Learning the lingo

In our discussion group we were talking about various military terms and concepts, particularly acronyms, which make it difficult sometimes for the layman to make sense of what is being said. Acronyms, which the military LOVES, are a particular pain in the neck. In the main, these are pretty obvious, eg., SAM (Surface to Air Missile), ICBM (InterContinental Ballistic Missile), C2 (Command and Control), or relatively straightforward to work out, eg., PGM (Precision Guided Munition), UAV (Unmannned Aerial Vehicle), but sometimes they can be pretty arcane/bizarre, eg., APFSDSDU, LANTIRN, C4I2SR, etc. It's useful to absorb some of this lexicon; in general, however, ignore the roccoco ones--they're often esoteric, change rapidly, and there's THOUSANDS of 'em! If you're really stumped and need to know you can check this glossary.

It's vastly more important that you familiarize yourself with military concepts for which this department of defense Dictionary of Terms is somewhat useful, if limited--the definitions are occcasionally sphinx-like in their terseness. What you really must do, if you've no direct military experience (actually, even if you do), is to read military history--lots of it. In the meantime this National Public Radio site is a good primer. There are some good interviews at the end too.

And don't be shy about encyclopaedias either. As I mentioned in an earlier post on Wikipedia they are often a good place to START your research (just don't end it there). You should all be very, very familiar with the ISS website by now. Have a look there now; this time click on 'databases'. Then search for 'Oxford reference on-line'. Go there with your Athens password. This is a very handy resource. You can just do a 'quick search'. For example, try searching for 'Revolution in Military Affairs'. The first hit should be an article in the Oxford Companion to Military History on 'Military Revolution'. Take a shufti.

Go back to the main page. You'll see subject references: military history, history, politics and social sciences, are all useful for us. But there's more: maps, quotations, dictionaries... I find the Timelines quite a useful reminder of the grand sequence of events. What I like particularly about on-line encyclopaedias is the ease with which linkages between concepts can be seen and explored. You start looking for Revolution in Military Affairs and three clicks later you're reading about the battle of Cunaxa. The on-line Oxford Companion to Military History is supremely handy in this respect.

Why is this important? Well, it's likely to contribute to your grade obviously. But it can also help you to look incredibly superior by pointing out the incredible incredulousness of many professional journalists do when talking about military matters. This is an important social service for you as specialists and also rather fun. Theo, in a recent post about the Korean nuclear test being a dud (which, incidentally, I bloggged yesterday. What's up with that Theo? You've got to be quicker with your blogbutton). I think this article describing a street battle in Kifl (via One Hand Clapping) is a lovely example of gullibility in action:

The officers said the tank unit fired two 120 mm high velocity depleted uranium rounds straight down the main road, creating a powerful vacuum that literally sucked guerrillas out from their hideaways into the street, where they were shot down by small arms fire or run over by the tanks.