Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: The use of automatic weapons in Central America and the Middle East
Message-ID: <12172@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 Dec 89 05:20:08 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 36
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee)
>... always see soldiers using M16 (and AK47) spraying
>bullets in all directions.  I feel that it is just a waste of bullets
>because they are only doing it to keep the enemies down and in many cases
>hitting unfortunate civilans who happened to be nearby.  

Combat is immensely wasteful of munitions, and always has been.  The vast
majority of all bullets fired, even in the days of bolt-action rifles,
were to make the other guy keep his head down and to interfere with his
operations in general.  Precision marksmanship is rarely seen in combat 
except when specialists like trained snipers are involved.

And a war zone has always been a very dangerous place for civilians, as
witness a certain Iranian airliner...

>The question I proposed is that if in any conflict both sides were only
>given semiautomatic weapons then I feel the chances for civilan cauasilties
>would be lower.

The chances for civilian casualties would be still lower if both sides were
armed only with rocks and clubs.  However, it wouldn't be very popular with
the soldiers.  Fully automatic weapons are extremely popular with the troops
for two reasons.  One is emergencies:  when ambushed or otherwise caught off
guard, being able to reply with *lots* of fire can be a lifesaver.  The other
is training:  really expert soldiers, e.g. the British Army at the start of
WW1, can get astonishing results with bolt-action rifles, but ill-trained
militia, e.g. most of the folks involved in Lebanon, fight better when
weapons are easier to use.  You will find very few soldiers displaying any
enthusiasm for reducing the effectiveness of their weapons in hopes of
protecting stray civilians.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu