Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Gallia-]

BMPT is because the Soviet Union sorta turned into a KGB rump state. It has a very defined role and clear purpose in Soviet and Russian military thinking. It just doesn't have an analogue in Western thinking.

It's sort of like how Russia is pretty confident it can fight and win a general nuclear war, whereas most Westerners balk at the idea of atomic war even on little scales.

[Kanugues Wed]

BMPT is because the Soviet Union sorta turned into a KGB rump state. It has a very defined role and clear purpose in Soviet and Russian military thinking. It just doesn't have an analogue in Western thinking.

It's sort of like how Russia is pretty confident it can fight and win a general nuclear war, whereas most Westerners balk at the idea of atomic war even on little scales.

What about russian doctrine makes the BMPT useful?

[Theodosiya]

Why not simply blast way through refugees? You know, firing 30mm and 120mm, maybe 5.56 and 7.62 too. Also, how about having tank based support with 30mm, AGL ,ATGM and .50 cal, in 4:1 ratio in tank platoon? If operates along Mech/Mot Infantry, simply have them operate alongside MBT and IFV/APC.

[Gallia-]

Why not simply blast way through refugees?

Because that's stupid.

What about russian doctrine makes the BMPT useful?

The part where BMPT is useful.

Having a high angle cannon-cum-rocket-launcher that blows up RPGs and ATGW is obviously beneficial. This is what BMPT does.

It's an answer to Westerners' mass employment of infantry portable ATGMs like Milan and TOW.

[Luhanskaya]

BMPT is because the Soviet Union sorta turned into a KGB rump state. It has a very defined role and clear purpose in Soviet and Russian military thinking. It just doesn't have an analogue in Western thinking.

It's sort of like how Russia is pretty confident it can fight and win a general nuclear war, whereas most Westerners balk at the idea of atomic war even on little scales.

What about russian doctrine makes the BMPT useful?

The BMPT has the specific job of providing fire support to tanks in an urban environment. We took lessons learned from Chechnya and designed a vehicle around the flaws our vehicles faced in close urban combat. A Russian tank platoon consists of 3 MBT's, 3 platoons per company, plus one for the commander, totaling 10 MBT's per company. The BMPT is attached to those tank units normally in pairs, but will vary based on mission. Overall a 2:1 ratio is what the idea was. I.e. you have 3 tanks, the other 6 tanks in that company would then be shifted to BMPT's. The BMPT also provides fire power capable of dispatching any threat, Infantry, tanks, air, munitions, etc

[Prosorusiya]

I suppose it depends on the size of the objective being taken. The Soviets would likely have solved the problem by avoiding major population areas altogether, and hence largely avoiding the refugee issue. Smaller villages, town ect. probably could be dealt with effectively by an MP detachment due to the lesser number of potential fleeing people, and I expect cutting across the flow of traffic at across roads or something rather than trying to fight against the flow would probably be an easier situation to handle. Perhaps reconnaissance to locate and avoid refugee columns would not be a bad idea? Simply maneuver around them rather than trying to fight them? Anyways just a suggestion, as I said the Soviet solution would probably just be to stay the heck away from anywhere refugees would be likely to exist in numbers.

Anyhow, any comments on my Spetznav loadout from earlier? I’m debating wether to give my men a 6B2 or Zhzl-74 vest... not sure which would be lighter as a piece of equipment, or if there is any meaningful protection difference.

Also debating wether to issue the SSh-60 or -68, I kinda like the idea of giving them different helmets than my Army and I understand that these two helmets where both still issued in the Afghan War? My backstory for this unit is that it is founded by KGB Afghan vets and equipped accordingly, and of course hasn’t been upgraded since the fall of the USSR.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Highway of Death the refugees and install dozer blades on your tanks and AFVs. Problem solved.

[Gallia-]

Highway of Death the refugees and install dozer blades on your tanks and AFVs. Problem solved.

People much smarter than you say the opposite. I am inclined to agree with them.

[Luhanskaya]

I suppose it depends on the size of the objective being taken. The Soviets would likely have solved the problem by avoiding major population areas altogether, and hence largely avoiding the refugee issue. Smaller villages, town ect. probably could be dealt with effectively by an MP detachment due to the lesser number of potential fleeing people, and I expect cutting across the flow of traffic at across roads or something rather than trying to fight against the flow would probably be an easier situation to handle. Perhaps reconnaissance to locate and avoid refugee columns would not be a bad idea? Simply maneuver around them rather than trying to fight them? Anyways just a suggestion, as I said the Soviet solution would probably just be to stay the heck away from anywhere refugees would be likely to exist in numbers.

