Working as a porter to resist US aggression and aid Korea, in the fifth battle, Li Qiwei of the United States finally discovered the weakness of large-scale and large-depth interleaving tactics, and almost gave the volunteers a fatal blow. Through research, Li Qiwei discovered that the large-depth interspersed tactics of the Volunteer Army and the materials carried by the light infantry can only last for up to 7 days. Later, Li Qiwei came up with a particularly damaging tactic, first indulging the interspersed with the volunteers, deliberately showing weakness, and lure the enemy to go deeper. One month after the fierce fighting, the U.S. military continued to retreat. As multiple U.S. military positions were not knocked out, the PLA’s logistics supply was extremely difficult, and the transportation time of the supply line reached 7 days. At this time, the U.S. military concentrated its superior forces, opened the way with elite armored units, and directly tore open the positions of the volunteers, with the goal directed at Cheorwon. Cheorwon is a core logistics base of the Volunteer Army in the rear. It hoards a large amount of PLA’s materials and is located in a plain area with convenient transportation. If Cheorwon is captured, the volunteers on the front line will lose all supplies and will run out of ammunition and food. Fighting forward, no ammunition, retreat, no food, the destruction of the entire army is the only destiny. Once so many troops are defeated, the US military will win the Korean War. In order to prepare for this killer blow, the U.S. military dispatched a task force composed of the ace main force, the First Cavalry Division, with a total of more than 47,000 personnel, 1,327 artillery pieces, 187 tanks, and 2,000 aircraft. This task force has been hiding in the rear, not participating in any battles, and the whole army will make an assault when the materials of the volunteers on the front line are consumed at seven or eighty eight. There is only one combat goal, and that is to capture Cheorwon, destroy the logistics center of the volunteer army, and then completely divide all the volunteer army surrounding the front line. If it succeeds, this will be another version of the Incheon landing, and the volunteers will fall into a big defeat. After discovering the movement of this task force, the Volunteers immediately retreated. But it takes time to retreat, two legs can’t run on four wheels. It takes a total of 15 days for the volunteers to reorganize the defense line, but the task force only needs more than a day to reach Cheorwon, which is still a plain area, which is especially suitable for the use of American firepower. Only the 63rd army could reach Cheorwon in time, with a total of 25,000 people in three divisions, more than 240 artillery pieces, and no tanks and airplanes. President Peng gave a death order to the 63rd Army, and he must stay at Cheorwon for 15 days. The commander of the 63rd Army, Fu Chongbi, assessed the strength of the enemy and ourselves, and believed that this goal could only be achieved by building a strong field fortification. It takes at least three days to build a strong field fortification, but the US contingent is already at the door. So Fu Chongbi gave a death order to Cai Changyuan, the commander of the 189th Division under his command, that he must hold back the US army for 3 days and allow the 63rd army to repair fortifications. The 189th division has only a few hours to repair fortifications. Cai Changyuan repeatedly calculated the strength of the enemy and ourselves, and found that no matter how he fought, it was impossible to stop the US military. If there is no cover for fortifications, the number in front of the artillery is meaningless. Even if the entire army sacrifices, it may not be able to stop the US army for a day. If the U.S. forces break through the position, the 63rd Army, which is building fortifications in the rear, will cause the whole army to chaos. If the 63rd Army is also breached, the hundreds of thousands of volunteers on the front line are in danger of being wiped out. Even if the entire army of the 189th Division died, it could not stop the American army. But now as a division commander, Cai Changyuan must find a way to stop the US military for more than three days. How to do? Cai Changyuan made a decision like no one before and no one to come after, and brought into full play the characteristics of the Volunteer Army’s ability to gather energy and disperse, making the Cheorwon Sniper War the pinnacle of human light infantry warfare. The 189th Division was disbanded on the spot. It was disbanded into more than 200 small units, which were scattered to a huge area of ​​20 kilometers wide and 25 kilometers deep, totaling 500 square kilometers, and more than 200 simple positions were established. There are only more than 30 soldiers in each position, fighting each. This tactic left