Justification for war in Afghanistan

[Essay]

Babies thrown out of incubators at the hospital, gold stolen from the banks, I don't know.

 

Just right versus wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianG

The American Civil War ended slavery.

The Korean War saved the South Korean people from the tyranny of the North.

The Liberation of Kuwait saved the Kuwaiti people from Saddam Hussein's rape rooms.

NATO's force stopped Soviet aggression into Europe and won the cold war.

=-=

 

Essay replied:

Haven't you heard of Economic Slavery?

"The Korean War saved the South Korean people..." to be as safe and secure as they are today?

Did you believe that line about "throwing babies out of incubators," or ...substituted US rape rooms?

NATO? I thought BinLaden conquered the Soviets. Have you heard his take on the subject?

~

 

 

Kuwaitgate. - Free Online Library

Note: This article or section is written like an .... Please help [ rewrite this article] from a neutral point of view.

 

Hill and Knowlton and the Kuwaiti government began talking in August 1990--shortly after the Iraqi invasion--about ways to drum up support in the U.S. for strong military action against Iraq. The meetings led to the formation of a front group, Citizens for a Free Kuwait

...which was financed almost entirely by the Kuwaiti government and which paid Hill and Knowlton $11.5 million to get its message to the right people.

 

A few months later, at a hearing of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Nayirah relayed her shocking story of babies left to die. The press latched on to the story, and the reported number of incubator deaths eventually jumped from the 15 stated in Nayirah's written testimony to 312--far more than the total number of incubators in the tiny Arab nation. Several members of Congress said the testimony influenced their votes to approve military action against Iraq, and President Bush frequently mentioned the incubator story as a reason for military intervention The deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy. .

Nurse Nayirah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.... "Nurse Nayirah" in the media, was a fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti girl, who alleged that she had witnessed the murder of infant children in Kuwait, in verbal testimony to the U.S. Congress, in the run up to the 1991 Gulf War.[1] Her testimony, which had been regarded as credible at the time, has since come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.[2] The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was in the employ of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, had arranged the testimony.[1]

 

In 1992, the human rights organization Middle East Watch published the results of their investigation of the incubator story. Its director, Andrew Whitley, told the press, "While it is true that the Iraqis targeted hospitals, there is no truth to the charge which was central to the war propaganda effort that they stole incubators and callously removed babies allowing them to die on the floor. The stories were manufactured from germs of truth by people outside the country who should have known better." One investigator, Aziz Abu-Hamad, interviewed doctors in the hospital where Nayirah claimed she witnessed Iraqi soldiers pull 15 infants from incubators and leave them to die. The Independent reported, "The doctors told him the maternity ward had 25 to 30 incubators. None was taken by the Iraqis, and no babies were taken from them."[5]

 

In order to respond to these charges, the Kuwaiti government hired Kroll Associates to undertake an independent investigation of the incubator story. The Kroll investigation lasted nine weeks and conducted over 250 interviews. The interviews with Nayirah revealed that her original testimony was wildly distorted at best; she told Kroll that she had actually only seen one baby outside its incubator for "no more than a moment." She also told Kroll that she was never a volunteer at the hospital and had in fact "only stopped by for a few minutes."[8]

....

 

===

Categories: Fictional nurses | Gulf War | Living people | Kuwaiti people | People of the Gulf War | Women in 20th-century warfare | Propaganda in the United States

 

Does anybody know of a "60 Minutes" story on this topic? My wife insists there was such a story....

 

Brian, any idea of which side wins in this "Just right versus wrong."

 

~ :)

 

p.s. How'd I miss this?

"...Sadam gave his rapists birthday presents."

I'll be enjoying that line all night.

...But apologies... I shouldn't be trying to make light, as if there aren't currently still such horrible histories around this world.

[modest]

Mohandes Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were fighting against an enemy that respects individual rights...

 

I think Ghandi and King might have disagreed.

