FNG? PSTD?
- Thread starter pax
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Hiss, LawDog 
- FNG means Futile Noble Gesture.
It is a term that starts net wars and was introduced into the self-defense debate by Dave Armstrong. See www.gunrag.com and
you will find his article.
I was part of some of the initial argument on another list.
The idea is do you sacrifice yourself for no gain because of emotion. This starts a tremendous fight. Gabe Suarez and Armstrong have very different opinions as you might see.
It was a topic on Glocktalk where I posted it for discussion. You have a Gabe/Dave debate of titanic proportions.
An example:
You are upstairs in your house, your wife and daughter are downstairs - a team of monsters break in and start assaulting them.
You are clearly outnumbered. What next?
Assume you called the cops.
Do you have guns or not? Swords, Clubs -
what do you charge down the stairs with?
Do you charge down the stairs?
Dave's article makes the situation even more seemingly hopeless.
Armstrong will probably kill me for unleashing another forum on him. He is a good guy even if you don't like his opinion.
But he wrote the article and it gets play for the site.
I'm hoping to have an article on the site myself soon. Fingers crossed.
PTSD is post traumatic shock. While some poo-poo it like Cooper, we now know it is for deadly real and can affect even seemingly big strong types. It can occur if you are a victim or even you successfully defend yourself and righteously shoot the bad guy dead!
A good and easy book is Deadly Force Encouters. I just lent my copy to a local chief who is given a talk on stress to the local recruit class.
There is a new book out - CopShock - on the issue that I'm waiting on.
It is common for folk in manly things or things having to do with bravery to minimize the psychological sequelae of righteous actions. Not so. In fact, right after one of these righteous actions is a good time to do some preventive action. It is also good to know about this stuff before.
- FNG means Futile Noble Gesture.It is a term that starts net wars and was introduced into the self-defense debate by Dave Armstrong. See www.gunrag.com and
you will find his article.
I was part of some of the initial argument on another list.
The idea is do you sacrifice yourself for no gain because of emotion. This starts a tremendous fight. Gabe Suarez and Armstrong have very different opinions as you might see.
It was a topic on Glocktalk where I posted it for discussion. You have a Gabe/Dave debate of titanic proportions.
An example:
You are upstairs in your house, your wife and daughter are downstairs - a team of monsters break in and start assaulting them.
You are clearly outnumbered. What next?
Assume you called the cops.
Do you have guns or not? Swords, Clubs -
what do you charge down the stairs with?
Do you charge down the stairs?
Dave's article makes the situation even more seemingly hopeless.
Armstrong will probably kill me for unleashing another forum on him. He is a good guy even if you don't like his opinion.
But he wrote the article and it gets play for the site.
I'm hoping to have an article on the site myself soon. Fingers crossed.
PTSD is post traumatic shock. While some poo-poo it like Cooper, we now know it is for deadly real and can affect even seemingly big strong types. It can occur if you are a victim or even you successfully defend yourself and righteously shoot the bad guy dead!
A good and easy book is Deadly Force Encouters. I just lent my copy to a local chief who is given a talk on stress to the local recruit class.
There is a new book out - CopShock - on the issue that I'm waiting on.
It is common for folk in manly things or things having to do with bravery to minimize the psychological sequelae of righteous actions. Not so. In fact, right after one of these righteous actions is a good time to do some preventive action. It is also good to know about this stuff before.
One does tend to wonder what criteria is used to determine whether a Noble Gesture is Futile or not. Is it based on the percentile chance of the Noble Gesture succeeding? If it is, what is the percentage where the Noble Gesture becomes a Futile Noble Gesture? 50%? 10%? 90%? How would one factor intangibles such as luck, determination, and attitude into determining the Futility of a Noble Gesture?
'Twould seem, on further reflection, that there really isn't a way to determine the Futility of a Noble Gesture until after the fact.
So, if a Noble Gesture must fail in order to become a Futile Noble Gesture, how can one label a Noble Gesture that never took place as being a Futile Noble Gesture?
What would one call a Non-Futile Noble Gesture? A NNG?
LawDog
[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 13, 2000).]
'Twould seem, on further reflection, that there really isn't a way to determine the Futility of a Noble Gesture until after the fact.
So, if a Noble Gesture must fail in order to become a Futile Noble Gesture, how can one label a Noble Gesture that never took place as being a Futile Noble Gesture?
What would one call a Non-Futile Noble Gesture? A NNG?
LawDog
[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 13, 2000).]
