tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post1296113906805717921..comments2024-03-29T13:09:31.522+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Salami slicing doesn't seem to work in Germany any moreUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-9408952756335674602011-12-08T06:04:55.366+01:002011-12-08T06:04:55.366+01:00If would be terrorists knew for a fact that they w...If would be terrorists knew for a fact that they would be caught 100% of the time, would they still do it? Of course, such a question is entirely hypothetical, as no such perfect law enforcement can exist without infringing on too many civil libertys to be justified. Rather than clogging the internet with cyber police (or airports with TSA) waiting to militantly bag citizens authorising their right to free speech -I.E, terrorism- and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do this, I suggest we abolish the patriot act and homeland security, and let the legitimate law enforcement agencys do their jobs.<br /><br />BTW, sven, I have begun hearing excellant arguments for a reorganisation -more like a simplification, in practice- of the infantry sqauds combat role. They would no longer conduct both fire and maunever at the same time. Though this would make them more vulnerable in sqaud vs sqaud actions, once such changes are translated up to the platoon level, the payoff would be tremendous. The 1946 infantry conferance at fort benning, georgia, concluded that breaking the sqaud up into two differant fire teams made them too difficult for the sqaud leader (even with the aid of an assistant leader) to excercise effective command and control over them. That realisation leaves 3 options:<br />-Reduce the sqaud size, making them easier to control, but less able to absorb atttition.<br />-Maintain the current sqaud size, and accept all the limitations that this brought on. Or<br />-Limit the role of the infantry sqaud so that they either conduct fire or maneuver, but not both simultaneously. This would eliminate the fire team organisation.<br /><br />This is explained further in the monograph: The infantry sqaud, size is not the only problem. What do you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-83191112462879719232011-12-08T05:50:28.313+01:002011-12-08T05:50:28.313+01:00A frog placed in boiling water will jump out, but ...A frog placed in boiling water will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. True or not of frogs it shows the point.<br /><br />Constitutional monarchy with a king that has the power to check the politicians. The king wouldn't have legislative power (certain reserve powers for a crises though). The lack of legislative power for the king would be a check on him. The legislature would handle day to day bills. The King could call referendums on some more important issues. The king would have judicial power and share executive power with the premier. The premier would oversee the legislature and the king would oversee things like trials of politicians accused of crimes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com