 

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

 

-F. Douglass

 

~modest

[BrianG]

I think Ghandi and King might have disagreed.

 

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

 

-F. Douglass

 

~modest

 

Where going full circle, the American evil of slavery was ended by civil war.

[REASON]

Where going full circle, the American evil of slavery was ended by civil war.

 

Actually, slavery in the United States was ended by the 13th Ammendment to the US Constitution in 1865. The Civil War, also referred to as the War Between the States, was faught primarily over states rights and sovereignty, and the efforts of eleven states to secede from the Union, not slavery. The issue of slavery and the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln was just one of numerous catalysts that led those states to declare their secession. While the 13th Ammendment may have legally curtailed slavery in the United States, the evils of hatred, oppression, segregation, discrimination, and racism have continued to this day demonstrating that neither the firing of a gun nor the stroke of a pen in-and-of themselves can undue what can be described as evil sentiment.

 

Besides, the notion of fighting a war in Afghanistan for the sake of fighting evil is simplistic propaganda for simple minds and is completely oxymoronic as I see it. Anyone who has seen or experienced war understands that the act of war itself is evil and destructive.

 

Using evil to fight evil only perpetuates evil sentiment.

[BrianG]

Actually, slavery in the United States was ended by the 13th Ammendment to the US Constitution in 1865. The Civil War, also referred to as the War Between the States, was faught primarily over states rights and sovereignty, and the efforts of eleven states to suceed from the Union, not slavery....

Using evil to fight evil only perpetuates evil sentiment.

 

The civil war was fought over states rights to own or trade slaves, check out any of the succession documents for all the seceding states, they all defend slavery.

 

Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War

 

Here’s an example from the first three:

 

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States,…

 

Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War Mississippi A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery...

 

Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War Georgia The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery...

 

Why do they all mention slavery if it was just about states rights? Because history is being rewritten before your very eyes. Children are being taught hundreds of thousands of Union Solders didn't die to end slavery in America.

 

Evil is ALWAYS wrong.

[REASON]

The civil war was fought over states rights to own or trade slaves, check out any of the succession documents for all the seceding states, they all defend slavery.

 

Confederate Constitution Secession Articles of American Civil War

 

Here’s an example from the first three:

 

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States,…

 

Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War Mississippi A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery...

 

Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War Georgia The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery...

This only supports what I was saying. The war was faught over secession and the establishment of the Confederacy. The rights of states to own slaves was the primary issue leading to secession for sure but it was more than that.

 

 

Why do they all mention slavery if it was just about states rights? Because history is being rewritten before your very eyes. Children are being taught hundreds of thousands of Union Solders didn't die to end slavery in America.

Where in my post did I say it was "just about states rights?" You're attempting to rewrite my words. In fact, where does it state that anywhere? What children are being taught that? Where? Site some references such as a school textbook. You're making a bogus emotional appeal.

 

Evil is ALWAYS wrong.

 

Sure, I can agree with that. The difficulty is in establishing what is evil. Previously you said the "deliberate killing of innocents" was evil. Sounds good, but do you believe the fire bombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of evil perpatrated by the United States? Consider the number of innocents killed in those deliberate acts - more than 300,000. Couldn't the destructive power we posessed have been demonstrated without killing so many innocent civilians?

 

Yes, evil is always wrong - including evil done in the name of righteousness.

[BrianG]

... The rights of states to own slaves was the primary issue leading to secession for sure but it was more than that.

 

 

 

Where in my post did I say it was "just about states rights?" You're attempting to rewrite my words. In fact, where does it state that anywhere? What children are being taught that? Where? Site some references such as a school textbook. You're making a bogus emotional appeal.

 

I tried to quote you completely, on the issue of slavery. I did not try to rewrite your words. I did not say you said it was primarily about states rights, not slavery. Here's a textbook that doesn't cite slavery as the primary cause of the civil war:

 

Causes of the Civil War, American Problem Studies Series, Hans Louis Trefousse, Book - Barnes & Noble

 

 

.. [D]o you believe the fire bombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of evil perpatrated by the United States? Consider the number of innocents killed in those deliberate acts - more than 300,000. Couldn't the destructive power we posessed have been demonstrated without killing so many innocent civilians?

 

Yes, evil is always wrong - including evil done in the name of righteousness.

 

I don't believe the target of fire bombing of Tokyo or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the deliberate killing of innocents. This was an extension of the air war, the purpose was to stop Japan from continuing the war they started. The purpose was to eliminate the ability and will to resist and achieve victory. A demonstration was impossible, the United States used all of its atomic munitions to achieve victory.

 

It worked, and democracy was imposed on Japan. There are still US troops in Japan today.

[REASON]

I don't believe the target of fire bombing of Tokyo or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the deliberate killing of innocents. This was an extension of the air war, the purpose was to stop Japan from continuing the war they started. The purpose was to eliminate the ability and will to resist and achieve victory. A demonstration was impossible, the United States used all of its atomic munitions to achieve victory.

 

So there can be qualifications to your statement that the "deliberate killing of innocents" is evil. I'm not surprised. Perception of evil is so often a matter of perspective. Simply stated, innocents including children were deliberately killed. It was no accident. Does it make a difference if the scientists associated with the Manhattan Project advised the president not to drop them on population centers - that an offshore or rural target would have the same impact in demonstrating our new capabilities to influence the Japanese government? Even though the war was essentially over and Japan had little left to fight with, it was decided that it was necessary to kill large numbers of people to drive home the point.

 

"Evil is ALWAYS wrong" (so we just won't characterize it in an evil way)

 

You might review this Wiki article on the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for more info.

 

 

It worked, and democracy was imposed on Japan. There are still US troops in Japan today.

 

Yes it did. So as long as there is a net positive outcome as we see it, acts of evil can be justified. I mean, wouldn't you agree that deliberately bombing children is evil?

 

The point of all this to me is that while we say we are fighting evil in Afghanistan or Iraq, those that we are fighting feel they are doing the same, and feel just as justified in their actions. This situation is not like WWII. And as long as we keep fighting, each side will continue to find just cause for their actions, particularly in the form of revenge, and the cycle will continue.

[alexander]

So as long as there is a net positive outcome as we see it

yeah and who can with any definitive reasoning say that imposing democracy is or was an actual good thing...

 

The point of all this to me is that while we say we are fighting evil in Afghanistan or Iraq, those that we are fighting feel they are doing the same, and feel just as justified in their actions. This situation is not like WWII. And as long as we keep fighting, each side will continue to find just cause for their actions, particularly in the form of revenge, and the cycle will continue.

rather its not unlike WWII, that's what you meant to say, right?

 

acts of evil can be justified

remember, if its in the name of democracy, or fighting the war on terror, those actions are not evil, they are "liberating". Torture becomes interrogation, invasion becomes the fight for [Fill in country name here] freedom, civilian school that you accidentally bomb becomes and al-quaeda recruiting center...

[BrianG]

Days after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese surrendered, saving the immense loss of life that an invasion of Japan would cause, both allied and Japanese. I don't see where you get this "deliberate killing of innocents" stuff, these cities were targeted to quickly end the war. They weren't refugee centers, they were military and industrial targets. This was the air war in WWII.

 

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.

 

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."

 

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[alexander]

these cities were targeted to quickly end the war.

Did you know that Nagasaki was actually not the primary second target?

 

I don't see where you get this "deliberate killing of innocents"

Oh so they "accidentally" dropped the bombs? Also i don't think it was a right move to trust your gut instinct on "hey, lets drop these bombs, and hopefully they surrender", psychology and determination can turn against you just as easily...

Also i say killing, in the end, and this is hard to estimate because effects are still lingering on, probably more then 1/4 million people with 2 blasts, that's more people then were killed at Sobibor (it was a concentration/extermination camp)

 

lets get back to Afghanistan...

