should medevac copters be armed

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

Don Quixote said:
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-sparks-debate-over-arming-medevacs-184034109.html
Click to expand...

The Taliban do not recognize or respect the medevac choppers and the red cross emblem!
021312-medevac-800.JPG


But if you arm them with a minigun?

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

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.
 
General Sherman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
General Sherman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I've known several Vietnam era medics. Probably the most bravest persons I've ever met. They both refered to the medic insignia on their helmet as "Their target" and they joked bitterly that in combat the enemy almost always goes after the medics and could care less about "The Geneva Convention" or "Gentlemens Agreements".

It's a stupid tradition that gets some of the best men serving in our military needlessly killed and it always has been. That's one of the reasons medics are so courageous.They have hide bound traditionalist who insist on doing stupid shit to get them killed. Like painting a target on their helmet that makes it easy for the enemy to determine their a medic. The enemy loves killing our medics. Always have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top