SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (245299)4/10/2008 10:00:53 PM
From: ManyMoose  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793924
 
Jumping out of airplanes was a successful way to get to forest fires in a hurry, however. Many of the first smokejumpers were conscientious objectors.

en.wikipedia.org



To: LindyBill who wrote (245299)4/10/2008 10:09:35 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793924
 
In the absence of helicopters I think airborne (para-dropped) soldiers played a useful role in WWII. Possibly we shouldn't have had quite as many I don't think getting rid of the whole idea would have been wise. I also don't think getting rid of helicopters (or even just helicopter gunships) would be wise.



To: LindyBill who wrote (245299)4/10/2008 10:32:16 PM
From: Peter van Steennis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793924
 
Lindy:

With all due respect, we really only have one Airborne division, the 82nd. The 101 is air assault from choppers vs dropping by parachute. I think that one division of parachutist, which are fewer in number than the WWII divisions, is needed but can also be deployed as infantry if the situation requires it.

Just another weapon it our bag of tricks.

Regards

Peter