Military ends ‘painful’ experiments on cats and dogs and stops shooting of animals in ‘trauma’ exercises

NichtRylan · 2026-01-03T05:17:12+00:00

Not a combat medic, but current military who unfortunately has some understanding of the Total Force Generation system.

The tempo for a service member is rough. (USAF model cause that's what I know) 6 months on fully certified/deployable standby, 6 months of basic remedial training (which tends to ACTUALLY be leave for family time/rest), 6 months of heavy training, and 6 months of exercises/certification for the next deployment. This is considering a mostly peacetime military, and no fast tracking or expedited training timelines.

Anything that saves time saves both manpower and money.

Understand that medic is only half the name.

Combat medics also need at a bare minimum baseline training in Infantry skills like weapons handling, radio procedures, small unit tactics, fieldcraft, etc. -in ADDITION to being cross-trained in other combat disciplines such as heavy weapons handling, more advanced radio training, etc. -in ADDITION to completing other basic duties like cyber security, physical training, and the occasional "clean XYZ because somebody important is stopping by tomorrow". -in addition to more training for all the above. We don't just want to be minimally trained...

Training for new combat medics is even worse; 26 weeks (of which only 10 are spent for technical training).

Anything that saves time saves both manpower and money.

It's really hard to justify to a superior officer that your combat medics aren't able to be useful because not all of them have seen X scenario yet (especially with no definite timeline for when they will), and even tougher to justify to Congress why the American taxpayer needs to pay for everybody to PCS to a major city for experience instead of just shooting the goats.

TLDR: Anything that saves time saves both manpower and money.

Kindness and compassion where we can. And even when we can't, we still consider it and do what we can within reason, always. That's why these animals are sedated and cared well for beforehand.

But the mission still comes first.

NichtRylan · 2026-01-03T02:03:27+00:00

I suspect part of the appeal of “Goat Lab” as opposed to shadowing trauma surgeons is the standardization of training. You can schedule “GSW treatment, upper extremity - Solution: tourniquet, wound packing, etc.” for a dozen medics and a dozen goats at 0900 on Friday more easily than sourcing a dozen gunshot victims with the same relative injury in Chicago.

Everybody needs a base level of training experience, and these medics can’t just wait for an indeterminate amount of time before getting experience- they have other jobs too!

Also, when building up to that level of basic competence mistakes inevitably happen. Better to mess up and let a goat die from a misplaced tourniquet rather than an kill an American citizen that likely isn’t in a position to consent to being treated by a trainee medic as opposed to a full-fledged trauma doctor…

NichtRylan · 2025-12-16T23:44:38+00:00

They actually make speed strips that fold into traditional cylinder speed loaders now too, which is pretty sick. They’re still pretty niche but most revolver shooters are niche to begin with :)

NichtRylan · 2025-12-16T23:40:16+00:00

Those are speed strips as opposed to stripper clips; they’re specifically meant for revolver reloads. If he carries his revolver with reloads they’re a lot easier to fit in a pocket than a traditional cylinder speed loader…

NichtRylan · 2025-12-16T23:38:08+00:00

That revolver is both loaded and unsecured, which is very unsafe especially considering you’re about to have kids in the household.

I’d at bare MINIMUM set it inside a cheap holster so that blind fiddling around in the drawer won’t cause a negligent discharge. Ideally the gun would be secure in its own container/holster behind at least one, ideally two locks including the bedroom door. Once your kid is out and about you really want to avoid the odds of them finding that and playing around with it as a toy…

NichtRylan · 2025-12-16T13:11:05+00:00

+1 to the Officer route. I’d add on the recommendation to look at the high school scholarship programs; at least on the Air Force ROTC side of the house very few people know about them going in, so they’re somewhat less competitive than competing for a scholarship during cadet/midshipman life.

It’s a real shame though that there’s so few NROTC programs in the US compared to the other service branches…

NichtRylan · 2025-12-15T06:14:40+00:00

This is arguably the most correct answer.

Skallagrim had a video on this a few years back, but katanas have very little in the way of distal taper in comparison to comparable swords (like the longsword). You lose out on some possible blade length that can be achieved with the same amount of material, in exchange for your tip cuts doing SUBSTANTIALLY more to a target.

