Military bikes make comeback in e-bike form, featuring handlebar-mounted gun holders

Rich_cb wrote:

By that logic, once you vote for a politician you agree to give them the power to start wars regardless of the justice or morality of doing so. The ultimate responsibility therefore lies with the voters.

Yes it does, not so much if the politician starts a war, because they may have given no sign that they intended to or indeed said specifically that they wouldn't, but if they don't punish the politician afterwards, vide T.Blair. However, that doesn't preclude the concept of there being subsidiary responsibilities including for those who carry out the politician's immoral or unjust orders.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

By that logic, once you vote for a politician you agree to give them the power to start wars regardless of the justice or morality of doing so. The ultimate responsibility therefore lies with the voters.

Yes it does, not so much if the politician starts a war, because they may have given no sign that they intended to or indeed said specifically that they wouldn't, but if they don't punish the politician afterwards, vide T.Blair. However, that doesn't preclude the concept of there being subsidiary responsibilities including for those who carry out the politician's immoral or unjust orders.

Of course the wars in Iraq had majority support from the Labour party , and almost unanimous support from the tories (not counting abstentions). With our parliamentary system it would have been enormously difficult for voters to punish the act of going to war, especially as it was not the only thing on voters minds, and with no AV or PR voting system to ensure that your vote is actually registered.

But no, politicians can't pass the buck by saying "it was the voters wot let me do it" any more than squaddies can use the "just following orders" defence. Of course not, it goes completely against the right-wing value of "Personal Responsibility™".....

I thought that the reason the Iraq war had support was due to Tony Blair misrepresenting the Iraq military capabilites with the false 45 minute claim?

hawkinspeter wrote:

I thought that the reason the Iraq war had support was due to Tony Blair misrepresenting the Iraq military capabilites with the false 45 minute claim?

Yes, that was a big part of it. Tory credulity (or maybe eagerness to bomb some foreigners) certainly helped . Seems that just shy of 40% of labour MPs were suspicious enough not to outright support the invasion, whereas only about 12 % of tories defied the whip (this time including abstensions). I thought the opposition were there to hold the executive to account.....

It's reasonable to expect a soldier to refuse an illegal order but how is a soldier to know if a war is immoral or injust in advance?

Iraq was an example where the war was waged on false pretences.

The soldiers bear no responsibility for that.

That is entirely down to the politicians and the voters who empowered them.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's reasonable to expect a soldier to refuse an illegal order but how is a soldier to know if a war is immoral or injust in advance? Iraq was an example where the war was waged on false pretences. The soldiers bear no responsibility for that. That is entirely down to the politicians and the voters who empowered them.

That was rather my point, soldiers in peacetime make a pledge blindly to obey the directives of politicians, that is a moral decision in itself, isn't it? And therefore cannot be simply absolved by the "following orders" defence? In addition, aren't politicians also empowered by soldiers as well as voters? Without soldiers having pledged to follow (lawful) orders in whatever circumstances, the politicians would find it rather hard to wage war.

In specific terms of Iraq, I think rather a lot of us knew it was illegal in advance, I seem to recall some fairly substantial marches about it. Don't recall many soldiers refusing to go though.

It is a moral decision but it is less of a moral decision than that taken by the voters who elect the politicians.

If the Liberal Democrats had won the 2001 election then the moral outcome of the soldier's decision would have been different.

The ultimate moral risk is taken at the ballot box.

Those who voted Labour in 2001 are far more responsible for the Iraq war than those who joined the military.

There are, of course, British politicians content to see the Government they are part of break the law.

UK minister confirms plan to break international law over Brexit – POLITICO

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-minister-confirms-plan-to-break-inter...

Rich_cb wrote:

It is a moral decision but it is less of a moral decision than that taken by the voters who elect the politicians. If the Liberal Democrats had won the 2001 election then the moral outcome of the soldier's decision would have been different. The ultimate moral risk is taken at the ballot box. Those who voted Labour in 2001 are far more responsible for the Iraq war than those who joined the military.

OOOh, doing really well until that last line. Had the tories not been so keen to play Churchill (Aaaaaw yesh), and voted against (and had the labour abstainees shown some integrity to go with their scepticism) there may not have been a war (for the UK at least). That makes those that voted tory every bit as culpable.

In fact 1/5 of labour MPs did vote No.

As only 2 tory MPs voted no (out of 180 odd), that makes, proportionally, more tory voters culpable for the war than Labour voters.

Unless, that is, the idea of direct moral responsibility of voters is silly .....

PS, for once agreed with your first 2 lines. Well done

PPS. Soldiers are also voters. Does that not at least even up their culpability with, er, voters?

Rich_cb wrote:

Those who voted Labour in 2001 are far more responsible for the Iraq war than those who joined the military.

Seriously? The UK General Election of 2001 was on June 7, three months before 9/11 and before there was any sign that Britain would even consider becoming embroiled in Iraq or Afghanistan. Ought the voters have been able to predict that 9/11 would happen and that TB would change so bewilderingly in the aftermath?

That's the standard you're applying to members of the military.

If it's unfair to expect voters to consider how the Prime Minister they're voting to put into power might behave in a military crisis then it's definitely unfair to ask soldier's to consider the roles they may be ordered to carry out.

If you honestly think there's any form of equivalence between a person voting for a Prime Minister who has shown no sign of or inclination towards being the warmongering liar he turned out to be and a soldier swearing an oath to obey all legal instructions from any leader, no matter how immoral or unjust they might be, without question then I fear there's very little to be gained in our continuing this potentially interesting debate, and so I will bid you good day.

It's directly equivalent.

Soldiers usually sign up for 6 years in the UK IIRC.
A UK parliament is (up to) 5 years in duration.