Anyhow, any comments on my Spetznav loadout from earlier? I’m debating wether to give my men a 6B2 or Zhzl-74 vest... not sure which would be lighter as a piece of equipment, or if there is any meaningful protection difference.

Also debating wether to issue the SSh-60 or -68, I kinda like the idea of giving them different helmets than my Army and I understand that these two helmets where both still issued in the Afghan War? My backstory for this unit is that it is founded by KGB Afghan vets and equipped accordingly, and of course hasn’t been upgraded since the fall of the USSR.

In all honesty your equipment will vary depending on which unit you base your army off of. During Afghanistan the soviet army started wearing sapogi, M69 uniforms, M69 Webbing and SSh60 helmets, while receiving little to no body armor. By the end of the war they were being issued Lace Boots, 6B3's, SSh68's and the Afghanka uniform. However the soviet military as a whole had lax standards in Afghanistan, and soldiers were seen wearing everything from local afghan hats, robes, etc, aviator sunglasses, a multitude of oversuits(KML, KZS), custom made chestrigs from the RD54 harness (the issued life jackets were even converted into load bearing vests), lifchiks, chicoms, etc. Boots were replaced by tennis shoes, most notably Adidas' and Puma's. All of this being mixed and matched with the afghanka uniform. By the end of the war soldier rarely even wore their helmets(Panama hats were the cool thing, along with local pakol caps.) And body armor was basically worn as saw fit.

Example

[Purpelia]

What about the use of civilian vehicles for good? As in requisitioning private cars and trucks for military use in more than a random fashion.

[Zhouran]

Would an IFV be enough to "escort" an MBT in urban terrain? The BMPT itself was developed based on the Russian military's experiences with tanks and urban warfare, but for a Western military would an IFV equipped with ATGMs and an autocannon that can go at a high angle be enough for tank escort in urban warfare?

[Manokan Republic]

The V280 looks pretty awesome. If it's around 6.5 million per vehicle, you could theoretically replace APC's and have a vehicle with a 30mm cannon and other weapons to serve as a gunship, that can travel 2100 miles over virtually any terrain at 300 mph, that can vertically land off in nearly all environments, has minimal maintenance and relatively good fuel efficiency, and be able to transport a single squad. You could transport 3 squads in to combat with 14 men each, and then have some back-up forces of gunships to circle the enemy. You wouldn't replace APC's of course, but as APC's are like 5 million dollars these days, it's not that far off in terms of price. Instead of making a helicopter or V-22 to transport an APC, why not just have a flying APC? Makes sense to me.

Granted it's not out yet, but this has the potential to turn entire divisions in to primarily airborne forces. And unlike a helicopter it's easy to land and get out of a little bit safer.

The $6.5mil price was just the amount that was given out for research and development teams to come up with proposals and stuff. If you read the rest of the article the best case scenario seems to be that it will cost the same as the current high end medium twins the US army operate i.e. around the $30-35million mark. This is hardly surprising as it is a high end medium twin that just does something funky with its rotors.

It gives airmobile light infantry more reach and speed but isn't going to change anything about how they actually operate at the sharp end. An no it won't be easier to land. Anything that mentions it having better hover performance and handling is talking about the valour compared to the osprey rather than to an actual helicopter.

They've already produced several aircraft on that budget, which means the price of an aircraft AND it's research. And research is usually significantly more expensive than an actual aircraft itself. For example they spent 400 billion dollars on F-35 research, way more than an individual aircraft at 90 million dollars.

Obviously there is no confirmation what the end price will be like, maybe it will have armor on it or something that's more expensive and prototypes aren't made of the same material, but it looks promising.

The main advantage will be numbers and payload, as it will have a much heavier payload than helicopters but be about as ubiquitous. You could probably fit a lot more vehicles in it as well. Although the carrying capacity is smaller in terms of volume, weight is larger, and that will mean greater firepower for troops that have landed. Vehicles are generally very dense due to the armor and so, it wouldn't be surprising to deploy a handful of humvees or an APC from the vehicle instead.

