Originally posted by chunyong:
work anot i dunno but i sure know if u 'pull' this wayang through and the higher ups are happy, u get ur due promotion. ahahhaha...in a war there is frenzy, frantic etc...u think u still can calmly sit down tap here tap there on ur laptop, palmtop or wat...u will be taking cover and returning fire....and of cos, staying alive.
Clamly tapping? I don't think so. But the real question is if such technology needed in a useable way... and I think the answer is yes.
It's a bit like arguing that the radio is useless in battle because people would be too stressed to use it, which is pure rubbish. What I know is that a lack of information hurts soldiers a lot more then bullets, and having such abilities would mean that you might be able to direct more precise and effective return fire... not to mention some even allow you to stay in cover and engage the enemy.
How is that not useful in battle? These ideas came out of battles when troops wished they had some ability that current technology did not give them at that time. Be it better communciations or weapons, the need is the same. What I do not understand is this contempt for new ideas using being a 'basic' or 'garang' soldier as an excuse. Using this logic one could argue a lot of the stuff we have now is useless... why use M16? Use a musket lah... simpler system without all the problems of IA and stuff.
A quick look of the thing makes me realize is not that all this stuff is useless, is that we have not upgraded ourselves enough to realize what it all means like the person who still insists on using snail mail when many things could be done electronically.
The magazine rifle was an innovation that many people scoffed at because it was deemed too complex and encouraged soldiers to waste ammo. Where are manually loaded infantry rifles today?
It's odd how everybody but Singaporeans liked the SAR 21, what's up with giving our home brewed stuff the cruelest cut?