How is a soldier signing up in 2001 (pre 9/11) any different to a voter choosing Labour in 2001?

Both are making a decision based on how they assume the Labour leadership will behave in certain situations over the next few years.

The voter may end up disappointed.

The soldier may end up dead.

That alone convinces me that the voter bears far more moral responsibility than the soldier.

Though in some cases (say, a pandemic, for instance) the voter may end up dead too.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's directly equivalent. Soldiers usually sign up for 6 years in the UK IIRC. A UK parliament is (up to) 5 years in duration. How is a soldier signing up in 2001 (pre 9/11) any different to a voter choosing Labour in 2001? Both are making a decision based on how they assume the Labour leadership will behave in certain situations over the next few years. The voter may end up disappointed. The soldier may end up dead. That alone convinces me that the voter bears far more moral responsibility than the soldier.

The voter doesn't go out and kill a load of people, including innocent civilian bystanders, on the government's orders, they protest and change policy if they can and do their best, hopefully, to get rid of the government when the next election comes. The soldier, because of the pledge s/he's signed, goes out and does the killing without question.

The voter has elected the government which, in your scenario, has apparently ordered the army to kill civilians.

The voter is responsible for the actions of the government they elected.

That's democracy.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's reasonable to expect a soldier to refuse an illegal order but how is a soldier to know if a war is immoral or injust in advance? Iraq was an example where the war was waged on false pretences. The soldiers bear no responsibility for that. That is entirely down to the politicians and the voters who empowered them.

It's not just reasonable to expect, it is a requirement.

Interesting question about whether a soldier is culpable for participating in a war that was commenced illegally. I'd say probably not, otherwise every single combatant on the losing side in every conflict could be prosecuted. Even Waffen SS soldiers weren't prosecuted wholesale except for taking part in specific provable crimes.

However, voters are not criminally culpable for the criminal acts of political leaders, and morally you'd have to identify that they cast their vote specifically to ensure that a particular policy was followed and that their vote was instrumental in ensuring that it was. In the case of Iraq, that wasn't even on the horizon when voters brought the Blair govt back in. So good luck.

You realise you can do those things without killing people, right? There are other jobs out there that allow you to show 'duty', whatever that's meant to mean.
If you mean some sort of patriotic duty to your country then yeah, I don't care about showing that, because i don't think the country I happened to be born in is any more worth 'protecting' or celebrating than any other.

I work with military officers and most of them are rather bemused by this US-style fetishisation of the UK armed forces by a certain demographic.

My dad was in the forces, and served in NI, Bosnia and Afghanistan. His attitude was always that it was a job, not some kind of calling.

I'm not sure I buy this 'joining the army makes you morally culpable' line - obviously there's a chance you'll be exposed to violence of one sort or another, and people might get hurt and die. I doubt many dedicated pacifists sign up - but does a nurse in Croydon bear some responsibility for the policy of charging migrants thousands of pounds for treatment administered by the NHS? Does a PCSO in Lancashire bear responsibility for a racist being recruited to the Met?

Whose military?

Smoggysteve wrote:

Whats wrong with celebrating the military and all they do to support the nation? 

Celebrating the people that make up the armed forces wasn't the criticism. Celebrating hardware though seems odd. Kind of a more environmentally sustainable version of a tank-wank

The Lockheed Blackbird is one of the coolest machines ever conceived. Fight me.

Top spot taken by the humble bicycle, IMO at least.

Compact Corned Beef wrote:

The Lockheed Blackbird is one of the coolest machines ever conceived. Fight me.

Top spot taken by the humble bicycle, IMO at least.

yeah okay, I'm conflicted, I'll admit. I'm a badger of contradictions....

Unfortunately most people drive their weapons

eburtthebike wrote:

I want one!  The ability to hold and aim a weapon would be particularly useful on UK roads.

Can I have a Bren gun on mine? The recoil pulls you forwards ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jA7tcOC_2uQ
"Well, that's that busted. No, the BREN light machine gun does not pull forward on firing. It has to obey Newton just like everything else."

The only way I could see this pulling forward was if the feet were constructed such that they resisted (dug in) the backwards recoil and then sprang forwards, like a ratchet. But of course mounted on wheels that could never be the case.

Sriracha wrote:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jA7tcOC_2uQ
"Well, that's that busted. No, the BREN light machine gun does not pull forward on firing. It has to obey Newton just like everything else."

The only way I could see this pulling forward was if the feet were constructed such that they resisted (dug in) the backwards recoil and then sprang forwards, like a ratchet. But of course mounted on wheels that could never be the case.

Having fired the Bren in both .303 and 7.62mm (LMG), there is a decided *feeling* that the weapon is pulling you forwards.
When you cock the weapon, you pull the working parts back on to the rats tail, which then compress the recoil spring and lock the parts onto the pawl of the trigger.
When the trigger is released, the parts fly forwards at a great rate, pick up a round from the magazine, slam the round into the breech, and the millimetric movement of the breech bock rocking on the carriage forces the firing pin into the striker plate of the cartridge.

As the round travels down the barrel, some of the gases are diverted back to the piston face (part of the block carriage), which pushes the parts back on to the rats tail.
(Which is why LMG require a blank firing adapter as there is insufficient gas to move the parts back properly when firing blanks).

The working parts flying forwards are totally discernable, even on rapid and full automatic, this probably produces the *feeling* of moving forwards, without actually doing so.

I'll nod my head to the physics, and not say it's wrong ...

I'll nod my head to the physics, and not say it's wrong ...

Good, because it isn't. Small piece of metal flies out of the front at great speed, so the large piece of metal goes backwards at a much lesser speed. I have never fired any automatic weapon, and spent a month at Sandhurst never firing a live round at all.