[Manokan Republic]

In modern wars we still see guerrilla fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan who not only haven't been found, but that are still fighting. It took years to find Osama Bin Laden and numerous other terrorists leaders, because warfare slows down; and that's not with professional troops and logistics, but just insane guerrilla sand terrorists. Encirclement does not defeat your enemy when you have an entire city as refuge. The reality is you cannot completely encircle an enemy, and even when you have them mostly quarantined they can still wage attacks. Ammunition stockpiles among other things are larger than most people would expect and last longer on the defense, as you don't need nearly as much for suppressive fire when you already have good defenses, can attack in ambushes, and can stockpile them in the thousands of rounds in buildings. Enemies that are already entrenched are extremely difficult to remove, and even poorly trained troops can persist for a very long time, especially if they go in to hiding.

There is a sort of misconception that vehicles are invincible to small arms as well. Most armored vehicles possess features that make them vulnerable to small arms, such as tracks, exposed gunners and drivers, engines that are poorly protected and so on, and improvised explosives can be made and placed on roads like land mines to disable them. The engine of an M1 abrams is only protected by a thin grate to allow air flow for example, and bullets can easily enter it. RPG's, while they can't get through the armor very well, can damage it enough to make the tank inoperable or in need of repairs, thus halting the advance. You might not kill the crew, but you can temporarily defeat an armored vehicle, even a tank, simply by immobilizing it, making it too much of a risk to enter, or defeating other parts of it (such as cameras or exposed crew members). Damaging the armor means that the crew survives, but has to return to base and get repairs on the very expensive armor; the armor is vulnerable to multiple strikes in the same spot and if allowed to build up over time will permanently damage a tank. Tank crews are trained not to advance after sustaining too much damage for this reason, and will likely retreat. When backed up with a few heavy weapons like rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons and mines, it can make the progress of a mechanized force, especially lightly armored vehicles, extremely slow.

While not exactly identical to the point of encirclement, we can analyze the success of lightly armored vehicles and infantry vs. heavily armored vehicles when deployed in a similar manner. An example of light technicals, that is unarmored vehicles, taking on armored vehicles and winning would be the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian–Libyan_conflict]libyan-chad[/url] war, known as the Toyota war, where a bunch of heavy weapons slapped on toyotas inflicted 7500 losses against armored vehicles (with 800 destroyed vehicles), while they only took 1000 losses themselves. While it was done in the desert, the same equipment in urban environments would likely be even more effective, meaning you can't just rush your enemy even when you have superior armor. Russia is beginning to adopt these tactics as well, and surprisingly is taking less losses. Light vehicles can take on heavy vehicles if done correctly, just as infantry holed up in buildings can use heavy weapons or rely on hit and run tactics with small, maneuverable, and easily concealable vehicles.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Guerilla warfare is very different from mechanized warfare. For one it's worse. Guerilla warfare is an option for those who are too weak to engage in mechanized warfare. Guerillas take vastly more casualties, are heavily dependent on sponsors, take a much longer time to achieve their goals (and usually fail to do so, despite popular belief) and have a vastly limited ability to deal damage as they are mostly limited to small arms, IED's and maybe mortars. Guerilla warfare is most successful when it is sponsored by another power and the enemy is a state that is easily swayed by popular opinion.

Guerilla forces that lacks foreign support, Like Hamas or the Tamil Tigers, are extremely weak and have a very little chance of winning (The Tamil Tigers have been eradicated btw). Even those who are supported by foreign powers can be eradicated, the VC did not survive the Tet offensive and the communists in Malaysia were crushed by the British.

The Toyota war is a very bad example, virtually all Arab states have utterly incompetent armed forces, and usually in large part by design. Arab army officers are particularly stupid, lazy, selfish and arrogant while the rank and file is unsurprisingly utterly demoralized and badly trained. The idea of NCO's and a meritocratic system of promotion is completely incompatible with Arab military structure and traditions. Chadians won with Toyota Hilux trucks and MILAN missiles and superior tactics? Is that supposed to impress me? The war went exactly as you would expect.

I'm not talking about mechanized vs. mechanized warfare, I'm talking about what to do about clearing an area of enemies in fortified defensive positions, often buildings. I'm not talking about what not to do with your mechanized forces, not how to defeat opposing mechanized forces. In essence, I'm talking about how not to defeat your own forces with bad strategies.

Mechanized forces best bet is to use their mobility for good use, and simply ignore fortified positions. They move past them and continue to push on the front lines, taking more ground. Infantry are used to retain and capture ground, as well as clear areas, and move in behind the heaver vehicles to take and occupy ground, essentially serving as a police force or to clear an area of hostile enemies. Hence the whole building clearing thing with infantry rather than using your heavy mechanized vehicles to do it, which usually are few in numbers. You don't want to assault a fortress head on, you instead want to sneak inside of it, like with infantry, or ignore it for as long as you can.