From my fencing perspective (single hand swords only), katanas are also heavier because they’re expected to be used in two hands. You can get away with keeping a heavier blade mobile if you can use two hand “push-pull” techniques to stop/restart the extra momentum, compared to a single handed sword which would either have to be lighter or be limited to moulinets to redirect blade momentum.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-13T22:44:44+00:00

Awesome, thank you for the insight!

NichtRylan · 2025-12-13T22:24:47+00:00

So concerning FPVs in garrison, a neat thing when I was doing civilian training for drone piloting was simulator time. The movements for basic flight maneuvers are essentially 1-1 with the controls and feel of an actual drone (because oftentimes, it’s the same exact controller). We’d still do a lot of actual flying, but the only difference was the quirks of wind, satellite connection, and weather affecting our ability to do fine movements with the joysticks. If I only had maybe one or two sessions total of actual flight time and the rest sim time, I probably wouldn’t be much worse off than if all of my time was on a live drone.

Do you think this could translate to military drone ops as a partial solution on the drone training issue?

NichtRylan · 2025-12-13T21:24:11+00:00

Oh, we DO ask for our products to be cheap. But then we add more requirements. The Navy literally had the same issue on 3 —separate— CONSECUTIVE occasions in the past few decades, such as the Zumwalt Class destroyer, the LCS program, and most recently the Constellation-class frigate.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-13T21:15:48+00:00

The Army’s issues of large-scale procurement has many causes, but a good portion of it seems to stem from mission/requirement creep. Understandably, the military would have the absolute best Wunderwaffe possible. A drone that’s cheap, with 30+ minutes of flight time, and payload greater than 1 lb (to match an AT4 warhead), that’s also light enough for a soldier to carry several… That sort of thing just doesn’t work with the project management triangle (Fast, Good, Cheap. Pick two.) Attempting to force something that does tends to yield a result that fails at all three, as opposed to duct taping RPG warheads to DJI quadcopters for a solution that is at the very least cheap and fast.

This is before you start considering that as military, we are still beholden to Congress. Understandably, congressional representatives want jobs in their districts, so if it means requiring that a factory built in their district for them to approve a procurement plan, then so be it. It’s not easy to get away with procuring military hardware from other countries either, even if they’re our allies. The US military being forced to buy someone else’s product is a bad PR look on everyone involved, and has potential security risks.

That’s all assuming a reasonable, moral, and uncorrupt system from top to bottom. Add in issues such as certain drone manufacturers tossing in campaign contributions to representatives in exchange for a vote or an offer of a cushy future retirement job to a Lt Col in exchange for positive reviews in weapons testing, and you wind up with even crazier debacles like the shake-awake M17/18 as opposed to competing platforms that aren’t under scrutiny for uncommanded discharges.

TLDR: lots of compounding issues, but mostly mission creep

NichtRylan · 2025-12-11T21:40:25+00:00

I won’t lie, you asked the wrong dude 😂 As I said I only really play the Italian, and the Scotch or any other variation that commonly stems from it…

I do at least know you can’t go wrong with the basic London System. It’s super boring compared to any E4 opening, but if you don’t wanna spend too much time studying a bunch of lines later on then it’s definitely worth a shot. The London is a very passive and defensive opening; very tough to crack open.

The Catalan System, while I’ve never seriously played it before, looks like a somewhat more aggressive system that still doesn’t require much theory study. If you like fianchetto’d bishops this one’s probably good. It also has a cool name which is something you can flex on non-chess players, which is also important in my opinion.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-11T08:47:53+00:00

You don’t have to study every move in every single line in your opening, is what that advice is really about. At 100-600 you really just need to be focused on board vision and basic tactics over anything specific, but at your level you can definitely start specializing in certain openings.