Li Qiwei dumbfounded and completely subverted his common sense as a military strategist. Before the battle, Li Qiwei had deduced many possibilities, but he had never deduced this one. The 47,000 U.S. contingents gathered together, 1327 artillery and 187 tanks opened the way, facing a simple position with only more than 30 light infantry. After setting up the position, it only takes tens of minutes for the US military to easily tear this position apart, and it is impossible for the defending volunteers to survive. Isn’t this really going to die? But there are more than 200 positions like this. If you knock them down one by one, three days will have passed by the time the positions are knocked out. The task of Division 189 was completed. This tactic seems very simple and effective. But looking at the whole world, only the volunteer army can use this tactic of disbanding in situ, and it is impossible for the armies of other countries to learn it. Let me tell you about the difficulties involved. First of all, after you adopt this tactic, you are tantamount to telling all the soldiers under you straightforwardly that we are bound to lose in this battle, and the purpose is only to complete the strategic mission. Regardless of whether this task is completed or not, the soldiers on the front line are bound to die, and there is no hope of life. How many soldiers are willing to perform such combat missions? There are more than 200 positions, and each position is separated by a few hundred meters. The first position that contacted the US military was torn to pieces within tens of minutes, and none of the soldiers on it survived. The dozens of positions behind can be seen clearly, but they can’t support them. They can only watch the frontline comrades die. And they also know that the next person who will die is themselves, and they will undoubtedly die. The ordinary army attaches great importance to the first battle of the vanguard. If the first battle is won, the morale will be like a rainbow, and if the first battle is lost, the military will be in turmoil. The 189th Division is now facing the situation that every tens of minutes there will be news of the destruction of the vanguard army. The first position was annihilated, and all the comrades above were dead. The second position was wiped out, and all the comrades on it were dead. The third position was wiped out, and all the comrades on it were dead. . . . In such a situation, the morale of ordinary troops has collapsed long ago, ranging from passive operations to direct surrender. The 189th Division had destroyed hundreds of positions in a row and sacrificed more than half of its soldiers, but still maintained a strong fighting spirit. It successfully persisted for 3 days, leaving enough time for the construction of the rear fortifications. In the end, the 63rd Army successfully held on for 15 days, allowing the main force on the front line to complete the retreat and re-stabilize the position. Li Qiwei had to succumb to such an advantageous combat environment. The US military still failed to complete its combat missions. This completely lost the confidence of the United States in victory and was finally willing to sit down and engage in serious peace talks. In the previous few battles, the volunteers performed what it means to be able to disperse and gather energy. The troops were so fascinating that they easily gathered together to form an encirclement of the US military on a local battlefield, and annihilated the enemy with superior forces. In the fifth battle, the volunteers performed what it means to gather energy and disperse. The troops that have gathered took the initiative to disperse and sacrifice one by one. Through the earth-shaking spirit of sacrifice, the strategic mission was completed. You said that the Volunteers are not afraid of death, it is indeed true that they are not afraid of death. But this kind of not being afraid of death is not a senseless sacrifice, let alone a sea of ​​people charging, but the value of every soldier’s death. Many countries have tried to imitate the Volunteer Army’s tactics that can gather energy and disperse, but they have failed without exception. The combat effectiveness of the dispersed troops has declined sharply, and only a small number of special forces have succeeded. And this fact means that every light infantry unit of the People’s Liberation Army is at the level of special forces when placed abroad. This is why the Chinese army is called the world’s first army, the pinnacle of human light infantry. There is no one before, and it is estimated that there will be no one after. The Volunteer Army’s air force, navy, and heavy firepower are indeed far inferior to the US military, but relying on the advantages of the light infantry, the two sides abruptly tied. Kissinger’s words about China in a BBC interview. China is always protected by a group of brave people.

