I just started a similar med for controlling my blood sugar, it uses a pen the size of our NBC drugs. The officer is the forerunner to the PowerPoint Ranger.
Anyone else ever hear the rumor/myth/military urban legend about the soldier who used his protective mask carrier as a pillow, while carrying with live atropine injectors, and popped himself in the brain stem or some such other horrid shit?
Atropine works the same with Novichok as it does with other nerve agents, but it's much harder to detect in time for the atropine to do any good. However, chemical weapons (even very lethal ones like Novichok) are ineffective against modern mechanized forces; Novichok's main use seems to be more of an assassination or terror weapon than something you'd encounter on a battlefield.
@@remalm3670 The fact of the matter is that chemical weapons just don't have any place in modern warfare; they've spent the last century being a solution in search of a problem. Anything gas can do, conventional weapons can do better; we learned that in WWI, where gas totally failed to break the stalemate, whereas tanks and maneuver warfare succeeded. Gas is easy to defend against compared to conventional weapons; a full protective suit is cheaper than a rifle. Even under ideal conditions, chemical weapons just don't produce that many casualties compared to conventional munitions; even highly-lethal modern chemical weapons like Novichok just aren't worth the effort. (Speaking of Novichok, Russia only seems to be producing the stuff in small batches for espionage purposes, rather than the thousands of tons that would be needed for chemical warfare--evidence that they arrived at the same conclusion, that chemical warfare is idiotic in the modern day.) Chemical weapons just aren't _good_ for anything except being scary, which is why so few countries have used them in living memory. The blog _A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry_ has an posted an article about this subject in more detail, titled "Collections: Why Don't We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?"; I can't link it directly or RUclips will eat this comment, but I'm sure you can find it on your own.
@@yetanother9127 ... so what you're saying ... you've never seen combat, let alone spent anytime in a NBC suit ... and I said an NBC suit, I didn't stutter ...
@@remalm3670 You realize all this information is public knowledge, right? I don't need to have been personally nerve-gassed to be able to tell you what the rest of the defense community already knows about chemical warfare.
This brings me back to CBR training......
*No problem Today's recruits are knowledgeable in injecting one's self with needles.*
Man I'm glad they had the auto injector when I was in 😉👍👍🇺🇸
I just started a similar med for controlling my blood sugar, it uses a pen the size of our NBC drugs.
The officer is the forerunner to the PowerPoint Ranger.
Good History - the new auto injectors the needle is longer and the thigh muscle still hurt the next day after training
My favorites are the guys with full sleeve tattoos who are afraid of needles.
Fascinating!
8:39 Imagine sticking yourself with one of these and then your voice goes higher
Anyone else ever hear the rumor/myth/military urban legend about the soldier who used his protective mask carrier as a pillow, while carrying with live atropine injectors, and popped himself in the brain stem or some such other horrid shit?
Which ever one I had with my luck I would drop it and step on it.
... Wonder what the antidote for Novisok is ...
Atropine works the same with Novichok as it does with other nerve agents, but it's much harder to detect in time for the atropine to do any good. However, chemical weapons (even very lethal ones like Novichok) are ineffective against modern mechanized forces; Novichok's main use seems to be more of an assassination or terror weapon than something you'd encounter on a battlefield.
@@yetanother9127 ... "are ineffective against modern mechanized forces" ... famous last words ... (are you a recuiter?) ...
@@remalm3670 The fact of the matter is that chemical weapons just don't have any place in modern warfare; they've spent the last century being a solution in search of a problem. Anything gas can do, conventional weapons can do better; we learned that in WWI, where gas totally failed to break the stalemate, whereas tanks and maneuver warfare succeeded. Gas is easy to defend against compared to conventional weapons; a full protective suit is cheaper than a rifle. Even under ideal conditions, chemical weapons just don't produce that many casualties compared to conventional munitions; even highly-lethal modern chemical weapons like Novichok just aren't worth the effort. (Speaking of Novichok, Russia only seems to be producing the stuff in small batches for espionage purposes, rather than the thousands of tons that would be needed for chemical warfare--evidence that they arrived at the same conclusion, that chemical warfare is idiotic in the modern day.)
Chemical weapons just aren't _good_ for anything except being scary, which is why so few countries have used them in living memory. The blog _A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry_ has an posted an article about this subject in more detail, titled "Collections: Why Don't We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?"; I can't link it directly or RUclips will eat this comment, but I'm sure you can find it on your own.
@@yetanother9127 ... so what you're saying ... you've never seen combat, let alone spent anytime in a NBC suit ... and I said an NBC suit, I didn't stutter ...
@@remalm3670 You realize all this information is public knowledge, right? I don't need to have been personally nerve-gassed to be able to tell you what the rest of the defense community already knows about chemical warfare.