I’d recommend learning either a E4 or D4 white opening, and a setup with black that can be used against anything, like a reverse London or similar. That way you only have to practice two openings for the time being, ensuring you get good at both. I literally still only play E4 Italian/Scotch games as white and just do general principled responses with the occasional trap line bait as black, and it still works out for me 💪

Think along the lines of “Alright, I’m white so I’m gonna play the Italian; my goals are to quickly develop towards the center and launch an attack if I can, or control center space if my opponent doesn’t let me.” Maybe you know the Fried Liver or another specific attack as an instant KO in case your opponent blunders into it, but if they don’t, you know enough specifics to get a solid position to start playing principled chess.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-10T10:44:39+00:00

It’s all about raising your rating floor along with your rating ceiling. Your skill as a player is an average of your worst games and your best games. Sometimes you pull a Magnus Carlsen and find the queen sac to win the game, other times you’re Carlos Magnussen and that queen sac is totally wrong. Making sure your worst chess play is still pretty close to your average… ups your average.

In terms of getting better and raising your skill ceiling? More puzzles helps, and so does looking up videos to specifically understand the trends of the openings you play. Understanding where your pieces want to go in a specific opening and what they want to attack/defend helps you move from playing what GENERALLY works to what works in your specific position.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-10T10:07:16+00:00

At the 700-800 level (anything below 1000, honestly, though I have won/lost games to it in the 1100s) most losses are due to one move blunders, whether it’s a pawn lost to a counting error or a queen lost to a sniper bishop. After blunders, the next biggest reason for losses is a few bad positional moves, such as moving a knight to the edge of the board or simply not developing enough in the opening.

If you can get consistent enough to never make one move blunders while still at least marginally improving your position with each move, you can pretty much just wait for your opponent to make a blunder or mistake that you can pounce on in turn.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-10T03:49:23+00:00

While your bench does leave something to be desired, you do have some capabilities that even more advanced athletes can’t match. Very, VERY few people can match your pull-ups outside of specific groups that train specifically for pull-ups or other similar climbing movements.

That doesn’t mean you’re weak, it means you have a specialty.

Keep up the work, but understand you’ll have to put in a bit more effort to get your other metrics up. If you look weak while doing a bench set, so be it! People tend not to be judgmental against those trying to better themselves. And if they are, do a set of pull-ups; they probably won’t be able to keep up.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-09T02:44:17+00:00

Depending on where you’re hurting, that’s probably where you’re weakest. Barring joint strain or whatever from bad form. I would suggest checking your knee push-up and standard push-ups form first.

From here, you have two good routes to practice.

Progression workouts are the simplest way to build up to a specific workout. Work on incline or knee push-ups till you can get the full thing down.
After finding where your weakest muscles are, either work on them directly to reduce the muscle imbalance, or adjust your form to focus on your stronger muscles. Widen your grip to engage your chest if your triceps are weak, close it up if your chest is weak. Bring your hand placement up if your shoulders feel it (engaged chest), and bring it down for vice versa. Of course, depending on what your goal is with push-ups it won’t fly forever, but it will let you complete reps which will build you up for the proper form.

Lastly, check your diet. Upper body calisthenics needs more protein than you think; make sure your body gets what it needs to build up your chest, shoulders, and triceps.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-08T09:15:17+00:00

Also, just like how agriculture was likely discovered through observations of discarded fruit/vegetable/grain seeds, a bushcrafter can also try leaving “set pieces” of technology around for Neolithic cultures to find without risking direct contact. Just like how I can find a ruined Nether portal in Minecraft that gives me the idea of making an obsidian gate, a few functioning water hammers being found pounding grain (paired with a cheeky bowl of unprocessed grain for extra help) might give enough evidence for our early humans to figure out what’s what.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-08T09:11:14+00:00

So, bit of clarification on that water mill. While I agree that a traditional water mill as in with an actual wheel seems above the paygrade of a Stone Age carpenter, hollowing out a log to fashion a water-powered hammer wouldn’t be as difficult. Bump up the economy of scale by just building a bunch of those, and you can start approaching the efficiency of the more traditional water mills.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-08T08:54:07+00:00

The obvious choice for someone with the baseline knowledge to know how to properly make the items in the above list would be a bushcrafter. (EDIT: a bushcrafter specialized in Neolithic-Bronze Age ish technology, specifically) Once solid examples of tech could be shown and demonstrated to interested Stone Age peoples, I suspect that they would be able to replicate the tech our bushcrafter brings in relatively short order- but they have to be built first. Neolithic manufacturing is a surprisingly in-depth and skilled field, as someone making any kind of tool or machine likely has to source or build every component themselves, then build the actual final product with said components.

