<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mumbai Musings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6466.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6466.html</link>
	<description>Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago boys including those pictured above.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:24:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: James R. Rummel</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6466.html/comment-page-1#comment-283898</link>
		<dc:creator>James R. Rummel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:40:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6466#comment-283898</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;&quot;LOL, weren’t the soldiers in the USA pre-WWII supposedly, in some cases, training with broom handles in place of guns?&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

The opening years of World War II was seen with some dread by most Americans.  The voters in the United States were determined to avoid having their country become embroiled in what many saw as yet another senseless war in Europe, but many top people in the US military and government harbored no illusions.  When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, it was obvious that the US would eventually be drawn into the conflict whether we wished it or not.

Protected by vast oceans on two sides, and faced with no credible military threats that could cross our land borders, the US had shrunk the size of the standing army to little more than a maintenance level.  The size of the armed forces would have to be expanded very rapidly, and equipment would have to be modernized.

By the summer of 1941, the number of men under arms had certainly increased, but production of new equipment had not yet caught up with demand.  There certainly were enough weapons and ammunition to train the troops, just not equip them in the field.

What you are thinking of is called the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.crt.state.la.us/tourism/lawwii/Maneuvers/Robertson/Maneuvers_Stories.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Louisiana Maneuvers&lt;/a&gt;.  The largest troop movements on US soil in our entire history was a war game conducted in August of 1941, and it was essentially a massive test lab to determine the best tactics, strategies, and doctrines for meeting a modern European army on it&#039;s own ground.  Since actual equipment was in short supply until the factories delivered, and the troops weren&#039;t really supposed to shoot at anyone for real during the wargame anyway, mock ups were used in place of some real weapons.  

Trucks were used in place of tanks, broom handles in place of rifles, soup cans in place of grenades, and crude wooden models in place of machine guns.  

This got a lot of press at the time, but it was hardly as wide spread as many people have since come to believe.  The vast majority of troops carried rifles, just without ammunition, and only a few were told to make do with a stick.  There were plenty of machine guns available, it was just that most of them were huge water cooled monstrosities that weighed a few hundred pounds and were slated to be replaced with more modern designs.  Why haul something like that around when it was never going to be used on the battlefield?

Soldiers wouldn&#039;t be issued actual grenades during maneuvers because someone could be hurt if there was an accident, so why not have them tossing soup cans around instead of dummy grenades?  At least then they could retrieve the cans later and eat the contents.

Training wasn&#039;t skimpy, nor was ammunition when it came time to teach the recruits how to shoot.  If there is one thing the Americans have a greater appreciation for than any other culture on Earth, it is the value of a well seasoned rifleman with a full load of ammo.