[BrianG]

Combat, hunting, I don't think the man who first invented :shrug: got enough credit. Primary, secondary, when your good, you're good. The finest air force with the most advanced weapon in the world at that time. The USAF gets better and better, faster, higher, payload, speed, remote capability. There is a pace, an idea, an attack. The enemy reacts. To destroy an enemy's will, to win. Innocents will be killed, will they be targeted? That's the question of good and evil, moral and immoral, crime and innocence.

 

Innocents, Muslims are suffering most from the War in Afghanistan. The question is, who targets better, who kills fewer innocents and more soldiers and Tangos. Who has better weapons, and who uses their weapons fastest and most accurately with a desired rate of fire? There is a professional ethic, a code of conduct, that our enemy will never understand. There is law, and right and wrong. Good and evil, Here is a perfect example, target a school in Chechnya or a military base or a naval port, there are choices made in war, and count the death toll to find the degrees of good and evil.

 

Weapons have gotten more accurate, training has improved. You believe your TV war, I've been there, done that. Look it up, it's in the book.

 

BTW, did I hear something about America not obeying international treaty obligations, land mines a good example? Our enemy's basic defensive weapon is the IED, isn't that a mine? All weapons are horrible, they kill. Kill a tank, kill a plane, kill a soft bodied vehicle, a troop transport. Personnel, that's the way to win, kill enough enemy, they give up, die or surrender.

 

You won't see us whine about the weapons, target practice, training, supply enough rounds in the right place, at the right time, that's the ticket. Engage, react, victory. Good tactics and a strategy that wins.

War.

[alexander]

with the most advanced weapon in the world at that time

Yes, thanks to the German science program which was mostly responsible for actually developing the science behind the weapon... Also worth mentioning, USAF at the time was not the most advanced airforce

The USAF gets better and better, faster, higher, payload, speed, remote capability.

Once again, thanks to the German science program US airplane design took a giant leap in 1945, and the science behind the planes was mostly from decyphering german research lasted till about mid 1950s...

Weapons have gotten more accurate

Another interesting side note, did you know that up until the invention of the carbine and its mass production, around WWI, the British long bow was the most battlefield-useful weapon?

 

Our enemy's basic defensive weapon is the IED, isn't that a mine

A hand grenade is technically a mine... that said, did you know that mines have been used since 1277 and were developed by the Chinese (yeah a lot of cool things were created by the Chinese first).

 

And i'd argue, the favorite weapon in the middle-eastern conflicting areas is an RPG-7, RPG-7, so simple a 7 year old can use it...

I mean hey, they are now in production in the US, the RPG7-USA is basically a RPG-7V2 with Picanitty rails. Cheap to make, reusable, reliable, dead simple, accurate enough, and very, very dangerous (as you probably know)

 

did I hear something about America not obeying international treaty obligations

I think we've mentioned it once or twice already...

 

Good tactics and a strategy that wins

Another interesting side-note, or not too interesting (i just have these facts stuck in my brain). I remember reading an interview with a Russian general when the second gulf took off. He claimed they would have needed less then half the troops to invade Iraq... I won't take sides, juust sayin'.

[BrianG]

...

Another interesting side note, did you know that up until the invention of the carbine and its mass production, around WWI, the British long bow was the most battlefield-useful weapon?

 

No, did it account for a majority of the casualties during the American Civil War?

 

 

A hand grenade is technically a mine... that said, did you know that mines have been used since 1277 and were developed by the Chinese (yeah a lot of cool things were created by the Chinese first)...

 

No, isn't it more of an indirect fire weapon, like artillery?

Hand Grenades

[alexander]

No, isn't it more of an indirect fire weapon, like artillery?

Depends oh how you use it

 

but as far as mines,

usually a victim-triggered explosive device which is intended to damage its target via blast and/or fragments

techincally, other then the "usually victim-triggered", rest fits a grenade.

