[flying Elvis]

I understand, and appreciate the need for such weapons, but I can envision a scenario where our weak-kneed pols will end up deploying our folks with nothing but nonlethal weapons as a show of our good intentions. Remember, between 1945 and 1950 we intentionally limited the types of armaments we supplied to the South Koreans, as well as our own men on the peninsula to demonstrate to the commies that we had no offensive intentions in that region. Within a day of the war's beginning we were scouring the theater for artillery and antitank weapons. Likewise, we went into Somalia with good intentions and a lack of killing power locally available.

[amchugh]

Yeah, the lack of tank deployment to Somalia is a great point. We probably could have mitigated the blackhawk down fiasco, but we have to recognize that our soldiers are increasingly being asked to play a policing role and need appropriate tools. The Pentagon has resisted getting dragged into a counter-insurgent role I think precisely because it doesn't mesh well with the traditional training and outfitting of soldiers. We probably need a new or retooled branch of the military to take on such roles.

As a side note, deploying the guard to the LA riots with no ammunition for their weapons was a bluff which worked (not that I'd have done it).