Mikhail Kalashnikov Passes Away.
- Thread starter Scolar Visari
- Start date
True, though given that the Japanese wanted to keep the territory they'd taken from people who weren't European, and were busily massacring civilians there, that wasn't a very good option.Axolotl said:
Even as it is, I think the M16 family challenges the AK47 for that title. If the US had agreed with the rest of NATO it'd probably have been the FAL.AntiChri5 said:
I remember watching an interview of him and he said he only wanted the AK-47 to be a weapon for those to defend their country with and never wanted to see it used in terrorist attacks or ethnic cleansing in Africa. An understandable view, but it is nieve to assume that the USSR/Russia would have only ever exported that weapon for that purpose.
I think the man can however be praised for his engineering talents- and he can't fairly be blamed for the millions of those killed by his weapon.
I think the man can however be praised for his engineering talents- and he can't fairly be blamed for the millions of those killed by his weapon.
The AKM(a slightly tweaked AK-47) was a marvel because it was essentially a rifle for everyone. Any fool could be taught how to use and maintain it in an hour and it did what an infantryman needed it to do. Its accurate enough for a majority of combat scenarios, its durable enough to be usable in essentially any situation, and its reliable beyond all compare. Its also cheap and easy to manufacture which allows them to be given to every soldier. It was also a huge leap over the last premier service rifle, the M1 Garand, as it had over three times the ammo capacity, was lighter, and easier to use.LetalisK said:
The old, neglected Taliban rifles my friend came across in Afghanistan were so rusty and dirt-encrusted that they commonly emitted a horrible squealing noise when he pulled back the charging handle. Yet they still pretty much fired themselves clear. On at least one occasion, they came into contact with a sharpshooter using an old Lee Enfield with iron sights. They don't make them like that any more, etc.Shock and Awe said:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,545
- 3,490
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Because there are so many of them around it became an iconic weapon. The ak didn't really do anything new, as I said before, the soviets used it as currency so it is everywhere. Thats really the only big deal about it, its common as dirt. If there wasn't an ak then people would have found another rapid fire weapon.Johnny Novgorod said:
Actually there were statements from MacArthur, Herbert Hoover, another general Mc...Mc something..errgh I can't remember and other generals that said the Atomic Bomb was unnecessary after all that previous carpet bombing their current sea strongholds were enough for a surrender.thaluikhain said:
Its still hotly debated but then again, the growing military industrial complex, war cabinet and eager business community had far more puppet string influence over Harry Truman at the time, while Roosevelt comparatively kept the apes in line.
I don't get this. I say he's a particularly nasty merchant of death, people bolt. I say OK, he's just ANOTHER merchant of death, people bolt. Fine. Why do you care about this guy again?AntiChri5 said:
Much good that did.Shock and Awe said:
He is, in no way, a "merchant of death". He invented the AK, he didn't sell it. You could make the argument he was an "inventor of death" i suppose, but not a merchant.
And there is no evidence to classify him as "nasty".
I don't particularly care about him, it just bugs me that people demonize him for no real reason. As a passionate supporter of gun control, it bugs me when people demonize guns.
And there is no evidence to classify him as "nasty".
I don't particularly care about him, it just bugs me that people demonize him for no real reason. As a passionate supporter of gun control, it bugs me when people demonize guns.
hmmm... evil merchant of death? no... can't honestly say that myself since he never really profited personally, nor did he sell the guns himself. Then maybe a patriot whose invention was used for nefarious purposes by the so called "elite" of a corrupt and blinkered system that bankrolled itself upon the deaths of countless people across the world for its own gain? yes.
Did he have a conscience for what his work meant in the wider world? .... ehhhh... that's a grey area, though I suspect he did not even consider himself guilty of any crime(s).
Will I miss him? not really. Don;t miss Mandela, why should I miss Kalashnikov? Their times are over anyway, plenty of corrupt little egotists running around that have inherited the legacies of both these men.
I can certainly say he has made his mark on the world.