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Let's see - being a stat type, I would would argue for the 5% level. In stat, you reject the null hypothesis if the probability of your result being chance is less than 5%.
I suggest action if you have a 5% or greater chance of coming up with a good outcome.
Now, if you sit down with your computer and to a logistic regression based on the all the factors, perhaps everybody will be dead by
the time you take action.
You have a good point. There is a continuum of risk. When do you decide the action is futile? Folks have prevailed against daunting odds at their own loss.
Recall the Battle of Leyte Gulf and Taffy 3
Kurita steamed through San Bernardino unopposed shortly after midnight on October 25. His depleted but still powerful force bore down on the
most northerly of Kinkaid's escort-carrier squadrons, Taffy 3. A colossal mismatch ensued -- the Yamato and three other battleships, along with
several heavy and light cruisers, against a handful of destroyers and six escort carriers never designed for full-scale battle at sea. Slow, thinly armored,
undergunned, and mostly munitioned with ordnance for tactical air support, the baby flat-tops were sitting ducks. Great green, purple, and yellow
geysers erupted among them, as Japanese shells, with their telltale dye-marked bursts, scattered the surprised American ships. Taffy 3's little carriers
made smoke and dove into a rain squall for further concealment, while the U.S. destroyers brazenly charged the larger and more numerous Japanese
ships. The destroyer Johnston took so many hits from the Japanese gun batteries that one crewman compared it to "a puppy being smacked by a
truck." Eventually, he said, "we were in a position where all the gallantry and guts in the world could not save us," and the order "Abandon ship"
came. A swimming survivor saw a Japanese officer salute as the Johnston slipped beneath the surface.
Would it have been acceptable for the destroyers to flee at high speed?
Later they could have returned to pick up survivors from the little carriers.
I suggest action if you have a 5% or greater chance of coming up with a good outcome.
Now, if you sit down with your computer and to a logistic regression based on the all the factors, perhaps everybody will be dead by
the time you take action.
You have a good point. There is a continuum of risk. When do you decide the action is futile? Folks have prevailed against daunting odds at their own loss.
Recall the Battle of Leyte Gulf and Taffy 3
Kurita steamed through San Bernardino unopposed shortly after midnight on October 25. His depleted but still powerful force bore down on the
most northerly of Kinkaid's escort-carrier squadrons, Taffy 3. A colossal mismatch ensued -- the Yamato and three other battleships, along with
several heavy and light cruisers, against a handful of destroyers and six escort carriers never designed for full-scale battle at sea. Slow, thinly armored,
undergunned, and mostly munitioned with ordnance for tactical air support, the baby flat-tops were sitting ducks. Great green, purple, and yellow
geysers erupted among them, as Japanese shells, with their telltale dye-marked bursts, scattered the surprised American ships. Taffy 3's little carriers
made smoke and dove into a rain squall for further concealment, while the U.S. destroyers brazenly charged the larger and more numerous Japanese
ships. The destroyer Johnston took so many hits from the Japanese gun batteries that one crewman compared it to "a puppy being smacked by a
truck." Eventually, he said, "we were in a position where all the gallantry and guts in the world could not save us," and the order "Abandon ship"
came. A swimming survivor saw a Japanese officer salute as the Johnston slipped beneath the surface.
Would it have been acceptable for the destroyers to flee at high speed?
Later they could have returned to pick up survivors from the little carriers.
On the other paw, we could cite the Torpedo bomber attack on the Japanese carriers at Midway. An attack that was doomed to failure, and did fail rather spectacularly.
However, in their doomed run, they pulled the fighter cover down and allowed a lost group of dive bombers to rain on the Japanese parade (pun intended).
Now, giving that the Torpedo bombers didn't know that the dive bombers would wander by in a while, was their attack still a Futile Noble Effort?
LawDog
However, in their doomed run, they pulled the fighter cover down and allowed a lost group of dive bombers to rain on the Japanese parade (pun intended).
Now, giving that the Torpedo bombers didn't know that the dive bombers would wander by in a while, was their attack still a Futile Noble Effort?
LawDog
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
They did not know they would fail totally. I don't think I remember reading that in the histories.
They thought they had some probability of success, albeit small, don't you think?
All they needed was one or two hits.
Given your analysis, LawDog, they didn't really have the almost certainity of failure
needed for the true FNG.
Torpedo attacks had been successful other times in the war.
Did they think that they were pulling the fighter cover down? They knew that there were multiple attacks on the way. I can't remember.
NOW for Frank - this is a discussion and an exploration of the issue. GRRR!
They thought they had some probability of success, albeit small, don't you think?
