Bombardment Effectiveness

After discussing just how inefficient bombardments are – say, half a million shells to kill 60 enemy troopers – Lindybeige states that the point of a bombardment is not to kill the enemy, but to demoralize them and destroy their will to fight.

You’ve got to find out some localized way of getting guys to surrender because surrendering is contagious whereas death is not contagious.

If I’m here in a position with a load of my men in my unit, and I see over there forward and left of us there’s another lot of us and they get attacked by the enemy and they are all killed, I don’t think to myself “Yeah… dying… yeah, that’s a good idea, should give that a go.” It’s not a contagious behavior: people don’t die because other people have died.

But if I see that lot surrender, and they they show white flags and then the enemy stops shooting at them and then there’s a parley and they’re led away and everything seems to be quite allocable and no one is — at least while I’m watching — mistreated and I think “Well you all seem to be quite orderly. So actually these guys are disciplined enough to accept a surrender and we’ll stop shooting if you offed a surrender,” and “OK, and so now this seems like a viable behavior. Maybe we should surrender! I mean, there are an awful lot of them and so we’re probably likely to lose. And it seems that they will give us an opportunity to surrender so if that opportunity is offered to us then maybe we should take it as well.”

Surrendering is a possibly contagious behavior: and if you can get more and more guys to surrender then, then it’s snowballs and then eventually you’ve won the war. Hooray!

So if you can persuade people to surrender rather than killing them it’s actually better. So maybe we should look more at the psychological effects of bombardment you see it wasn’t until about World War One that the military finally twigged that the main effect of bombardments is psychological.

And it was discovered for instance that if you could kill 5% of the opposition then the fighting effectiveness of the opposition would be harmed. OK, so if there are a thousand troops over there and you kill 50 of them then the remaining troops will fight as effectively as just 500 not 950. And if you can kill 10% of them then they’re fighting effectiveness goes down to approaching zero. Of course you can never guarantee this, but in the main it goes down to approaching zero.

Now I strongly suspect that that’s not because of the actual killing I don’t think it’s because you’ve killed 1/10 of them that the others are incapable of carrying on fighting. I think it’s got far more to do with what you have to do in order to kill 10% of them is what renders the the the other 90% incapable or at least unwilling to resist you. So by the time you’ve hit them with so much ordnance; so, so many loud bang; so many flying splinters of death all over the place, enough to kill 10% of them; then the effect of all that renders the other 90% “Stuff it, I’m not going to fight I have had enough of this.”

It can be assume that most pastors, interested in the safety of babysitting services – and not in actually fighting the enemy – is completely uninterested in the lessons taught here.

I expect my readers, after reading this, to key in why the Right Sort is so eager to dominate the media, and academia, and the judiciary — the “big guns” if you will — while leaving the Christian Leaders to go hide in their shelters, and hold their carefully irrelevant discussions about the Regulatory Principle or somesuch.

Also, note that Our Betters are a good deal smoother than the hard communist and the hard fascists: the soft-soap guys are always willing to accept surrenders, to make things up, to shake hands.

Before moving to dispose of some other moronic Christian social norm else before the year is out.

(Just how long did it take for Obama to start pushing for transsexualism in the schools, after the Supreme Court ruled in homosexual marriage over the heads of ~47 states? Two months?)

Something that is pleasing is — you guessed it — decentralization, almost completely because of technology and having almost nothing to do with Christian resistance to our pointedlyhostile Authorities.

With decentralization, the field shifts from World War I and II, and towards Vietnam and Afghanistan.

But note: the insurgents of those two lands still had to pay a serious price for victory. And American Christians will not make any sacrifice, whatsoever. Not just for the sake of victory, but even to settle old debts, heal old wounds, make new allies, build new bridges.

When the Empire falls, and our chains are shattered, the vast majority of Western Christians are going to wail for the leaks, onions, and free healthcare of Egypt. Count on it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.