Guerrilla warfare applies to an incredibly broad spectrum of forms of warfare, and could apply to irregular forces like terrorists or professional forces like the Germans holing up inside of the rubble of buildings; again, holing up in a building is not about defeating your enemies in an offensive campaign, but surviving an attack. The best thing you can do is simply ignore them and drive past them, clearing them out later rather than assaulting them head on. The idea you're going to surround them with a bunch of tanks and armored buildings is bad for a lot of reasons, ranging from the time it would take to clear the building and the damage your tanks could receive in return. The point of a tank or other armored vehicle is not to sit on the enemy but to move quickly. That's the advantage of mechanized forces. Sitting still makes you predictable and easily defeated, especially when there's lots of cover in cities to use to sneak up on your enemies. Roads have predictable paths, and thus are easy to lay with mines or set up ambushes on. You don't exactly want to sit around too long in a city, unless you're already in a well defended area.

[Manokan Republic]

Also morality is about the same in most places. It's why most African tribes don't murder and eat their own kids, and most people in say Mexico or Europe don't think murder or theft is okay. Most people have empathy, which is hardwired in their brains to feel bad for others and have a sense of justice. From that our morality is largely derived. You do get exceptions to the rule, but overwhelmingly virtually all people view the basic fundamentals of morality as the same. Objectively, virtually all humans, 98%, are hardwired to think and feel the same way on the issues.

Murder is incredibly rare, and most people will never kill anyone, not even in self defense. They only do so if they feel they have to, rather than just for fun. This is evidence by the fact humanity still exists. Despite violence and crime existing, it is the exception to the rule and, not the rule. If you don't care about the lives of innocent people, you're one of the 2% who are psychopaths, and there is something fundamentally wrong with your brain. Normal people are hardwired to care about one another, it's why society exists, it's why we have justice systems and medical systems and so on.

Naturally war and morality go hand in hand as it has been for centuries. So, why don't you massacre an entire group of people? Well it's immoral. It's also more beneficial in the long run to have a new trading partners to make money from than just to murder and kill everyone. From a biological perspective animals want more of their own species, and it's a fight with other species to survive; the deer competes with the wolf, the wolf with the bear and so on. If we simply obliterate each other, there will be none of us left. If we kill each other, we are doing the other species a favor, especially if we make it impossible to live in an area due to nuclear fall-out and what have you.

People are not all born the same, and while most have empathy, some do not. People are not born as blank slates and much is already hardwired in to us at birth.

[Manokan Republic]

Would an IFV be enough to "escort" an MBT in urban terrain? The BMPT itself was developed based on the Russian military's experiences with tanks and urban warfare, but for a Western military would an IFV equipped with ATGMs and an autocannon that can go at a high angle be enough for tank escort in urban warfare?

Not only would be fine, in fact the U.S. already does so. The U.S. army uses Bradley tanks, and a good example of IFV's being used with tanks would be both Iraq wars, particularly the persian gulf. They used 25mm cannons and TOW missile launchers instead of the weapons on the BMP but it ultimately resulted in the same thing. They did quite well against the Iraqi Troops, who largely used Russian equipment, fighting against BMP's and T-72 tanks.

Another example is the Yom kippur war, where Israel was forced to adopt similar tactics of using infantry along side tanks to help combat the enemy tactics, and went from losing a lot of notable battles to winning most of them.


The main advantage is mobility and maneuverability, as well as the ability to pass through terrain bigger tanks have trouble with and flank or ambush tanks. Although you wouldn't imagine light infantry would do well against tanks, in the end they can be surprisingly effective, with rocket launchers and other anti-tank equipment, and given the fact tanks have vulnerable areas that even small arms can take on (such as the tracks or engine, or exposed crew members). Another example of a light vehicle doing extremely well in combat would be the hellcat in WWII, which despite being among our least well armored tanks, had a 1 to 29 kill ratio, the highest of any tank in the war. The main reason was that maneuverability and speed allowed it to surprise and flank the enemy forces, destroying them in ambushes. On top of this it's speed served not only as an offensive improvement, but a defensive one as well, allowing them to avoid getting hit by being stealthy or moving quickly. It seems like a risky strategy, but if executed correctly you can end up killing a lot of your enemies before they can kill you and thus not die yourself. Then there's the advantage of numbers, as small lightweight tanks are much easier to make than big one's and you can simply overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers.

