(And a more general problem here is that the general public -- and the media -- is generally ignorant of even the most basic statistical concepts.)
The issue is that - fair or not - these people made a commitment to the U.S. government and its people. Part of that commitment entails keeping themselves in the best possible shape to act at a moment's notice to protect the constitution and yada yada yada. (The so-called "military owns your body" argument.) So it's not a problem with sex, it's a problem with soliciting prostitutes - not exactly nature's perfect specimens of health. That these are people in high positions of authority makes it worse.
Look at it this way - Imagine you're playing chess. If one of your pawns suddenly gets AIDS, you can lose him, even though it affects the overall battle worthiness of your troops. Now imagine you lose a knight. Significantly greater impact. And it's not like they're bringing prostitutes back to the safety of the barracks; they're going into seedy areas and putting themselves at risk of kidnap or attack.
I'm not condoning what the military is doing in this situation, nor am I saying it's wrong. After reading the linked articles, I don't have enough information to form even a knowledgeable opinion on the matter. I'm just addressing why it would be bad to let soldiers fuck any filthy thing they want in their downtime.
I spent some time out in Angkor Wat and the surrounding areas just a few months ago. Beng Mealea was by far my favorite because it was the least molested and commercialized. Cambodia is in a period of economic transition and they are starting to amass the kind of discretionary wealth necessary to properly protect their proud history. Sadly, most of it has been destroyed and/or looted over the years and there is little they can do about that.
As for your hope, I can pretty much assure you that the area where they re-discovered these ruins is so far away from any place that would need a real road that you needn't worry...
This is kinda like Nokia pinning their company future on Windows phones -- if nobody bought them, it was Nokia left holding the bag.
I would disagree because it's not like Nokia had many other options. They were quickly being phased out of the market, suffering massive losses, when they decided to gamble on Microsoft's phone platform. The amount of time it would have taken them to develop a new operating system and/or next-gen Symbian would have guaranteed their continuing loss of market share for at least a couple more years.
Nokia had to gamble on either Microsoft or Google. Microsoft is the one that came to the table with a ton of cash to boost joint development of the new endeavor. At the end of the day, Microsoft had/has just as much - if not more - to lose than Nokia.
To be honest, I was trying to think of an answer to this question and couldn't come up with anything.
I've been using Photoshop since it first came to Windows in the early 90s. Never looked back. I did try PSP early on, but there was a huge feature gap. I've heard that gap has been narrowed considerably, with 90+% of common features. I used to be a graphic designer and Photoshop was (is?) the de facto standard. You almost had to buy it just to be able to open other people's files. That meant, however, that you could easily get help with learning techniques, wide availability of plugins, etc.
I no longer work in the industry, but I still open Photoshop at least twice a week to tweak something. Familiarity is my main reason for sticking with Photoshop. Not sure what I'll do when the new SaaS model goes live...
As a parallel, here in America, we have a ridiculous war on drugs. The same argument has been made that criminals get their drugs regardless of the laws. I'm actually in favor of decriminalizing 99% of drugs and legalizing 5% of them for the tax revenue. You could end the illegal drug trade overnight. (Hyperbolically, of course.) If people have free access to drugs, they have the right to choose what harm they may or may not do to themselves. Obviously, individual gun use has a far greater potential for hurting others than individual drug use. We have to at least be realistic about that.
I disagree that this doesn't need attention, and here is why. I agree that criminals will always ignore laws and have access to whatever they want, but what about children? Consider a depressed 13 year old, surrounded by responsible adults, who has no access to a gun. Said 13 year old is highly unlikely to have the machinery or skill-set to homemake a gun. If this kid has access to a 3D printer, however, suddenly he/she has access to a deadly weapon - that can harm not just themselves, but others, too - with just $100 in Internet-sourced parts. 3D printers will become more prevalent in the near future. I'm not suggesting that the government try to restrict their sale or use. I'm simply acknowledging a potential problem and asking why they aren't considering what we can do to help prevent unnecessary tragedy down the road.
I'm not looking for new legislation, just better enforcement of existing legislation, with a possible amendment to recognize new technologies that could affect the access of weapons to children.
"You show me an American who can keep his mouth shut and I'll eat him." -- Newspaperman from Frank Capra's _Meet_John_Doe_