Gyroscopic Investing

For better or for worse, he had a profound effect on the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/rifle-designer-mi ... 48393.html

Would that the world had more of this kind of thinking

Desert wrote: "It is very important because a soldier doesn't have university degrees," he said. "He needs a simple and reliable weapon.

and less of this:

Desert wrote: He said the question he hated most was whether he felt sorry about the hundreds of thousands of people that were killed as a result of his invention. He had a standard answer:
"I've designed my weapon to defend the borders of our Fatherland, and let it continue to serve this purpose."

Desert wrote: He said the question he hated most was whether he felt sorry about the hundreds of thousands of people that were killed as a result of his invention. He had a standard answer:
"I've designed my weapon to defend the borders of our Fatherland, and let it continue to serve this purpose."

The implication, of course, that without AK-47s, those people might not have killed each other.

LOL

Desert wrote: People will find a way to kill each other with or without an AK.

Yes, but the AK is significantly more effective than a machete in that regard. It's a force multiplier.

One of the things the AK did was to take some of the power away from big, organized armies and give it to smaller groups of poorly funded fighters. The AK's tolerances are so high you can bury it in mud and it'll still work. No oil and expensive maintenance infrastructure required to keep those things in working order for a very long time.

Tortoise wrote: Yes, but the AK is significantly more effective than a machete in that regard. It's a force multiplier.

One of the things the AK did was to take some of the power away from big, organized armies and give it to smaller groups of poorly funded fighters. The AK's tolerances are so high you can bury it in mud and it'll still work. No oil and expensive maintenance infrastructure required to keep those things in working order for a very long time.

Exactly. In the 20th century, governments the world over accidentally created weapons more useful by people resisting them than their own armies.

If governments wanted to retain dominance forever, they should try to roll back technology to the era when a numerically superior force of men armed with melee weapons won the day in every conflict. The more advanced weapons become, the more power individuals have to resist well-trained, numerically superior foes--even those armed with the very same weapons.

Pointedstick wrote: If governments wanted to retain dominance forever, they should try to roll back technology to the era when a numerically superior force of men armed with melee weapons won the day in every conflict. The more advanced weapons become, the more power individuals have to resist well-trained, numerically superior foes--even those armed with the very same weapons.

Ah, but if they did that, they wouldn't be able to use indigenous populations to do their dirty work fighting against the big, organized armies of the advanced rival nations occupying those territories!

I think in many cases in the 20th century, making the natives more dangerous was precisely the goal