GreatBlueNarwhal

Former Navy small arms development here, and I've got a question. I'm out now; I work in commercial aircraft.

What do you think about the Western arms market? I've always been curious about the varied moral opinions of producers in Western Europe and North America.

From a standpoint of both engineering and morality, would the industry stand to gain from directly interfacing with PMC's? Emphasis on the moral question, because I think that industry could have used some more humanity.

Oh, Lord... Technicals... I've seen some of the stuff you guys cobble together. Impressive field expedient engineering, but ya take one look at it and think, "Armor?" Even 5.56 laughs at 18 gauge sheet metal and fiberglass.

I don't think I worded it well, but I was looking more for your input on the morality of doing so. The classical, knee jerk standpoint is probably to avoid high-end arms proliferation in private forces. However, if what you're saying about PMC's as peace-keeping or stabilizing stay-behinds is true... you guys are going to need material support.

Do you guys see the biggest gap in transport, medical supplies, small arms and munitions, demolitions capabilities...? Heck, I don't even know if you guys get properly fed on the job. What would be the best thing an arms company can produce to help the better-intended PMCs of the world?

So, would a union between PMCs and arms companies be holy or unholy? Would it be a stabilizing, cost-effective method of maintaining some semblance of world peace, or would increased access to arms send us down a slippery slope?

Not sure if I'm getting my question across correctly. Most of this is made of questions I can't really ask the average person. You've got unique experience and perspective, and the engineer in me can't resist gathering data. I'm gonna have to get my hands on your books. Any chance you post lectures?

My father is an anesthesiologist with some whacky specialization in neuro- and cardiological stuff, so I'll pass on his explanation.

First off, my dad isn't the type to demean his nursing staff. He credits them with a lot, so I take his assessment of "they're good, but I'm basically a wizard," as accurate. Granted, we were drinking, which should explain the odd wording.

Nurse Anesthetists are more than qualified to handle the day to day stuff, and the good ones can probably handle some of the really bad stuff. An anesthesiologist, on the other hand, is kept around for the "Holy shit, we just shut this guy's brain off," kind of moments. Anesthesiologists are trained to handle the weird and unexpected, and even use that to their advantage. My father develops nerve blocks and is routinely the first in the nation to deploy new drugs because he's the go-to guy because of his education, attention to minutiae, and the fact that he's a lovable knucklehead compared to the other egos in that level of his field.

An illustrative example would be how the VA just switched completely over to NA's instead of anesthesiologists. My father gave it a 50/50 for "they're either going to save a lot money, or people are going to die."

TL;DR: NA's are very good at following the book; anesthesiologists write the book and are qualified to go off script.

Not trying to step on OP, but the answer flow seems to have slowed.

Athletes exist in a very strange economic bubble compared to other skilled professions. They really shouldn't be compared to any other industry because they don't interact with the economy in the same way. We pay athletes because we want to pay them, whereas other service industries get paid because we need to pay them.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that we don't need athletes, but we absolutely do need doctors. Well, if you want to maintain modern society, that is...

If you’re looking for a proctologist, Dr. Hindsight is highly recommended. A true visionary in his field.