By ADAM FISHER
Monday, October 26, 2015
(Published in print: Tuesday, October 27, 2015)
(Published in print: Tuesday, October 27, 2015)
NORTHAMPTON — At
$35,000 per weapon and $55 per round, the XM25 “smart grenade launcher”
is scheduled for renewed testing by the U.S. Army early next year. And the BBC article detailing
the capacities and wonders of this weapon caught my eye recently
because it seemed to offer a small window on what my tax dollars buy.
Some 8-year-old macho male hormone just knew I’d want one of these babies if I were in combat.
Called “revolutionary”
by one of its proponents, the XM25 allows combatants to program their
ammunition to explode at a predetermined distance. This means a grenade
can be set to go off just after it passes through a window or over a
trench: No need to hit the target directly — an airburst near-miss is
close enough to be fatal.
With an effective
airburst range of about 700 meters (that’s 2,296.59 feet), there are
obvious advantages for the shooter who is not forced into close
proximity with his or her target. Still, even proponents concede
drawbacks.
As one analyst put it,
“[The XM25] is by nature quite indiscriminate — you can’t see behind the
cover of what you are trying to shoot behind. Yes, you can shoot the
grenades behind windows, for example, but you’d have to be very, very
sure that [the target aside] there was no-one else in the room.”
Oops.
The BBC article does not
detail how anyone can be “very, very sure” at a distance of something
more than a third of a mile. But I have a hunch that if bullets were
emanating from a particular window or doorway or trench and if those
bullets were aimed at me, the imperative to be “very, very sure” might
diminish rapidly. Women, children and other noncombatant bystanders?
Oops.
And it is at this juncture, with the XM25 as with other matters in life, that policy-wonk double-speak kicks in.
I’m like anyone else: In
my life, I’d like to be credited for the “good” stuff I do and be
absolved of the “bad” stuff. I too would like to look in the bathroom
mirror and be pleased: “What a handsome, thoughtful, compassionate
dude!”
Enter “collateral
damage,” a phrase devoid of personal responsibility. No one is at fault.
“Collateral damage” is the price of doing the business of war, sexless
and without a face. Perhaps it is “patriotism” or perhaps just “war,”
but where the negative fallout kicks in, applause is notably absent.
It is under the
“collateral damage” umbrella that my 8-year-old can take refuge and
claim the medals for the “good” stuff while eluding criticism for the
“bad.”
On Oct. 1, a 26-year-old
gunman shot and killed nine people at Umpqua Community College near
Roseburg, Oregon. Nine others were wounded. It was just the latest in a
litany of school shootings that have “shocked the nation” ... or at
least shocked the nation until the shock wore off and the nation
prepared for the next school shooting to “shock the nation.”
In each instance,
hanky-twisting solutions are offered and forgotten. In each instance
“mental health” or “background check” cards are played and everyone
cares. Sort of.
In the United States 319
million people own a guesstimated 270 million to 310 million guns. Gun
ownership has an enthusiastic fan base and none is more enthusiastic
than the National Rifle Association. Gun ownership has been ruled a
constitutional right and while other nations may be shocked by America’s
principles, America is not.
And with the principle
of gun ownership as deeply entrenched as the blasé willingness to pay
taxes for the likes of the XM25, I wonder if it is not a good time to
revisit the double-speak of “collateral damage.”
Perhaps instead of
“collateral damage” and its ability to mute the screams of those not
immediately targeted, some thought should be given to calling
“collateral damage” what it is, namely, “collateral responsibility.” If
the NRA and fellow enthusiasts are willing to assert the universal
principle of gun ownership, isn’t it time to shoulder the “collateral
responsibility” of slaughter on the Umpqua campus?
If I pay my taxes with
the regularity of a good American, how long can I hide behind the
double-speak notion that I am not complicit in the impossibility of
being “very, very sure” that innocents are harmed? Is there a philosophy
or religion that does not deserve equal scrutiny and responsibility?
How long, in short, can I
go on claiming like some third grader that “the dog ate my homework”
and that I get a free pass because my intentions are pure or my flag is
more brilliant than yours?
Roughly speaking a
belief is something that benefits the believer. Principles — as for
example the principles of the Constitution — benefit a wider range of
individuals and demand a self-examination that is not always pleasant.
Believers are a dime a dozen. Principled people do not have it so easy,
since collateral responsibility does not always shine brightly from the
bathroom mirror.
At 75 years old, I am no longer 8. Perhaps it is time to stop insisting the dog ate the homework I didn’t do.
Adam Fisher lives in Northampton and writes a monthly column. He can be reached at genkakukigen@aol.com.
Pretty sure you did post it, just a couple pages back.
ReplyDelete