out in short order.