http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7351314.stmSo the US military is pioneering robotic soldiers - the age of robocop gets nearer. Apparently these proto-type robotic suits enable soldiers to lift heavier weights & run faster with little extra effort, and presumably eventually to kill better.
In one sense this is a nice bit of 'lite news'. But it does have connections to a wider issue. Advances in weaponry & technology have vastly improved the ability of the military in terms of firepower. Alongside this, advances in battlefield medicine have reduced mortality rates among infantry. Therefore, conflicts such as Iraq & Afghanistan appear less expensive to the public & spinning politicians
For example, in World War II, 30 percent of wounds proved deadly. In Korea, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War, this rate hovered between 24 percent and 25 percent. But due to better medical technology, doctrinal changes that push surgical teams closer to the front lines, and individual armour protection for soldiers, this rate has dropped to 10 percent for Operation Iraqi Freedom for all wounds. For serious wounds that keep a soldier away from duty for more than 72 hours, the mortality rate is now 16 percent. Simply, a soldier was nearly 1.5 times more likely to die from his wounds in Vietnam than in Iraq today
Anecdotal evidence supports this. A friend of mine is a Lieutenant in the infantry & has served in Basra & Helmand. He took shrapnel which blew a big hole in his body armour. In previous conflicts he would have been dead or seriously wounded. As it was he walked away with bruising & thanks for his luck.
Full respect to the soldiers out on the front line. The wars may appear less expensive or deadly than previous conflicts if you look at mortality rates. A closer look at the figures shows that today's soldier is in as much danger as our fathers & grandfathers in Vietnam, Korea or on the battlefields of Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment