Why the U.S. Military Is Completely Obsessed with 1 Word: 'Lethality'

[rangerrebew]

November 8, 2018 
Why the U.S. Military Is Completely Obsessed with 1 Word: 'Lethality'

Increasing lethality can be a useful rallying cry to focus the Defense Department’s priorities, but it is not applicable to everything the military does

by Jeff Schogol Task and Purpose
 

The U.S. military has made lethality the lone benchmark to gauge everything from readiness, training, and global strategy under the leadership of Defense Secretary James Mattis.

Over the past two years, the entire military has become just as enamored with the word “lethality” as your friend and humble narrator is with Doritos: Both bring a fleeting sense of happiness, but the high quickly fades while the craving goes more intense. (Before you know it, “lethality” is in nearly every Pentagon press release and this reporter is tithing to vending machines).

It is understandable that Mattis would focus on making the U.S. military the deadliest force on the planet given his background as a Marine Corps general and aficionado of ancient history. When  hundreds of Russian military contractors attacked U.S. troops and their allies  in Syria in February, Mattis ordered that the attacking force “be annihilated,” he later told lawmakers.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-us-military-completely-obsessed-1-word-lethality-35527

[sneakypete]

That's easy. When you are in the military,the "other team" is focused on trying to kill you,so you focus on trying to kill them. Nothing personal,and you would be just as happy with a disabling wound that keeps them from trying to kill you,but nothing says "over" like a head shot.

[The_Reader_David]

Actually a "weapon of mass incapacitation" that had a long-term (though not necessarily permanent) disabling effect, rendering the enemy incapable of fighting, but leaving them still alive and in need of care, would be even more useful than more lethal weapons.  The point of war (which the great Prussian military theorist, Clauswitz referred to as a continuation of policy by other means) is to cause the enemy to bend to your will, not to kill them, though killing lots of them has been the usual way to accomplish the bending to the will down the ages.  (cf. also Sun Tzu's dicta concerning war and generalship.)

To see an illustration of my point from back to the days when killing prisoners was not regarded as an indefeasibly evil war-crime, Basil II's blinding of the captured Bulgar army was infinitely more effective at dismissing the Bulgar threat to the Empire than killing all the prisoners would have been.

[sneakypete]

Actually a "weapon of mass incapacitation" that had a long-term (though not necessarily permanent) disabling effect, rendering the enemy incapable of fighting, but leaving them still alive and in need of care, would be even more useful than more lethal weapons.  The point of war (which the great Prussian military theorist, Clauswitz referred to as a continuation of policy by other means) is to cause the enemy to bend to your will, not to kill them, though killing lots of them has been the usual way to accomplish the bending to the will down the ages.  (cf. also Sun Tzu's dicta concerning war and generalship.)

To see an illustration of my point from back to the days when killing prisoners was not regarded as an indefeasibly evil war-crime, Basil II's blinding of the captured Bulgar army was infinitely more effective at dismissing the Bulgar threat to the Empire than killing all the prisoners would have been.

@The_Reader_David


All that is true on the strategic level,but on the tactical level the grunts want to kill anyone that might kill them. They are looking more to survive that battle than win a war.

[RetBobbyMI]

More killing power, quicker than the other guy is lethality with overmatch