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
6 months ago

I’m sorry, if this proposition becomes true, then it’s almost certain to happen because: this matter will be fermented in a “network” way and become widely known, because it is almost impossible for the person concerned to agree (not ruled out that there are sages and sages). The possibility) and then the keyboard guys will be violent and use all kinds of extreme pressure. The approximate words are as follows: “If it were me, I would sacrifice myself without hesitation.” “How can there be such a person, how can he? Bear the heart to ruin the lives of one billion of us.” “I wish you family xx, parents xx, xxx, wdxxx” “I don’t want to die, please, go to death” “Look at what he did good things like sh The bl actually dared to live in the world”…Then what this person is forced to commit suicide or compromise most is not thank you but a bloody sentence of “unintentional offense”, “rest in peace”, “doom away” and “RIP” after this person is forced to commit suicide or compromise. Then don’t think about anything that touches Chinese characters. After all, they are forced to go through a ceremony at most, and then those jpx love to live as usual, without paying a price, at most rumor makers (after all, no one After that one billion people will not die, that is to say, this is a rumor) sentenced to three to five years before being released and then shot out, and the major platforms will become hot (the light of the right way) and so on… So returning to the topic, even if the person asking this question has such a little thought in his heart, it is not correct, because when things are infinitely magnified, the shadow of your heart may also be cast into your heart. On the bright side; it took two days to get the most praise I have ever answered a question in history, I am flattered! Let the likes come more vigorously! (Bushi) Of course, from my personal point of view, if I were the chosen person, as long as the following three conditions are met, I will choose to sacrifice: 1. Death is painless and quick 2. Just take the organ or something, and the corpse or something will be done for human dissection (the agreement must be signed before death) 3. Set up a tombstone for me, which says: really bad luck in tn; to be honest, This answer is actually quite sad. The main reason is that when I saw the analysis of ethics, morality and even natural selection by the big guys at that time, I suddenly found such a special entry point, and then wrote such a more true answer. A large part of the answers in the comment section were very frustrating, which made me feel heavy. Maybe my unintentional answer touched everyone’s heartstrings, or maybe the reality I outlined was too heavy and made you feel bad. I just want to say, just take a look, don’t care too much. I read the words in the comment area carefully, and responded to the comments that I was interested in as not as stupid as possible. I try to interpret this question in a relatively objective way that I can personally do. At the same time, there are many relatively subjective comments in the comment area. I’m sorry I can’t reply to you, because once my personal values ​​conflict with you, it may cause controversy. I may not add anything below this answer. If you think my update this time is nonsense, then please forgive me.

heloword
6 months ago

of course can. There are always people who are willing to carry the whole world on their shoulders, even if it is to save one person, they are willing to sacrifice themselves. If you can’t find a saint, and the selected person is not so enlightened and doesn’t want to be a saint, then find some evidence to mark him as a sinner and dispose of him. Executing a sinner can save a billion people by the way, and no one can oppose it. If you are too lazy to collect evidence, or the guilt is not so easy to find, then just let it go, and wait until some people who are willing to dirty their hands do what they should do, and after one billion people have been saved, the executioner can be convicted. Although we tried very hard to eliminate the sinners and save the innocent, we finally did not have time, but in the process we finally saved a billion people. Based on kindness, we pardoned the murderer who had already repented, partly. sacrifice? No, no, you have misunderstood. On the books, unless you voluntarily, there is no sacrifice, only the execution of justice and lateness. After all, justice will always be late at the right time. This is how morality is used.

helpyme
6 months ago

Again, it depends on who I am. If I were that person, I felt that I could voluntarily sacrifice to save more lives. But don’t ask me, if I am ready to sacrifice, I plan to take a comfortable bath, cook a delicious meal, and go out to die after eating. At this time, a few people popped out and asked me to sacrifice, hehe, either you kill me directly or ask the billions to wait for death with peace of mind. After they die, I will accompany them. I know that I am awkward and split, but I can’t help it, I won’t change it.

sina156
6 months ago

Do not ask. It just doesn’t work. If one billion people can sacrifice one person in order to be saved, then 999,999,999 people can sacrifice one person for their own salvation. By analogy, one person can just be saved for their own sake. Sacrifice someone? Very simple logic. The problem of baldness and non-baldness is that there is no boundary, and this problem is that there is no so-called boundary at all. Human rights and human rights shout loudly every day, this issue is not clear? No one can sacrifice another person’s life or right to health for any reason, otherwise the collapse of order will happen sooner or later. This is a qualitative question, and quantity does not change the nature of the problem. No amount will work. Because the qualitative change has already occurred from the beginning of the transaction. But on the other hand. If this person is personally willing to sacrifice himself for the well-being of one billion people, we call this person a hero. These are two different things. Of course, in actual operation, there are really such a large base of one billion people that will indeed cause other problems. This person may also “voluntarily sacrifice” for various reasons. But at least on the surface, this person is voluntary, not forced. Whenever there is a way, in actual operation, it is as much as possible to “no less than one” instead of “sacrificing my happy family.” Sacrificing a part to “save” the majority, there may be nothing left in the end. In addition, if sacrificing this person can save a billion people, this person is incredible in every sense, and I think it might be more useful to keep this person. From another perspective, one billion people cannot find a way to save one person, and these one billion people are too…not to be said, not to be said…