All they needed was one or two hits.
Given your analysis, LawDog, they didn't really have the almost certainity of failure
needed for the true FNG.
Torpedo attacks had been successful other times in the war.
Did they think that they were pulling the fighter cover down? They knew that there were multiple attacks on the way. I can't remember.
NOW for Frank - this is a discussion and an exploration of the issue. GRRR!
Claemore70
Moderator
When I was in the army, FNG meant: F**kin' New Guy!
------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
------------------
"Vote with a Bullet."
One motivation for an FNG is absolute self knowledge that you could not live with yourself after the threatened event occurs.
IMO if it is truly futile and can have no effect on the precipitating circumstances, then it is suicide and should be judged as such, stupid weakness. And I can imagine circumstances under which I would do it.
IMO if it is truly futile and can have no effect on the precipitating circumstances, then it is suicide and should be judged as such, stupid weakness. And I can imagine circumstances under which I would do it.
Glenn E. Meyer
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>They did not know they would fail totally. I don't think I remember reading that in the histories.
They thought they had some probability of success, albeit small, don't you think?[/quote]
I'm not sure what they thought. Here's what I know. Counting the torpedo planes launched from the island, only 9 returned out of 51. No hits were scored.
Doctrine was that torpedo planes had to have fighter cover, since their mission required them to fly level, low and slow. Without fighter cover, they were sitting ducks for defending fighters. Despite the lack of fighter cover, they attacked.
Of the 15 2-man torpedo planes in Torpedo 8, 14 were shot down before the 15th even cleared the destroyer screen. The crew of the 15th knew they were the only plane left. Both crewmen in the last plane were wounded. They continued their approach.
I don't know what they were thinking... but I'm glad they weren't debating the utility of "Futile Noble Gestures."
TB., NC
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>They did not know they would fail totally. I don't think I remember reading that in the histories.
They thought they had some probability of success, albeit small, don't you think?[/quote]
I'm not sure what they thought. Here's what I know. Counting the torpedo planes launched from the island, only 9 returned out of 51. No hits were scored.
Doctrine was that torpedo planes had to have fighter cover, since their mission required them to fly level, low and slow. Without fighter cover, they were sitting ducks for defending fighters. Despite the lack of fighter cover, they attacked.
Of the 15 2-man torpedo planes in Torpedo 8, 14 were shot down before the 15th even cleared the destroyer screen. The crew of the 15th knew they were the only plane left. Both crewmen in the last plane were wounded. They continued their approach.
I don't know what they were thinking... but I'm glad they weren't debating the utility of "Futile Noble Gestures."
TB., NC
Steve Smith
New member
FNG=F***ing New Guy
We used it in the military.
We used it in the military.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Just for folk following the PTSD part of the discussion. Just finished reading the Copshock book and it is pretty good one for professional LEOs who have need to deal with the issue as a supervisor, friend or having it happen to them.
It is also a good read for serious students of the self-defense genre. Even though aimed at police, you can get a feel for the aftermath of such an encounter.
It is also a good read for serious students of the self-defense genre. Even though aimed at police, you can get a feel for the aftermath of such an encounter.
Sorry to come in late and stir the pot regarding FNG's, Midway, and Leyte. I am a very amateur history buff, and these battles are my hot buttons. They reflect the courage and tenacity of American fighting sailors. We boomers have never understood that US forces were EVER deployed for battle against a technically equavalent (or better), numerically superior, and much more experienced foe. I don't have the words to fully express my awe and appreciation of those whose sacrifice make possible what we have today. I'll try to recall what Herman Wouk wrote in "War and Remembrance", when defending the valor of US forces in WWII.
Regarding the gallantry of the sailors on the DD's and DE's under Ziggy Sprague, sailing out of the fog and smoke to confront the forces of Kurita: "Our children should be made to read of such exploits, and our enemies would do well to ponder them".
IMNSHO: Halsey was an ass. Kurita threw away the sacrifices made by the northern and southern sacrificial pawns. A tactical victory was at hand, and Kurita flinched. Sprague should be regarded in the same light as Spruance or Mitscher.
Regarding the gallantry of the sailors on the DD's and DE's under Ziggy Sprague, sailing out of the fog and smoke to confront the forces of Kurita: "Our children should be made to read of such exploits, and our enemies would do well to ponder them".
IMNSHO: Halsey was an ass. Kurita threw away the sacrifices made by the northern and southern sacrificial pawns. A tactical victory was at hand, and Kurita flinched. Sprague should be regarded in the same light as Spruance or Mitscher.