 

I won't debate this, it doesn't matter...

 

No, did it account for a majority of the casualties during the American Civil War?

Is that your reasoning? Seriously, you judge how good a weapon is by how many casualties it caused in some conflict? I thought if you look at the technical aspects, and the use the actual statistics of a weapon, you get a better base to administer judgment, don't you agree? Because according to your logic a T34 is a better weapon then an Abrams tank... And personally, you know, just from my perspective, I'd beg to reconsider, not to say that a T34 wasn't marvel for it's time, but compared with an M1A2...

 

Besides the civil war quite small compared to what was going on in Europe just a little earlier; 1787-1817, you should look up Napoleonic Wars sometime, but even in Europe the muskets and rifles took off and were used by most of the armed forces for a long time before they actually outperformed the bow... Only rare battalions of Cossacks, but then again those guys preferred swords anyways, though they got quite quick and potent with Mosin-Nagant (quite possibly most feared forced to be faced with, till a after WWI)...

 

Also I didn't say that it caused the majority of casualties, because even Britain jumped on the guns rather quickly, and archery is a bit hard, its a skill that is carefully learned and taught, and takes many years to master. And its at a disadvantage with craftsmen and with supplies, long time to make the weapon, and it takes a lot of space to store arrows, and its a rather hard task of making them, and getting the (preferred) tail feathers for them. But still lets compare a musket and the American long rifle, and the Baker rifle to a British Longbow, and actually a much more deadly Mongolian bow (which unlike rifles could and were often fired full gallop off horseback, with deadly accuracy)

 

So first let's cover the bows:

 

Longbow, usually made of Yew, with the string made of hemp, flax or silk, usually 1.5-1.8 meters long. The best archers used the draw weight of about 180lbs, good archer would shoot 6 or so arrows a minute, but this was to be accurate and not use up the 60-70 arrows they had too quickly during battle, but let's keep that number 6/minute. Range, a good bowmen could hit targets at 250-300 yards.

 

Mongolian bow, draw strength around 160lbs, but because the bow was composite, and because of it's draw length, a normal bowman could consistently hit a target 300-350 yards away, a good bowman according to an inscription on a tablet, dated 1226 (its stored in the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg), reads "While Chingis Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul [East Turkestan], Esungge shot a target at 335 alds." (around 400-550m depending on what the believed translation of that unit is). And like i said, mongols were skilled archers who shot horseback at full gallop with deadly accuracy (daily training since the age of 5 does that to you). To describe to you juust how deadly accurate and fast they were, i'll quote one of Nikolaas Wincen's diaries (perhaps this appeared somewhere in "Noord en Oost Tartarye", I don't know)

"On the horse they sit low, they do this to be able to easily rotate the bow away from the enemy, then sharply turn in their direction for the shot, but always shoot up, so the arrow falls straight from the top down, that's when it has the most power, that's how he (a buryat) demonstrated it to me and how it is mathematically proven. When letting the arrow go, he left both of his eyes open... because he could predict the time, that when he shot the second arrow after the first, I saw a few times, the second (arrow) almost touched the first, and both arrows fell at the same time, very close to one another. Really, I wouldn't believe this, if i haven't seen it"

 

Anyways, lets look at the guns:

Typical musket, smooth bore, could hit a target at 50-70m, even with paper cartridge, which significantly increased the speed of loading the gun, a gunman would be able to fire maybe 3-4 shots a minute. I should mention, until the carbine, this is about the rate of fire we are looking across all the guns i'll mention here.

 

American Longrifle, up to 48" long barrel, gave American rifle the ability to hit targets at 300 yards or more, one of the longest recorded and confirmed shots of the civil war belongs to Daniel Boone, who is credited with a headshot of a British officer, peaking from around the tree at 250m. A great marksman is said to be able to hit a man-sized target at 400-500 yards, a typical/novice user of the rifle, is said to be accurate only at around 100 though.