For roleplay purposes, all of my mechanized infantry platoons have at least one tank attached to them, both to reinforce the infantry platoon, as well as to allow virtually all of them to fight in tank warfare if need be. So my mechanized forces can double as tank or infantry platoons. This means standardizing an APC for all uses rather than using different one's (a Bradley can only carry 6 troops for example), but it's not all that different. A large volume of tanks is obviously expensive, and one way to compensate would be to use lighter tanks, like the U.S. military is currently searching for, with a 35 ton tank design being sought after to support the infantry units.

Another analysis by the U.S. military found that artillery inflicted a surprisingly heavier number of casualties to their tank than they expected, because while the tank wasn't completely destroyed and the armor wasn't completely penetrated, it's mobility was defeated and crew members were often killed. If your paradigm shifts from defeating the heaviest armor of the tank to defeating the weakest armor of the tank, than tanks suddenly become more vulnerable and are not the invincible juggernaut that many people tend to think they are in the popular mind. The hellcat and artillery analysis aren't really examples of APC's themselves, so much so as exposing the vulnerabilities of tanks in general to unexpected sources. If artillery bombardments were used to disable a tank and then enemy tanks rushed in and defeated the now still tank, than in conjunction you'd be better off than just one with one really big tank.

[Gallia-]

>Bradley
>'tanks'

Manokan.tga

Also morality is about the same in most places.

No it isn't. This is literal cultural chauvinism on your part. Highly ironic coming from the guy who asserts other people are racist.

And empathy is a bad thing anyway. Besides being the poster child process for "plural of anecdote is not data", I mean. Unsurprisingly, picking up "bad vibes" (I still don't know how this works because I am probably one of the ~5-10% of people who have lessened empathy) from other human beings when trying to sort out their problems rationally is bad. It's a bit like getting drunk and driving a car. You will probably arrive where you need to go but it's an unnecessary obstacle to getting there and it doesn't make you very manly or womanly or whatever positive adjective you attach to reckless behaviors, TBH. The master race/ubermensch/α+/supermen would not have empathy since empathy just leads to a bunch of people getting nervous when someone paces or whatever, but their moral system would be strong enough to compensate for it, because empathy and morals are about as connected as "driving skills" and "cheese preference".

And your moral system is about as deep as your sternum.

So, why don't you massacre an entire group of people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fam ... nt_Lebanon

Fuck off. Every major country has or is actively participating in genocides around the world. They're about as common and human as breathing.

Not only do people do it today, they'll keep doing it tomorrow. And the next day. And next week. And next year. Forever. Genocide is completely morally defensible it seems. Which isn't really surprising. Literally anything can be defended morally. It's not a guide to determining whether actions are good or bad in any real sense. Morals can be justified ex post facto and often are because humans are weird and our brains work funny. Literally everyone experiences cognitive dissonance at some point and people will adjust their thinking and memories to get rid of it more or less automatically.

From a biological perspective animals want more of their own species,

100 years ago academics were debating whether or not Africans were the same species as Europeans.

[Theodosiya]

Now...

Can genocide be actively lessened or even encouraged? And is it good or bad, even 50 or 200 years from now?

Also, would it be good to be able to be devoid of emotion and moral, focusing purely on task at hand and finishing it?

[Tule]

Now...

Can genocide be actively lessened or even encouraged? And is it good or bad, even 50 or 200 years from now?

From a purely amoral perspective:

Genocide eliminates any potential future threat to your group from another particular group of people, and lets you take over their assets.

Genocide is extremely costly to carry out and may have enormous diplomatic penalties.

If the genocide is carried out by one group against another group living in the same state, the state will be severely weakened through loss of human resources.

It can definitely be encouraged, sometimes easily. This is particularly true if the target is a privileged minority group. (Igbos in Nigeria, Tutsis in Rwanda, Jews in Germany and its occupied areas)

To discourage it requires constant maintenance of social, economic and political stability. Prosperous, equitable and stable societies are not good breeding grounds for genocidal attitudes.

Also, would it be good to be able to be devoid of emotion and moral, focusing purely on task at hand and finishing it?

At the collective level, no. Most people are emotional and moral people and will not engage in brutal violence unless the circumstances are dire.