James</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;LOL, weren’t the soldiers in the USA pre-WWII supposedly, in some cases, training with broom handles in place of guns?&#8221;</i></p>
<p>The opening years of World War II was seen with some dread by most Americans.  The voters in the United States were determined to avoid having their country become embroiled in what many saw as yet another senseless war in Europe, but many top people in the US military and government harbored no illusions.  When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, it was obvious that the US would eventually be drawn into the conflict whether we wished it or not.</p>
<p>Protected by vast oceans on two sides, and faced with no credible military threats that could cross our land borders, the US had shrunk the size of the standing army to little more than a maintenance level.  The size of the armed forces would have to be expanded very rapidly, and equipment would have to be modernized.</p>
<p>By the summer of 1941, the number of men under arms had certainly increased, but production of new equipment had not yet caught up with demand.  There certainly were enough weapons and ammunition to train the troops, just not equip them in the field.</p>
<p>What you are thinking of is called the <a href="http://www.crt.state.la.us/tourism/lawwii/Maneuvers/Robertson/Maneuvers_Stories.htm" rel="nofollow">Louisiana Maneuvers</a>.  The largest troop movements on US soil in our entire history was a war game conducted in August of 1941, and it was essentially a massive test lab to determine the best tactics, strategies, and doctrines for meeting a modern European army on it&#8217;s own ground.  Since actual equipment was in short supply until the factories delivered, and the troops weren&#8217;t really supposed to shoot at anyone for real during the wargame anyway, mock ups were used in place of some real weapons.  </p>
<p>Trucks were used in place of tanks, broom handles in place of rifles, soup cans in place of grenades, and crude wooden models in place of machine guns.  </p>
<p>This got a lot of press at the time, but it was hardly as wide spread as many people have since come to believe.  The vast majority of troops carried rifles, just without ammunition, and only a few were told to make do with a stick.  There were plenty of machine guns available, it was just that most of them were huge water cooled monstrosities that weighed a few hundred pounds and were slated to be replaced with more modern designs.  Why haul something like that around when it was never going to be used on the battlefield?</p>
<p>Soldiers wouldn&#8217;t be issued actual grenades during maneuvers because someone could be hurt if there was an accident, so why not have them tossing soup cans around instead of dummy grenades?  At least then they could retrieve the cans later and eat the contents.</p>
<p>Training wasn&#8217;t skimpy, nor was ammunition when it came time to teach the recruits how to shoot.  If there is one thing the Americans have a greater appreciation for than any other culture on Earth, it is the value of a well seasoned rifleman with a full load of ammo.</p>
<p>James</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Obloodyhell</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6466.html/comment-page-1#comment-283811</link>
		<dc:creator>Obloodyhell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6466#comment-283811</guid>
		<description>&gt; entire countries have been known to skimp on the ammo their military needs to train so they can defend the homeland.

LOL, weren&#039;t the soldiers in the USA pre-WWII supposedly, in some cases, training with broom handles in place of guns? Possibly apocryphal but I&#039;ve seen the story bandied about in many places in the past.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; entire countries have been known to skimp on the ammo their military needs to train so they can defend the homeland.</p>
<p>LOL, weren&#8217;t the soldiers in the USA pre-WWII supposedly, in some cases, training with broom handles in place of guns? Possibly apocryphal but I&#8217;ve seen the story bandied about in many places in the past.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: veryretired</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6466.html/comment-page-1#comment-283356</link>
		<dc:creator>veryretired</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:24:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6466#comment-283356</guid>
		<description>The two most dangerous and unstable islamic regimes in the ME are Pakistan and Iran, especially the latter as the price of oil falls and it approaches bankruptcy. In any scenario involving significant future hostilities with either one of these regimes, an alliance with India would bring large benefits to the US.

Now that the cold war antagonisms between India and the US are in the past, it would be natural for the two countries to cooperate more deeply against an obvious common enemy, and terroristic islamic groups are certainly that. A look at a map shows the benefits of our access to bases and allies in any future problems with Pakistan and Iran if we are reliably allied with governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and India.

A stronger relationship with India would not be lost on China either.

The future of the US is in Asia anyway. Opportunity knocks...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The two most dangerous and unstable islamic regimes in the ME are Pakistan and Iran, especially the latter as the price of oil falls and it approaches bankruptcy. In any scenario involving significant future hostilities with either one of these regimes, an alliance with India would bring large benefits to the US.</p>
<p>Now that the cold war antagonisms between India and the US are in the past, it would be natural for the two countries to cooperate more deeply against an obvious common enemy, and terroristic islamic groups are certainly that. A look at a map shows the benefits of our access to bases and allies in any future problems with Pakistan and Iran if we are reliably allied with governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and India.</p>
<p>A stronger relationship with India would not be lost on China either.</p>
<p>The future of the US is in Asia anyway. Opportunity knocks&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Helen</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6466.html/comment-page-1#comment-283323</link>
		<dc:creator>Helen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6466#comment-283323</guid>
		<description>Can&#039;t help thinking that Christopher Hitchens and very many Indians are right: the place is Bombay. Let&#039;s not give in to any blackmail. 

