Post Punk Kitchen Forum

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/science/05dog.html

Most curious passage to me: "A Silver Star, one of the Navy’s highest awards, was awarded posthumously in 2009 to a dog named Remco after he charged an insurgent’s hide-out in Afghanistan." The Silver Star (a very high award) is given for valor in the face of the enemy. What does it mean for a dog to be acting valorously?

I would think it means the same thing as it does for a human: courage or determination in the face of danger. Without touching on the issue of using dogs in the military, I think it is very possible for dogs to demonstrate valor.

I am a news junkie who was reading about all the intrigue over the SEALs mission to kill bin Laden, and discovered Yahoo had linked to a photo essay by Foreign Policy Magazine called "War Dog."

It's some interesting stuff, for example:

I bring this up because I am curious to know what the different sorts of PPKers have to say about the topic.

Supposedly the dog was strapped to a SEAL and lowered from a helicopter, and was used in case they needed to track Osama bin Laden. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/0 ... 58050.html

As long as the dogs are well treated (and not just abandoned in a foreign country when their tour of duty ends (as you reference above) and given vet care etc, I don't find it as repugnant as many of the other crappy things we do to animals.

Yeah, why not? Dogs can be brave.

There is another thread on this topic (with some cool pictures) here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10242. Perhaps a mod could combine them?

We treat war dogs MUCH better than the Soviets did during World War II. When it became pretty obvious that the Nazis were going to use tanks to invade the Soviet Union, the Soviets decided to train dogs as sort of living anti-tank munitions. They did this by training their dogs to run under tanks by basically keeping them hungry and only feeding them under tanks. The effect of this was that when the dogs saw a tank they'd run underneath them looking for food. At that point, the bombs strapped to their back, which had contact triggers pointing upward, would explode. This wasn't particularly healthy for either the crew of the tank or, you know, the dogs.

The problems were that German tanks were moving and firing while the dogs were trained on tanks that stood still, and the dogs weren't stupid, and either didn't run for the moving shooting tanks (and got shot) OR gave up and ran back to the Russian trenches and blew up the Russian soldiers. (You could say "Serves them right!" but consider that they were also hungry and underequipped and basically expected to die for their country.) Or, navigating by smell, they ignored the gasoline-fuelled German tanks and instead headed straight for the diesel-fuelled Soviet tanks under which they'd been trained...

At least US military dogs are treated and equipped well and not just used as 4-legged suicide bombers...

Whoa! Great history tidbit!
Can you recommend reading material for that?

Edit: P.S. I am sorry I didn't search before posting. It didn't occur to me to look in The Parlor.

Doggles!

That is all I have to say on the topic.

Mat.

Of course dogs can show valor! Also, I'm willing to bet they're treated quite well (jumping out of a helicopter aside) and are very much appreciated.

I have philosophical problems with involving nonhuman animals in human conflicts. They can't really consent, their conflicts aren't our own... But yes, I do think that these animals are probably treated better than many working animals.

At my husband's previous base they trained dolphins to swim in the ocean around base and investigate intruders, for example. I don't totally agree with this but I'm sure their lives were better than those stuck in an aquarium... but maybe that's a false dichotomy. I don't know. My objections to the whole thing are mostly philosophical.

Yea, the lack of consent is a huge deal.

Dogs can definitely be brave, facing danger and pain without relenting. War sucks for everyone that isn't safely getting rich off of it.

I realize this appears to have been brought back up by a spammer but I figured I'd comment anyway.

I got to hang out with some of the USMC and British working dogs when I was over in Afghanistan. The British would let non-handlers play with the dogs and take them on walks to give the handlers the opportunity to catch up on sleep from time to time. It was a really cathartic exercise to get to hang out with dogs while so far from home and my furry family. The USMC dogs were kept in a climate controlled building with individual kennels but minimal toys/materials. I ordered a giant box of toys for the handlers to play with the dogs with which seemed to be pretty appreciated by the military guys and the dogs. The British dogs had some pretty neat kennels, half open air chain-link and the other half was a small shed with a/c and a doggie door that they could move in and out of whenever they wanted. They were all segregated from each other but they could hang out on the walks and during play time as long as there was one person around and assigned per dog to manage them.

I can say for sure that the handlers truly are bonded to their dogs, and the dogs to them. It's still troubling to me that we put dogs in these circumstances, but they do save lives, it's not justification, but they are at least effective in doing what they were sent to do vs just being sent over there as some fun and games experiment. The one huge takeaway that I got from the experience was the desire that the USMC (and whole US military) would follow the lead of the British military and primarily use rescue dogs. Most of the US dogs come from training programs that exclusively use select breeds, whereas the British dogs were frequently from rescues (though they did focus on specific breeds as well).

They rotate the dogs out of country at different rates, I think 2 years was the maximum (with I believe a year minimum back in their home country to recuperate) and they would remove dogs sooner if they failed to perform or showed signs of psychological distress. If I remember correctly after maybe 6-7 years of service, the working dogs were retired and adopted out, with the handler getting first preference, other veterans coming second, and civilians coming third.

Word, and I'm not pro military to begin with. Although comparing to boyfriend's war stories, sounds like they get treated better than some human combat vets.

I missed your comments about the dolphins before. I read recently about a big move toward robotic semi-submersibles to get away from dolphins, so there's hope yet!

Here's a story on the subject: http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/3653028/navy-dolphins-sea-lions-mine-knifefish

I hope the Russians LOOOOOOOOOOVE their puppies too.

Luckily I don't know that song well enough to have it stuck in my head now.

Anyway, they seem to:

http://englishrussia.com/2012/03/13/how ... -the-army/

(Warning: Mysterious pigeon parts in a jar about a third of the way down, because Russia.)

I like the poop charts.

Oh right so the hubs was with a guy in Afghanistan (or Iraq - I forget now - he's been both places) who had a military dog and all the guys loved him so much and I know he was well cared for.

Now just don't get me started on what happened to the local puppy the hubs adopted because you don't want to know - I'll just say some locals killed his dog and leave it at that.