The key is to use emotion, not to eliminate it. Inciting hatred, fear and disgust towards the target group is vital as is maintaining a sense of duty and affinity to the group committing the genocide. Good, moral people will do even the most reprehensible things if they believe they are doing it out of perceived necessity and in the interest of protecting their own group.

At the individual level however, the traits you describe are ideal for executioners and death squad members. People who have to do the dirty work directly and aren't just driving the trains and operating the doors to the gas chambers.

[Gallia-]

Now...

Can genocide be actively lessened or even encouraged? And is it good or bad, even 50 or 200 years from now?

From a purely amoral

There is nothing "amoral" about genocide. It is a human action. Ergo it is moral. How you defend it determines whether you, yourself, believe it's moral or immoral. Anyone who initiates a genocide believes it's moral. Whether people participating as cogs in the killing machine think so is dependent on their own moral beliefs and values. Certainly there were a handful of people in the Nazi war machine who knew what they were doing was wrong, but on the whole they probably just ignored it, since the Heer never led a successful or large scale coup d'etat against Hitler and the Wehrmacht was a fairly active participant in the genocide engine, despite cries from former Wehrmacht officers that managed to successfully heap all the blame on the SS. So Helmut Schmidt probably went to his grave in 198X with the secret knowledge that he participated in the genocide of a village of 78 Crimean Tatars in December 1941.

tl;dr Moral realism is trash.

to use emotion,

Emotion's sole use is as a diagnostic tool for determining potential faults that need to be addressed. Its practical utility is basically nil. Which is why CBAs and numeracy are infinitely more valuable than "emotional intelligence"/histrionics. If you "go with your gut" or "use emotion" on everything, you end up with the decision-making ability of an American jury, because American juries select for people of below average IQ and intellect precisely because they are amenable to emotional and fallacious arguments. It makes the prosecutor's job much easier. Which is why you should always go for a bench trial in America if you're actually innocent. Or a bench trial in general.

[Tule]

From a purely amoral

There is nothing "amoral" about genocide. It is a human action. Ergo it is moral. How you defend it determines whether you, yourself, believe it's moral or immoral. Anyone who initiates a genocide believes it's moral. Whether people participating as cogs in the killing machine think so is dependent on their own moral beliefs and values. Certainly there were a handful of people in the Nazi war machine who knew what they were doing was wrong, but on the whole they probably just ignored it, since the Heer never led a successful or large scale coup d'etat against Hitler and the Wehrmacht was a fairly active participant in the genocide engine, despite cries from former Wehrmacht officers that managed to successfully heap all the blame on the SS. So Helmut Schmidt probably went to his grave in 198X with the secret knowledge that he participated in the genocide of a village of 78 Crimean Tatars in December 1941.

tl;dr Moral realism is trash.

to use emotion,

Emotion's sole use is as a diagnostic tool for determining potential faults that need to be addressed. Its practical utility is basically nil. Which is why CBAs and numeracy are infinitely more valuable than "emotional intelligence"/histrionics. If you "go with your gut" or "use emotion" on everything, you end up with the decision-making ability of an American jury, because American juries select for people of below average IQ and intellect precisely because they are amenable to emotional and fallacious arguments. It makes the prosecutor's job much easier. Which is why you should always go for a bench trial in America if you're actually innocent. Or a bench trial in general.

Yes, true. And?

I was answering a question about whether or not Genocide is good or bad and if it can be encouraged.

The answer I gave described under what circumstances genocide arises and how genocide is motivated in the group engaging in it. That's it. I'm not making any argument that conflicts with what you're saying, not intentionally at least.

[Gallia-]

Yes, true. And?

You used "amoral" wrong and "use emotion" sounds sort of awkward.

Only like, pigeons, are amoral. Unless you're P. Singer.

[Tule]

Yes, true. And?

You used "amoral" wrong and "use emotion" sounds sort of awkward.

Only like, pigeons, are amoral. Unless you're P. Singer.

Well, English is my second language.

[Theodosiya]

Yes, true. And?

You used "amoral" wrong and "use emotion" sounds sort of awkward.

Only like, pigeons, are amoral. Unless you're P. Singer.

Can you answer my question, plus regarding moral too, could it be eliminated?

[Gallia-]

You used "amoral" wrong and "use emotion" sounds sort of awkward.

Only like, pigeons, are amoral. Unless you're P. Singer.

Well, English is my second language.

It's pedantry. Your Ynglisc is fine.

[Tule]

Well, English is my second language.

It's pedantry. Your Ynglisc is fine.

Thank you. <3

Your pedantry is endearing btw.