>>Jeez, can't a body say ANYTHING in these fora without offending someone?<<

Of course not. This is the first decade of the 21st Century, being offended is still a leading recreational activity.

Not offended, really. But, if you "poke fun" at me, you have to expect me to poke back a bit...

Wasn't sure from the broad nature of your first sally whether I was defending the idea expressed, Heinlein, science fiction, fiction in general, or naked women. I guess we've narrowed it down to the idea.

>>It's just that you seemed to be quoting from it like it was the US Army Field Manual, and it ain't.<<

Well, that wasn't the intent. I had mentioned the book many times, and I just thought that the quote might pique a few people's interest enough to actually look at it.

>>The fact is, even the most eager young recruit is going to think twice about opening fire on a numerically superior force when his job is to remain quiet and collect information. He/she wouldn't be sent out on such a patrol unless she/he had learned to obey orders. And if he/she was incapable of controlling her/his emotions to even that limited extent then I suspect her/his commander would be glad to get rid of him/her/it asap. So Heinlein's basic premise - if that's what it was - that a soldier with a gun is more likely to engage the enemy on a solo recce mission than an unarmed one seems to me to be flawed.<<

Here we might disagree. This seems a drastic enough misinterpretation of the actual quote that I have to suspect that you either didn't read it very carefully, or you've consciously misstated his position for the purposes of argument. I don't think that was Heinlein's premise at all.

The point he was making was not about "engaging the enemy", it was about staying alive in what is intrinsically a vulnerable position- in this case, keeping the enemy from engaging you. He wasn't saying that being armed was going to make them charge in like Rambo on crystal meth, he was just saying that you're a LOT more careful when you feel scared and vulnerable, that there are times when it's entirely appropriate and beneficial to feel scared and vulnerable... and you feel LESS scared and vulnerable when you're armed. Just human nature.

FWIW, I pretty much recognized what I think is probably the source of this a long time ago. I'm working entirely from memory here, but I seem to recall that Baden-Powell of Scouts fame related the story of some African tribe where the rite of passage for boys was to be indelibly painted white, with the entire tribe under obligation to try to kill him whenever he's spotted, until the white pigment wore off on it's own. Not only excellent stealth training, I would think, but it would also seem a pretty good way to take the arrogance of late adolescence down a notch or two.

But of course, anyone advocating any "rite of passage" at all in these PC times would be immediately condemned. Is it any wonder we have so many infantile adults?