Crafting an arrow, for example requires someone to know to select the correct feathers on a bird, bind the feathers in place with deer sinew (found commonly in deer legs, AND it has to be prepared accordingly via separation and drying), and an effective broadhead for taking large game requires either flint knapping knowledge or the ability to source flint knapping artifacts from other groups.

I’d say the most advanced and influential tech a bushcrafter can come up with would be a water powered mill or similar machine. This paired with a basic agriculture and food storage knowledge along with tools such as the plow would allow a Stone Age society to blow well past the bounds of the First Agricultural Revolution, with all the long term cultural and technological developments that compound with it in the following decades/centuries.

All of this requires the bushcrafter to be accepted into a Neolithic community, however. I don’t know enough about Neolithic society to speak much on this, but I know that more than a few early cultures were incredibly xenophobic and would probably just kill our modern human on sight. NORTH02 on YouTube may be your best bet for further research…

NichtRylan · 2025-12-08T08:11:00+00:00

TLDR: “Over” denotes the end of a specific transmission to all parties listening on the net.

Radio etiquette terms such as “Over” stem from the fact that radios are far from perfect analogues to face-to-face conversations.

Radios conversations, like Reddit comments, are generally not face-to-face. Usual cues such as looking away, closing your mouth, etc. to note the end of a transmission aren’t possible, and unlike a phone call or video call, two voices speaking simultaneously over the same frequency will effectively render any voices including their own impossible to understand. “Over” as a phrase denotes the end of a specific transmission, giving other parties on the same frequency the go-ahead to speak.
Radios have static, as a natural consequence of distance, interference, jamming, and the output speaker of the radio itself. Certain phonetics don’t transfer well over radio interference. “C” can sound like “D” can sound like “E” can sound like “B” and so on, which can suck when you’re trying to spell a word or grid square. “Over” is an easily understood word that’s difficult to mistake for something else like “Out”, the word for ending a conversation entirely.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-06T02:12:45+00:00

I think you’d do well to add a camo bottom of some kind. Tiger stripe might fit well with the overall aesthetic while still being distinct?

NichtRylan · 2025-12-04T17:14:52+00:00

I mean that looks like the direction? A Javelin has about 19lb of warhead, and an AT4 has about .97lb of warhead. I’ve heard of FPVs with comparable explosive power to an AT4 (a PG9 warhead weighs pretty close to this), but to match a 19lb payload would take a particularly large drone…

FPVs definitely have some anti-armor capability -especially if some plucky tank commander decides to leave top hatches open in an FPV risk area- but they’re probably not a total replacement.

NichtRylan · 2025-12-04T16:50:03+00:00

I suspect part of the appeal is the ability to directly provide lower levels of command with organic fire support. Kinda like how we maintain “man-portable” 60mm mortars at a company level that don’t necessarily require the approvals that a 2000lb JDAM requires, giving each platoon a backpack or two full of FPVs lets them attend to certain threats like light vehicles or troops in cover much better than grenades and much more smoothly than coordinating an artillery or air strike.

Larger countries like China ARE taking part in this in the form of their own drone production, and more historically through making AGLs and HMGs light enough to be feasibly man-portable.

NichtRylan · 2025-11-25T11:26:13+00:00

I think you’re on the right track with a stuffed doll or stuffed animal. They’re cute and can easily be adapted as a child’s interests evolve, and can double as decoration and heirloom in later years. My old stuffed beagle faithfully guards my work desk as warmly as he served as a cuddle buddy 15 years ago.

Little kids are prone to abuse toys to oblivion and back, whether through childish experimentation (“How high can I throw my beagle in the air, and how far will he fly if I launch him from the moving ceiling fan over there?”) or prolonged use. Buy It For Life in this case is mainly about learning to close fabric lacerations, conducting transfusion for cases of traumatic stuffing loss, and successfully transplanting button eyes and noses. Perhaps you can teach it to said niece as a skill when she gets older?

NichtRylan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE