[thegamexpertsdotcom]

I was thinking about this, today (my mind wanders), and I'm wondering what people think about it. Please don't be side-tracked about the current theaters and the politics involved. This is a generic combat setting.

War is said to be hell and all that and many times you are put in a situation where it's kill or be killed. That's more understandable, yes? You are out on patrol or troop movement and you encounter the enemy. You kill them before they kill you. It's almost like a grand scale battle of self-defense.

Now take strategic strikes. You are killing someone w/o being in any eminent self-danger. You just push a button and kill a person.

I'm not saying that these things don't need to be done and that war shouldn't have these types of things. That would be stupid and a sure way to lose. I'm just curious about what that does to a person. You aren't in the heat of the moment. You aren't in danger where it's a kill or be killed. You are calculatingly ending someone's life.

Of course any killing of a human does something to people (especially when it's something that you do over and over) but do different situations have a different effect on the human psyche?

[MilenaMKB]

Of course any killing of a human does something to people (especially when it's something that you do over and over) but do different situations have a different effect on the human psyche?

I think so. However, having never been in a 'push button' scenario, I cannot say with certainty. Closest I came to something like that was being in a unit that called in arty and air strikes on targets, and even then it wasn't me calling it on. I just watched.

Still, there is something to be said for being at the so-called 'pointy end of the spear'. Watching the results of your actions, and those of others, in the flesh.

[accotMask17]

I've never been in that scenario, either. My role is support oriented. What really seems like would be rough is the job of a sniper. I read the book Marine Sniper and it goes into that a little bit and how it wasn't easy for people to do. That type of killing is very personal and yet you have to be impersonal about it.

Carlos Hathcock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[spapsinee]

I've never been in that scenario, either. My role is support oriented. What really seems like would be rough is the job of a sniper. I read the book Marine Sniper and it goes into that a little bit and how it wasn't easy for people to do. That type of killing is very personal and yet you have to be impersonal about it.

Carlos Hathcock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agreed. It is almost like snipers form a bond with their targets. As you know, I've served in a line unit. Fighting there can be up close and personal, as well as ranged. Still, when the fighting is up close, it is quick and violent. You don't study your enemy, per se. Certainly not in the same sense as a sniper does.

[Tusethede]

Wow, deep and fascinating topic. I'm impressed.

I would say, though, that soldiers like you who have seen the elephant are in a better position to deal with these questions than those of us who haven't been there. That's especially true when it comes to the impact of killing on the soul. I just don't have anything to say on that worth saying; it would all be speculative air, so I'll leave it to those who know.

In terms of morality, I would say that there are two different moralities involved, or maybe three: from the soldiers point of view, the general's, and the politician's.

From the soldier's point of view, once you're in war you do what you have to in order to win. The only killing in war that's immoral is one that doesn't contribute to victory, needless killing. Rare for that to be clear-cut; the murder of Jews in Russia by SS troops qualifies obviously, and the slaughter of Vietnamese villagers by Lt. Calley and his platoon. A lot of the time it's more gray than that; when in doubt, do it. But that's once you're in war. Back before that is the question of whether to be a soldier in the first place. But I'll get to that in a minute.

From the general's point of view, the same thing applies. Strategy should be chosen with a view to winning most effectively and quickly, with a minimum of needless killing. A general's in a better position to do this than an ordinary soldier. One thing: if it minimizes deaths on the enemy's side it probably minimizes deaths on yours, too. If you can cut the enemy off from supply, put him in an untenable position, get him to surrender, that minimizes casualties on both sides. A decision like Hitler's to hold onto Stalingrad to the last man is an immoral general-level decision; that resulted in a lot of deaths both Russian and German that were completely unnecessary. (It also cost Germany the war, probably, which makes it even worse.) A decision like Truman's to use nuclear weapons on Japan is hard to evaluate because there are arguments that it WAS the most casualty-light option, in terms of both American and Japanese dead. A clearer example, though, is Roosevelt's "unconditional surrender" policy applied to the enemy in that war which made the use of nuclear weapons needed at all; Japan was on the ropes and would certainly have made peace, given remotely reasonable terms.

The most basic moral questions of war involve the politicians, and because we live in a democracy, all of us as voters. War is always wrong. What I mean is, war should never happen. When it does happen, somebody at the political level has done something wrong, on one side or the other. Someone was an aggressor. Someone started it. That political leader was in the wrong. As voters or as politicians, we have a moral duty to make sure that our own leaders never do that. This is a duty that, over the centuries of our nation's existence, Americans have not performed very well at times. Of course, we're hardly unique in that respect. If we were, war would be a new thing in the world.

This brings us back to the question of whether to be a soldier. If I were of an age to consider that, I would evaluate it based on the morality of the wars my country pursued. Are they, for the most part, wars of aggression, or not? Are they ones we shouldn't have fought? There are too many times when I must answer that question in the affirmative, and so at present I would not be a soldier. I made the same choice in my youth, during which we were fighting in a war I considered utterly wrong and immoral. (Well, actually we weren't by the time I was 18, but it was a burning moral question a few years earlier and that colored my perceptions of the matter.)

I would also say that when a country is behaving morally in terms of war, it seldom has need for a lot of soldiers, and when it does the danger to the country is obvious. When it needs to maintain a very large standing military force, that's a sign that it's doing things it shouldn't be doing.

[thighikergove]

I've never killed anyone, but I've hung with quite a few guys who have.

Based on that very limited "exposure" I'd say it's a completly personal thing.

I've talked to snipers from the present conflicts who seemingly have no regrets or concerns. Same thing with guys who have killed with bare hands.

I've talked to guys who called in arty during DS/DS and they were still fucked up over it years later.

I've heard of guys remotely piloting UAVs who have legitimate cases of PTSD.

I've read that the key difference between people, circumstances involved in killing being equal, is that you're either introspective or you're not, and that if you are, killing people is going to hit you much harder than if you aren't.

Makes sense to me as the more time you spend spinning anything up in your own head the more of a "life of its own" any act or action is going to take on.

It's my understanding that this is why killing children, or women, or other civilians, or BLUEFOR in combat has a much more damaging effect than killing a legitimate target. You're not supposed to do these things so when you do there's a great deal more gravity involved so you think about it a lot more and a lot more deeply.

Similar things occur with PTSD as a result of accidents or acts of God/nature.

If you spend a lot of time dwelling on the why's, whatfor's, could-have-beens, why was it him and not me, etc... the more damaging it'll be.

Lots of folks who kill a single person accidentally (like in a car crash) end up just as damaged as a kid who spent 15 months kicking doors and shooting people in the face.

My nephew was involved in a car accident a few years ago (not his fault) and the last thing he saw before he passed out from pain was his BEST friend, who was in the seat beside him, die.

He's a happy, healthy dude these days and while it's always tough for him on his buddy's b-day, or when he's someplace he strongly associates with his best friend (HS football locker room being the example I know of) it really gets on top of him.

I have a buddy who deployed as a Marine to Haiti back in the '90s who has PTSD from seeing dead Hatians laying around whom neither he nor his buddies played any role in killing.

The only common denominator that I know of or have ever heard of is how much folks think about the situation(s) that they were involved in.

[Overlord]

Based on that very limited "exposure" I'd say it's a completly personal thing.

I think you nailed it there. Send 10 guys into a firefight and, aftwards, you'll have 10 different reactions to how things went down and what they saw. In talking with guys I went to war along side, the ones I keep in touch with anyway, I have found that our reactions run the gamut. For example, we have a guy who apparently is hung up on a single action, and relives it almost daily. Me? I can barely remember that particular action at all, as it was (in my experience) so very minor. Indeed, I have a hard time remembering the details at all.

[DialOne]

Killing from a distance is surely less affecting than up close. This is as applicable between the difference of shooting someone and firing a missile from a control panel miles away as it is between shooting someone from a long distance and stabbing someone to death.

The "closer" the kill, the more of an effect it's going to have on someone's mind. This was most morbidly shown during the Holocaust. Hitler would have probably been more inclined to simply kill off the Jews if he could've guaranteed that he had enough people morally flexible enough to do so rather than to instead round them up and send them to death camps.

As disturbing as it sounds, it's easier for people to watch others starve to death than it is to have them actually shoot millions of people en masse. There was just enough psychological distance involved for people to simply "follow orders."

Granted, the Japanese Imperialists weren't so bothered by it apparently. The Rape of Nanjing is a horrific example of what humans are capable of if you brainwash them in a culture that convinces them that groups like the Chinese are sub-human. The Japanese had no problem killing millions of innocent people without any physical distance involved and without any survivalist imperative.

[shumozar]

You just push a button and kill a person.

and you damn well better if those are your orders because the ethical thing to do is follow those orders.

[littlePen]

Granted, the Japanese Imperialists weren't so bothered by it apparently. The Rape of Nanjing is a horrific example of what humans are capable of if you brainwash them in a culture that convinces them that groups like the Chinese are sub-human. The Japanese had no problem killing millions of innocent people without any physical distance involved and without any survivalist imperative.

Some people like to kill and some can be convinced by others it is shameful to not enjoy killing the enemy.