 

Baker rifle, the rifle used an undersized ball wrapped in greased leather or linnen, this was complicated to load, and required 20-30 seconds by the well-trained soldiers. For longer range shots, hand-measuring the powder could make that procedure as much as 3 times longer, taking a minute to a minute and a half, but at that it was a dependable rifle that was accurate at ranges, in the hands of talented soldiers, of up to 800 meters. Granted there were only very few people who could be accurate at those distances, but Thomas Plunket, an Irish soldier, is credited with shooting French Général de Brigade Auguste-Marie-François Colbert, at a very long range, 200-800yards (let's assume around 600 or so)

 

So, we have all these weapons, and while only the Baker rifle was more accurate then the bows, it was however a lot, a lot slower at operation...

 

Conclusion, until the invention of a carbine, British Longbow, or a Mongol Bow were indeed superior by being more accurate at a higher distance, and having a shorter load time... However training time was significantly higher and the level of proficiency with the weapon as well as difficulty with manufacturing of these weapons (long bows, up to 4 years, composite mongol bows, 2 or more years) and craftsmanship required, made the much more easily and mass-manufactured rifles and muskets and the relative ease of their use and relative simplicity of targeting made it a much easier choice for the armies around the world. Technically though the bow was not out-shot till the carbine...

[BrianG]

Depends oh how you use it

 

but as far as mines,

"Originally Posted by wiki

usually a victim-triggered explosive device which is intended to damage its target via blast and/or fragments"

techincally, other then the "usually victim-triggered", rest fits a grenade.

 

I won't debate this, it doesn't matter...

 

It depends on what it's used for, grenades are indirect fire weapons used in offense and defense, they are aimed weapons. Mines are obstacles, mostly used for defense.

 

Instead of debating it, admit a mistake.

 

Is that your reasoning? Seriously, you judge how good a weapon is by how many casualties it caused in some conflict? ...

 

Casualties, deaths and injuries is one way to take the enemies will to win. Victory is won by the side able to accept casualties, and inflict enough on the enemy to force a political solution in their own interests. It's not just weapons, it's a superior ideology.

[alexander]

Instead of debating it, admit a mistake.

Mines can be used as indirect fire weapons to support an offensive movement, just like a grenade can be used as a mine. examples would be tripwires, and setting up remotely triggered mine grids, which can be used as a way to stop an enemy's offensive movement to mount a counter offense.

 

Reading back into it, I did misspeak, incorrectly stating that a grenade is a mine, grenade can be a mine depending on it's use...

 

Casualties, deaths and injuries is one way to take the enemies will to win. Victory is won by the side able to accept casualties, and inflict enough on the enemy to force a political solution in their own interests. It's not just weapons, it's a superior ideology.

So you are saying that you were disagreeing with my point just to disagree?

 

More notes on use of muskets in battle over bows.

 

A firearm is also a great psychological weapon, hearing a loud bang followed by a wall of bullets, however ineffective at long range, would still drive fear into anyone on the opposing side. The smell of gun powder, the bang, the firing squad, the smoke-filled air, it's all quite scary, and it all plays a part in bringing down the enemy, like you say, ideologically as well as physically. I mean its a scary sight to see a storm of arrows coming down on you, but when faced with a thousand men firing blindly into your line, is a lot more demoralizing then the arrows, even though, the arrows would be more effective and could be used at a longer range...

 

And finally as a final thought of the real ineffectiveness of the first guns, muskets and rifles, look at the strategy used by, I think he's still regarded as the best general of all time (he never lost a battle), Suvorov. The basic underlying tactic was, to march for the line, line up in a thin line, 2-3 people deep, fire off maybe a couple of shots, and then charge the line with swords and bayonets; Suvorov preferred, taught and used this tactic with great success because he realized the limitations of the weapons of the time. That said, he did respect the weapons, hence the two extremes of "the bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap" and at the same time "shoot rarely but accurately".