Did he have a conscience for what his work meant in the wider world? .... ehhhh... that's a grey area, though I suspect he did not even consider himself guilty of any crime(s).
Will I miss him? not really. Don;t miss Mandela, why should I miss Kalashnikov? Their times are over anyway, plenty of corrupt little egotists running around that have inherited the legacies of both these men.
I can certainly say he has made his mark on the world.
He was a good designer. His weapons worked.
I don't hold him responsible for the deaths caused by his weapons, anymore than I hold Nobel responsible for the death of anyone killed by TNT. He invented the gun for what he genuinely felt were the right reasons - the protection of Russia. That's the long and the short of it. Sure, the guns have spread like wild-fire - I hold the Cold-War leaders of the USSR more responsible for that, as well as International Weapons-Dealers (including many from the US). But him? No. I have nothing personal against the man.
I don't hold him responsible for the deaths caused by his weapons, anymore than I hold Nobel responsible for the death of anyone killed by TNT. He invented the gun for what he genuinely felt were the right reasons - the protection of Russia. That's the long and the short of it. Sure, the guns have spread like wild-fire - I hold the Cold-War leaders of the USSR more responsible for that, as well as International Weapons-Dealers (including many from the US). But him? No. I have nothing personal against the man.
To hate the man, you would have to hate every single weapons designer ever. And to hate every single weapons designer ever would be to hate any need for weapons. Unless you are a COMPLETE pacifist, you recognize that there are some legitimate uses for weapons (for example, the police using a Glock Pistol to shoot an armed robber). Therefore, you MUST logically recognize that SOMEONE has to design those guns and that it is legitimate for them to design such a weapon. To completely hate a weapons designer, you'd have to completely swear off any State from using force for any means whatsoever.
Yes, the AK-47 and its many variants have been used in many conflicts. I can guarantee you 100% that if the AK-47 had never been invented, they'd be using something else, but they wouldn't have stopped fighting. They would have used a different weapon - someone else would have stepped in to fill the gap.
He wasn't designing it to be used by terrorist groups or child-soldiers. He designed it for what I feel is a LEGITIMATE PURPOSE - for the military of his country. The only way you could say that it was a bad thing for him to design that weapon is if you take the COMPLETE pacifist mind-set of never using force for any purpose whatsoever.
If you are a complete pacifist, I wish you luck. You're gonna need it.
(P.S If you are a COMPLETE pacifist, you also have to swear off on calling the police to help you - it's not enough for you to not use force, you can't let anyone else use force on your behalf - seriously, if you are a complete pacifist, living in any nation with a police force that will protect you using force is hypocrisy - go live in the wilderness, advertise that you will not accept police assistance. We'll see how long you last).
Yes, the AK-47 and its many variants have been used in many conflicts. I can guarantee you 100% that if the AK-47 had never been invented, they'd be using something else, but they wouldn't have stopped fighting. They would have used a different weapon - someone else would have stepped in to fill the gap.
He wasn't designing it to be used by terrorist groups or child-soldiers. He designed it for what I feel is a LEGITIMATE PURPOSE - for the military of his country. The only way you could say that it was a bad thing for him to design that weapon is if you take the COMPLETE pacifist mind-set of never using force for any purpose whatsoever.
If you are a complete pacifist, I wish you luck. You're gonna need it.
(P.S If you are a COMPLETE pacifist, you also have to swear off on calling the police to help you - it's not enough for you to not use force, you can't let anyone else use force on your behalf - seriously, if you are a complete pacifist, living in any nation with a police force that will protect you using force is hypocrisy - go live in the wilderness, advertise that you will not accept police assistance. We'll see how long you last).
At the time of the Second World War, this man saw the German SMG's and decided that the single shot rifles that the Soviet Union was using were not up to the job. In doing so, he created a weapon that was incredibly simple and good at what it does that seventy years on, many militant groups still use it. And let's be honest here, if one countries inventions were limited to that country only, we'd be in a lot less advanced state than we currently occupy, so it was inevitable the AK's would fall into the hands of people around the globe.
Mikhail, rest in peace.
Mikhail, rest in peace.