Illegal Warfare Knife

You mean like hollow-point bullets are against the Geneva Convention? Good question, but I would say "no", since the gov't issue USAF Survival knife has sawteeth along the top of the spine. They are ostensibly for a pilot to cut himself out of wreckage, or to make a survival fire. I don't think they make a knife any more deadly or inhumane. In a fight, I'd much rather a double edge fighter or a sharpened bayonnet than a sawtooth, any day of the week.
 
Hi my name is DaQo'tah

I believe in BLADE I read that they have taken away all the big knives from our fighting boys,,,

The reason listed was that they found (or just think) that haveing big knives tended to push 18 year olds liveing close to each other into fights. The hope was to calm the lads down with the idea everyone had a little knife.

OK, yes, it did seem a bit odd to make army guys use smaller blades cuz we "think" big ones are too dangerious,,,,but thats what I remember reading...
 
The big knife versus small knife versus no knife issue, I believe is more related to whether you are or are not an officer.

Since 18 year olds are not officers and new to the armed forces and may not have a proven character earned with months and/or years of military service, they are going to be watched and controlled very closely, much more so then an officer.

I'm sure someone who has served or, is currently serving in the armed forces can provide a much more detailed perspective on this issue then I can.
 
I spent 7 years in the Army and if that is the reasoning behind that decision it is absolutely absurd! Believeable but absurd. Under normal barracks or bivouac conditions I can see, maybe, having their large knives under control of the arm's room, but in the field that would make absolutely no sense as they would be carrying weapons anyway. And if they don't trust personnel with knives why would they trust them with any other type of weaponry? Plus its not like these were draftee's that didn't want to be there...this is totally illogical, degrading and just outright stupid.
 
Ditto Burkstar. I spent 4yrs in the Army Infantry in the late eightys. The proclaimed mission was to kill people and break things,but if you carried anything larger than a buck 110 they acted as if you would be a saftey hazard to the entire unit. It is alll political correctness. I had a butter bar who while playing grabass with one of his platoon members(who just heppened to be an OK> state highschool wrestling champion) pulled the afore mentionioned buck 110 and got it stuck in his own thigh, while in the field. So much for the leadership of some officers. I would of liked to read his next fit-rep!
 
i believe in WW2 one of the bayonet patterns had a saw tooth back to it, while the reasoning behind it was to provide some extra functionaility to the troops using it it was seen by the enemy as an addition intended to create greater pain to whoever was on the receiving end of it and so any troops captured with a saw tooth bayonet were treated badly.
 
Actually it was World War One.
Early in the Great War, saw tooth-backed bayonets were outlawed (as well as the fabled "dum-dum" expanding bullets)because of their supposedly "cruel" and "inhumane" nature. This same logic had the German govt protesting the American use of trench shotguns because the buckshot pellets were exposed lead and not fully jacketed. This from guys that regularly used poison gas???
This "big scarey knives are bad" talk all just sounds like an outgrowth of the rampaging huggy-feely PC-mindset that seems to have infected all things in our modern world, even though since the end of WW2 none of the nations that we have fought were a signatory to the Geneva Convention (the North Vietnamese seemed very happy to remind our POWs of this) then why should it matter what kind of weapons that we use on them?
Strange thing is, this was the SAME army that in WW2 allowed soldiers to bring home fully automatic weapons as souveniers--funny old world ain't it?
It just goes to show we as a people (at least our national leaders)are not made of the same stuff our Grandfathers and Fathers were.
 
Originally posted by Sid Post
The big knife versus small knife versus no knife issue, I believe is more related to whether you are or are not an officer.

Since 18 year olds are not officers and new to the armed forces and may not have a proven character earned with months and/or years of military service, they are going to be watched and controlled very closely, much more so then an officer.

I'm sure someone who has served or, is currently serving in the armed forces can provide a much more detailed perspective on this issue then I can.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is this: They are in the military...exposed to sidearms, rifles, and grenades. It's stupid to say, "You all can't have those knives."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top