Hacker News Reader

Comment by aaronem | Hacker News Reader

Before this comment gets sniped a third time, I'll note that suppressive fire can just as well cover a unit disengaging from action as it can a unit preparing to move into closer contact.

View on HN

Yes you are right. I would even go as far as stating that the term "defensive weapon" makes no sense in the context of assault rifles.

I'll go further, and state that "defensive weapon" is a contradiction in terms and semantically null however applied. A weapon is a tool; offense and defense are perhaps the two broadest categories of the ways in which such a tool may be employed.

No doubt true in general, but how about land mines? That seems fairly close to a "defensive weapon".

Nothing of the sort! A minefield makes a lousy area denial weapon, because it's consumable; every mine that goes off is one fewer between the attacker and the objective. It's a considerable obstacle, sure, but it won't stop an attacker; at best, it'll slow him down for a while. If he's really determined, it may not even do much of that; he might just order his infantry to march through the minefield anyway, which is a very effective if rather expensive clearing method. If he's really determined and also short of soldiers, he might do the same, but with a regiment of children -- Iran used this method during their war with Iraq in the 80s. Horrifying as it is, it does work.

No, the point of a minefield is to funnel attackers into predefined areas where you've arranged to bring your heavy weapons, specifically artillery or machine guns, to bear with best effect. These areas rejoice in the name "killing zones", and their purpose is to maximize the effect of said heavy weapons by concentrating their targets in a single compact mass which can be saturated with fire. Granted, being a static emplacement, a minefield can only be effective when someone has to go through it or find a way around it; that said, and while the point is certainly arguable, I have a hard time considering a weapon, whose sole purpose is to make it as easy as possible to slaughter one's opponents en masse, as being particularly "defensive".

Well, defense is simply killing your enemy when they're the ones who are attacking. It's hard to imagine using land mines to attack, while you nicely described how effective they can be to defend.

I suppose it depends on the scope in which you define the terms 'attack' and 'defend'. If I lay a minefield ahead of a position, so that it may better absorb and break a counterattack intended to slow or halt my invading army, then am I attacking, or defending, or both at once?

I'd say that you're defending at the tactical level, attacking at the strategic level, and then it all comes down to how much context you want to include when looking at the weapon. I could certainly see arguments for both.

> No doubt true in general, but how about land mines?

Not when you throw them at someone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com