should medevac copters be armed

[Don Quixote]

traditionally, u s of a medical personal and transports are not armed because supposedly the red cross on them and their transport identifies them as non-combatants

however, we are no longer fighting traditional wars where such transports are not subject to enemy fire

i think that it is past time that medical personal and transports be armed

http://news.yahoo.com/soldiers-death...184034109.html

[SmarterthanYou]

while the 'gentlemens' policy of not firing upon medical oriented personnel and equipment is all very honorable sounding, it will never happen.

[apple0154]

The article said he was writhing in pain. Why don't they carry morphine?

[leaningright]

Short answer: YES

[signalmankenneth]

traditionally, u s of a medical personal and transports are not armed because supposedly the red cross on them and their transport identifies them as non-combatants

however, we are no longer fighting traditional wars where such transports are not subject to enemy fire

i think that it is past time that medical personal and transports be armed

http://news.yahoo.com/soldiers-death...184034109.html

The Taliban do not recognize or respect the medevac choppers and the red cross emblem!


But if you arm them with a minigun?

[China Apologist]

If you aren't fighting against an enemy that has signed or respects the Geneva convention, there's no reason to use unarmed medics. There's nothing in the Geneva convention prohibiting you from putting armed soldiers with medical experience on the field, as long as they aren't branded as Geneva convention medics with the red cross. Such soldiers simply can be shot at like normal soldiers, which isn't a problem when you're fighting an enemy that will shoot at soldiers with the Red Cross just as well. However, armed medevac copters shouldn't wear the red cross branding. Branding an armed person as an unarmed Geneva convention medic is a war crime.

[China Apologist]

while the 'gentlemens' policy of not firing upon medical oriented personnel and equipment is all very honorable sounding, it will never happen.

Will never happen? We have fought enemies before that did generally recognize the agreement, and avoided shooting medical personnel. In those cases, keeping Geneva convention unarmed medics on the ground is simply sensible. However, when we're fighting an enemy that doesn't, we should just give regular soldiers some medical training and send them out into the field unbranded. Branding them is, of course, a war crime, and if they don't recognize the Geneva convention they will likely see the brand as a target anyway. From a military perspective, if you don't recognize the Geneva convention, it fully makes sense to make medics a prime target. This was the case with the Japanese in WWII, for instance. For some reason, we kept on sending out unarmed medics to that front. The medics generally just covered up the brand.

[Team Zimmerman 2013]

The article said he was writhing in pain. Why don't they carry morphine?

Because it will get stolen.

[Team Zimmerman 2013]

Will never happen? We have fought enemies before that did generally recognize the agreement, and avoided shooting medical personnel. In those cases, keeping Geneva convention unarmed medics on the ground is simply sensible. However, when we're fighting an enemy that doesn't, we should just give regular soldiers some medical training and send them out into the field unbranded. Branding them is, of course, a war crime, and if they don't recognize the Geneva convention they will likely see the brand as a target anyway. From a military perspective, if you don't recognize the Geneva convention, it fully makes sense to make medics a prime target.

We have a policy of arming Corpsmen for self defense with a pistol (though the pistol is being phased out for a carbine). Of course, self defense in a firefight is a pretty BROAD term.

[Team Zimmerman 2013]

If you aren't fighting against an enemy that has signed or respects the Geneva convention, there's no reason to use unarmed medics. There's nothing in the Geneva convention prohibiting you from putting armed soldiers with medical experience on the field, as long as they aren't branded as Geneva convention medics with the red cross. Such soldiers simply can be shot at like normal soldiers, which isn't a problem when you're fighting an enemy that will shoot at soldiers with the Red Cross just as well. However, armed medevac copters shouldn't wear the red cross branding. Branding an armed person as an unarmed Geneva convention medic is a war crime.

We currently do that. In the Corps it's called CLS (Combat Life Savers). It doesn't replace the training of a dedicated medic/corpsman though.

[Don Quixote]

Because it will get stolen.

i do not know, however, i suspect that there is a problem with drug addiction

[Team Zimmerman 2013]

i do not know, however, i suspect that there is a problem with drug addiction

Or the problem that it's readily available morphine with poor supervision. It'll get stolen. When it was part of the IFAK (Individual First Aid Kit), it was ALWAYS used within the 1st week of issue. Stateside.

[China Apologist]

I will steal the morphine.

[Annie]

It's the Army that isn't changing to the realities and lives are being lost:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/13-...s-of-staff.htm

[Don Quixote]

It's the Army that isn't changing to the realities and lives are being lost:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/13-...s-of-staff.htm

definitely need to arm medevac units, both ground and air