yahoo898
6 months ago

King Jing asked Zheng Yu Guan: “Is it okay to kill a person for the benefit of the world?” Guan said: “No.” King Jing asked: “Why?” Guan said: “It should be the law that kills people, not Want to deprive any innocent person of life.” King King asked: “Killing him can save 10,000 lives, shouldn’t it be done? He is innocent, and 10,000 people are innocent. The innocence of one person, and 10,000 people. Who is heavy?” Guan said: “The same weight.” Jing Wang smiled. The Guan continued: “Killing innocents is harmful to the law of the country. I don’t know the law of the country, but I think it is a matter of course. The ministers worry about the monarch in private.” King Jing said with a serious expression: “How should the widow deal with such a thing? Guan said: “Whoever harms these ten thousand people will be punished. If it is another person, recruit warriors to get rid of him; if it is a group, order the law enforcement agencies to knock it out; if it is a natural disaster, then Fight against disasters; if it is a man-made disaster, go to accountability; if it is a system, go to reform.”

leexin
6 months ago

If “sacrifice” means brain death; “save” means avoid brain death; the correlation coefficient between “sacrifice” and “saved” is infinitely close to one; that is, “sacrifice” means “sacrifice” succeeds, and “do not sacrifice” “Means the complete failure of “rescue”, that is, a person’s brain death means that one billion people can directly avoid brain death, and it means “a person” vs “a billion people”, not as a result. At the beginning, prepare to gradually make concessions to “one person” vs “several people”, or “the inevitable death of one person” vs “the possibility of several people living”, or “the possible death of one person” vs “the benefit of several people” , Etc., then, the answer is certain: yes, and must, and justified. Any doubts and even discussions on the definitive answer to this will not reflect a trace of the so-called brilliance of humanity or rationality at all, but will only further confirm the cognition and rationality of Homo sapiens. If “you” questioned seriously, then “you” would be a fool; if “Kant” questioned seriously, then “Kant” would be a group of idiots. If you want to discuss this kind of vacuum sphere problem, then put on a posture to discuss the vacuum sphere problem. If you want to express your specific position, will, and preferences, then you can talk straight, instead of setting up this shallow thinking game like an idiot. If you really want to do real things, then just take out things that have really happened in real life and are likely to happen again, and then start a discussion about this specific thing and situation. Then it is easy to find that it is impossible to summarize a set of abstract and universal scriptures or statutes, it is also vain, and it is extremely stupid.

greatword
6 months ago

If you understand the land reform, you will know that there is no need to save so many people, but even if a small group of people is sacrificed and a large group is saved, this is justice at some point. This matter belongs to an endless loop, and it can never make sense. You said that a handful of people are so miserable now, many of them are innocent. I can stand on the side of the large army and say that the large group used to be more miserable. How did you not sympathize with us at that time? Are you still not a human being? Then you will never be able to explain, because even if the people of the country vote for one person, one vote, you should also be shot. The so-called justice, in my opinion, exists in a vacuum environment, such as movies and novels. Because the author in there can be responsible for debugging, and many things will happen naturally. For example, you want the heroine to be with the heroine, and the heroine still has a rival in love. Then you seem to be indiscriminate if you forcibly push in. That way is to write the rival of love as a bastard, it seems extremely reasonable for your third party to intervene. But in reality, there are so many justices. You feel that sacrificing one person to save more people sounds a little unacceptable. It’s just your petty bourgeoisie’s naive morality, not even the big bourgeoisie. Therefore, sometimes there is no reason to speak, as long as enough people listen to your theory, so many people have the right to speak, then you are just. Saying to Guo Degang, “Two cross talk actors confront the street, and whoever beats the other to death is the artist.” Poor lives and tricks, prosperous conscience. This truth alone does not hold true, because many grandsons who are unkind and rich are still alive. But putting it in a larger environment is a relatively reliable trend, because the less resources are scarce, the more you can treat others as human beings. Anyone who has raised cats and dogs at home knows. Animals are like this. What’s more, it’s an advanced point.

loveyou
6 months ago

Don’t you know that humans often do such things? All countries do it. There is common sense in civil engineering construction, and large-scale projects will have a sacrifice rate. It is known that workers will sacrifice before the start of construction, but after the completion of the project, it will be good for the country, society, and the people. Leaders don’t also do it with a swipe of a pen. If it means naming a certain person and sacrificing a certain person in exchange for economic benefits (note that it is only economic benefits, not a billion lives), everyone feels morally ashamed. If it is to randomly sacrifice a few people who are uncertain in advance in exchange for larger economic benefits, don’t the leaders of various countries, provinces, and cities often do this kind of thing? There are several variables here: the number and importance of the sacrificed (the smaller the number, the more willing to sacrifice) the size of the benefit in exchange (the greater the benefit, the more willing to sacrifice) Whether the sacrificed person is determined in advance or is it God Random (the stronger the randomness, the more willing to sacrifice) The comments are so accurate, and some people say that they are not written on the file. I’ll just ask the few masters, if you are a leader, the mega project in your jurisdiction will be launched, and you are a good official, not a corrupt official. The civil engineering master in your city said that even if safety measures are in place, migrant workers will still die. And based on your years of experience in your Huahai career, it is also estimated that something will happen. Excuse me, do you start or dismount the project? Suppose you are the president of a small African country and suddenly discover that there is a large amount of coal under the ground. Others tell you that something will happen in the mining process of your country. Can you dig? You are a good president, don’t you have to continue to develop coal mines? According to the actual political experience of mankind, leaders of various countries, provinces, and cities know that when large-scale projects are launched, they will die.

strongman
6 months ago

It depends on where you stand. If I were the one who was sacrificed, if among the billion people saved, there are people whom I value very much and value more than myself, or I value these billion people a little bit. Putting them together, the weight will exceed Myself, I will sacrifice myself to save them. Not if it is a stranger who has nothing to do with me. In other words, if I were to sacrifice myself to save one billion Chinese people, maybe I would be willing, because I don’t want my own people to perish. If it’s one billion foreigners, emmm, just leave a little Japanese and continue to draw anime. Others I don’t care about the life or death of the person. If I am one of those billion people, then I certainly hope that someone can sacrifice himself to save me, unless that person is extremely important to me, and I want him to live rather than live by himself. If the person who is sacrificed is someone I fully recognize, such as a completely close friend, a firm emotional partner, or a close relative, then it won’t work. Whoever wants to sacrifice him, I will take him to take refuge. The ends of the world. Let alone one billion people, I hope the whole world will bury him with him, haha, I just protect my shortcomings. If I am the ruler, it depends on whether one billion people are my people. One billion foreigners will not let me sacrifice a native, unless it is a prisoner who is going to be executed. If I am the ruler, one billion people are my people, and the one to be sacrificed happens to be the person I identify, then there is a real dilemma. How will I choose? I’m not so sure either. It is estimated that I will protect these one billion people. After sacrificing the one I love, I will take care of the funeral, and then go with him. There is no way to seek politics in his place.

stockin
6 months ago

My original intention to raise this question was to read another question, “Can you save a hundred people at the expense of one person?” I want to see when the scale of the comparison object changes, the conflict between moral standards and social interests becomes even greater. Severely, will everyone give different answers. Many high praise answers are well written, and I also have some personal opinions here. I welcome your criticisms and corrections. Morality emerges with the emergence of human society, regulates people’s behavior, and maintains the normal operation of society. But morality does not represent absolute justice, it protects the overall interests of society. Morality also has its applicable conditions and scope. Only where there is a human society will there be morality. Morality serves the human society, and the standards of morality are constantly evolving as the social environment changes. The moral standards formed in a certain social environment can only solve the moral problems that arise in this social environment. If the social environment changes, or the problem itself transcends the social environment, it will conflict with current moral standards. The scenario assumed by the title is too ideal and extreme, and will not appear in our current social environment. It will naturally conflict with our current moral standards. But no matter how the social environment and moral standards change, social existence is still a prerequisite for moral existence, and morality is a tool to serve society. If moral standards and the overall interests of society have a violent conflict, and even threaten the development and survival of human society, then this Moral standards are not applicable to the current social environment. If the cost of observing morality is much higher than the cost of violating morality for the whole society, people will often violate morality and redefine moral standards. The cruel thing is that if a specific person is really needed to sacrifice, whether he wants it or not, it is difficult for him to have a second choice. Fortunately, if someone really needs to sacrifice, our world will never lack heroes. When I look at Jin Yong’s works, I see some passages that highlight the heroic complex, which is often very touched. “The great man is for the country and the people.” Our society needs a hero like Guo Daxia. It is precisely because of society’s dissemination and recognition of these positive values ​​that there are also many heroes in our society. If there is an opportunity to sacrifice the ego and become the greater ego, it may not necessarily be your turn. If I were chosen by my friends to sacrifice, it would not be too bad. After all, there are not many opportunities to have such a bright moment in my life. Finally, I really don’t want to assassinate Trump when I raise this question!

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x