http://www.slate.com/id/2205710/?from=rss</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can&#8217;t help thinking that Christopher Hitchens and very many Indians are right: the place is Bombay. Let&#8217;s not give in to any blackmail. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2205710/?from=rss" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/id/2205710/?from=rss</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tehag</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6466.html/comment-page-1#comment-283290</link>
		<dc:creator>tehag</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6466#comment-283290</guid>
		<description>More and more this reminds me of the beginning of WWI. Terrorist groups, financed by through convoluted means Serbia&#039;s spy agency, attacked Austria-Hungry repeatedly. Eventually their efforts killed someone the whose death the government couldn&#039;t ignore. How long before India holds Pakistan (rightly, IHMO) responsible for these attacks? Will other countries use the opportunity to settle scores? Will the war be a general call to war for the entire globe?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More and more this reminds me of the beginning of WWI. Terrorist groups, financed by through convoluted means Serbia&#8217;s spy agency, attacked Austria-Hungry repeatedly. Eventually their efforts killed someone the whose death the government couldn&#8217;t ignore. How long before India holds Pakistan (rightly, IHMO) responsible for these attacks? Will other countries use the opportunity to settle scores? Will the war be a general call to war for the entire globe?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6466.html/comment-page-1#comment-283132</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6466#comment-283132</guid>
		<description>In Northern Virginia we saw a big increase in requests for concealed carry permits after 9/11/01.  Another flurry occurs after each well publicized active shooter event.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In Northern Virginia we saw a big increase in requests for concealed carry permits after 9/11/01.  Another flurry occurs after each well publicized active shooter event.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6466.html/comment-page-1#comment-283064</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:53:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6466#comment-283064</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m amazed that you&#039;re shocked. How is that possible? These folks have told the world in no uncertain terms what they plan to do, given the opportunity. Did you think this was all a Bush fever-dream? I recommend you turn off the TV for six months to see if anything has changed when you reboot. In the meantime, contemplate Theo van Gogh, the Towers, stadium beheadings and various other novelties undertaken by individuals of a similar ilk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m amazed that you&#8217;re shocked. How is that possible? These folks have told the world in no uncertain terms what they plan to do, given the opportunity. Did you think this was all a Bush fever-dream? I recommend you turn off the TV for six months to see if anything has changed when you reboot. In the meantime, contemplate Theo van Gogh, the Towers, stadium beheadings and various other novelties undertaken by individuals of a similar ilk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ginny</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6466.html/comment-page-1#comment-283047</link>
		<dc:creator>Ginny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:28:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6466#comment-283047</guid>
		<description>A very different incident - that of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97033,00.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lindh&lt;/a&gt; in 2003 - came to mind.  The approach of a cowboy may not always work, but passivity too often ignores the dead by democide, while criticizing the warrior in much less lethal war.  The passive ignore the more common death of a child by parent while fearing the violent pedophile.  Passivity notes some costs but ignores others; surely in any calculus a policeman&#039;s error in killing a bystander in the early hours would have been balanced many times over if the next shot had taken down a terroist.  We forget that not acting is as consequential as acting.  I tend to fuss that this is the error of our time - we are post-&quot;Prufrock,&quot; post-modernists.  And I&#039;m pretty passive.  Perhaps, however, passivity is the natural condition of man and the expectation of responsibility (&amp; risk-taking) rare and difficult to nurture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very different incident &#8211; that of <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97033,00.html" rel="nofollow">Lindh</a> in 2003 &#8211; came to mind.  The approach of a cowboy may not always work, but passivity too often ignores the dead by democide, while criticizing the warrior in much less lethal war.  The passive ignore the more common death of a child by parent while fearing the violent pedophile.  Passivity notes some costs but ignores others; surely in any calculus a policeman&#8217;s error in killing a bystander in the early hours would have been balanced many times over if the next shot had taken down a terroist.  We forget that not acting is as consequential as acting.  I tend to fuss that this is the error of our time &#8211; we are post-&#8221;Prufrock,&#8221; post-modernists.  And I&#8217;m pretty passive.  Perhaps, however, passivity is the natural condition of man and the expectation of responsibility (&amp; risk-taking) rare and difficult to nurture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

