During the Reagan administration, I worked for a defense contractor. One of the favorite conversations around the coffee pot was talk about the development of a landmine in another department. The landmine would be designed so that when someone steps on the trigger, the actual mine would pop up a short distance away. The mine would rise to about knee level and then spread shrapnel horizontally. This would effectively take off the legs of the intended target. You will be happy to know that my co-workers were horrified and that the project was later cancelled.
The point is that the maiming and critically wounding troops are often a bigger success for the enemy than an outright kill. There are several reasons for this:
- It takes the soldier out of action, just like death. Soldiers with amputated limbs do not go back into combat. So it is as efficient as death in eliminating troops
- It takes a lot of resources from the military. Soldiers who are severely wounded take up medical and personnel resources. Especially in rehabilitation and further medical treatment. The army has to maintain medical facilities and personnel.
- There is a political-psychological aspect. An otherwise fit young soldier with an amputated limb is very disturbing. Also, the soldier himself/herself may develop animosity for his military service. Just remember `Born on the 4th of July'.
With the advancements of body armor and the efficiency of evacuation to a medical facility within the `Golden Hour', we are seeing less `kills' per attack on our troops. This means less lives are loss. But the amputation of limbs may be a net gain for our enemy.