War is Normal:
Another question that many people ask when it comes to this topic is “Why do we have to have wars?” or “Why do wars even exist?” maybe even “What is the purpose of war?” Many people have questioned the value of war, and why it exists within the human system. The answer to that is simple; “WAR IS NORMAL.” As a great philosopher Heraclitus once said;
“War is the father of all,”
War has been around since the dawn of time and it is in human nature to be in constant conflict, be it with his surroundings, with others similar to him, or even himself. It has shaped the thought and ideas of many thinkers, dating back to Aristotle, Kant, Darwin, Marx, and all the way to Freud based on “A Terrible Love of War” by James Hillman (2004).
All throughout history, what have been recorded, other than the times of war? There may be some cases wherein history focused on the “better” things in life, such as music, arts, literature, events, achievements, and etc but, where do history books focus on? Where do the history professors focus on, when it comes to learning about one’s country, and its origins? Majority of them point directly towards warfare, and human conflict. Here are some examples of these history books and other references in our literature that war is very normal; Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’ (A Revered Classical Play), Sun Tsu’s ‘The Art of War’ (A Novel), William Blake’s ‘The Tyger’ (A Poem), and Miguel Hernandez’ ‘Viento Del Pueblo’ (A Poem). As a species that needs knowledge, and has a very iron-hard clasp on the need to find a reason why things work, humans have learned via trial and error. Normally, this process leads to conflict among results or even among the process of achieving the results, often times the idea of what the results may be. After all, “To err is but human.” Take the U.S.A. for example; they have joined in almost every major conflict the world has been in; i.e. World War 1, World War 2, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Cold War, The Gulf War, and The Iraq War. Aside from armament being one of their main products (As you can see, warfare is very normal, so much in fact, that it has become a business), warfare is no big surprise to anyone who has observed history books intently and ultimately seen the pattern.
Flash backward to the Vietnam War, this, being the closest major conflict reference that involved terrain, similar to that of the Philippines. This was the “only war America lost” and it was lost at the hands of untrained North Vietnamese guerrilla ‘soldiers’ armed with AK-47s. America at that time already had the technological advantage with their Napalm bombs, the Helicopter, the M16, M79 grenade launchers, and .60 calibre portable machine guns (Hogg  & Myatt ). Although the knowledge of the terrain played a big factor, the American technologies were supposed to be capable of overcoming this, especially since they also had the help of the South Vietnamese. However, America had still lost that war, though statistically, they had gained since the South Vietnamese were armed with M16’s, and who else was there to supply that weapon to them, but the Americans.
Flash forward to modern times. Majority of the world uses the M4 and several other forces use variants of the weapon, and its family. Majority of the world has at least a city with roads and the Philippines is quickly filling up with cities. If there were a war, it would likely be staged within the cities. Ranges of up to 300 metres would be lowered. The idea is to mimic the Russians back during World War 2, seeing as how ranges would be close; the immediate accuracy would be a little less important than the firepower. As Clint Smith says in his review (Guns Magazine July 2004);
“… [D]ealing with these behind-cover-bad-guys often calls for a gun with a bit more punch than the .223 provides.”
Here he mentions the M4, a .223 calibre carbine and the limitations of its capabilities. Since, in these modern times, majority of the wars are either held in city outskirts and cities themselves, when the target is behind cover, or is hiding behind a certain structure, the .223 cartridge would not be enough to eliminate it. Therefore, if we were to use a firearm of a higher calibre, though functions in similar ways with the M4, having automatic fire, and being shorter than the average rifle, it would be better. Such is the functionality of the AK-47. Although the M14 uses a similarly sized cartridge, the rate of fire would be the limitations. Being only semi-automatic, the M14 would not prove to be an ideal weapon in close range combat. It would be of better use at distance shooting. Sub-machine guns on the other hand use pistol cartridges, which are even weaker than that of the .223 of the M4 carbine. The only alternative would be to use a larger calibre, such as the LWRC PSD, which uses a 6.8mm cartridge, and has the exact same functionality as that of the M4. Aside from that, the LWRC PSD also retains the shape of the M4 granting the user a common feel for the gun, since the current standard issues for a lot of countries is still the M4. Though the prices may be steep, the firearm is likely to be worth the packing punch in the common modern combat scenarios (Based on Discovery Channel’s Future Weapons). Although this (PSD) is a possible firearm that may be used, not many rifles, including this one, can compete with the overall low priced, great efficiency of the AK-47.
* This was a paper I made for school. Please be kind.
** This work spans 25 pages, and could be published as a book, so please again, don’t plagiarize.