[DavidShreder]

Granted, the Japanese Imperialists weren't so bothered by it apparently. The Rape of Nanjing is a horrific example of what humans are capable of if you brainwash them in a culture that convinces them that groups like the Chinese are sub-human. The Japanese had no problem killing millions of innocent people without any physical distance involved and without any survivalist imperative.

It was similar in Cambodia between 1975-79.

The difference between the two though was that the Cambodians were killing neighbors with different political philosophies or because they were "intellectuals".

There weren't years of brain washing and cultural adaptation.

I've only read a few accounts of the psycological effects suffered by former members of the Khmer Rouge and in just about every account all I've gotten was an attempt to mitigate responsibility or defelct blame.

Maybe level of civilization has something to do with it?

WWII Germans lived in one of the most advanced civilizations in the world, Cambodians, not so much.

Japan, as you said, was pretty well culturally desensatized to killing the "inferior" (as were the U.S. Calvary of the American West and the Conquistadors who ddecimated Mesoamerican civilizations).

[Moupponge]

Maybe level of civilization has something to do with it?

WWII Germans lived in one of the most advanced civilizations in the world, Cambodians, not so much.

Good points... I suppose this might be one of the biggest factors actually.

[Soolfelpecelf]

I've always wonderd where does war stop...and murder begin ?

I was reading about the battle of Britain a while back and then about air warfare in general it struck me that it was perfectly ok to shoot down an enemy aircraft...even to aim at the cockpit. But if you then hung around and strafed a guy when he was floating down in his parachute that was considered crossing a line. yet practically what is the difference, the object is not just to destroy the aircraft but ( ulitmately ) to kill the enemy.

I think there is a difference but I couldn't tell you why.

[unfolaReemoma]

I've always wonderd where does war stop...and murder begin ?

I was reading about the battle of Britain a while back and then about air warfare in general it struck me that it was perfectly ok to shoot down an enemy aircraft...even to aim at the cockpit. But if you then hung around and strafed a guy when he was floating down in his parachute that was considered crossing a line. yet practically what is the difference, the object is not just to destroy the aircraft but ( ulitmately ) to kill the enemy.

I think there is a difference but I couldn't tell you why.

That's really not too difficult to break down...If the enemy has the means to do you damage then he's fair game but if he's "out of action" for whatever reason then it's generally an injustice to take violent action against him.

[Catieliecutty]

That's really not too difficult to break down...If the enemy has the means to do you damage then he's fair game but if he's "out of action" for whatever reason then it's generally an injustice to take violent action against him.

So where does that leave us with the carpetbombing of civilians...which was pretty common in WW2 ? I know what you're saying and pretty much agree with you. But it's a bit of a movable feast ethics wise. You could argue that a civilian provides labour and munitions for the enemy so they're legitimate targets. In which case why not strafe the guy in the parachute....he could be shooting you down tomorrow if you let him get away.

[janeemljr]

There is an inbred revulsion to taking the life of another human being. People who can do it easily and without any impact on their mental condition are IMHO off the norm to begin with.

The enemy has to be depersonalized and stripped of his humanity to make killing him easier.

In past wars it was not kill the other person it was kill the Hun, the Nip, the gook, Charlie and now it is kill the raghead, the mussie and other terms.

Once you have dehumanized the enemy, killing becomes easier. There is also a continuum of justification of killings that goes from heat of battle, to killing an enemy command post remotely, to pre-emptive killings because someone is of a population that may be an enemy, to killing children that may grow up to be the enemy population and a potential enemy. This is the continuum that the excessive genocidal regimes like Pol Pot traveled.

The challenge for a modern military if to define the rules of engagement such that the end of the line in killing the enemy is justified and can withstand scrutiny. Soldiers who cross the line set by the rules of engagement should be punished severely and the defence of heat of battle, serving their country should not be considered. The modern soldier should be sufficiently trained in the ethics and rules of killing the enemy that he will not cross the line into unlawful killing.

[ceagsoosy]

...and now it is kill the raghead, the mussie and other terms.

Or the Infidel.

This is a two way street we're talking about.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Once you have dehumanized the enemy, killing becomes easier. Dave Grossman talks about it in his book, On Killing (which is a very good book on this topic if anyone is interested), that prior to and including WWII, U.S. Army marksmanship was conducted on the traditional "bulls eye" type target. In a move to desensitize troops to shooting at people the Army moved to the now-common e-silhouette type target some time in the 1960s/70s. When I was in ('90-'94) the e-silhouette was a life sized 3D plastic target that looked pretty much exactly like a human being's silhouette at distance.

I don't know what they're using today, but I don't expect that too much has changed, at least in respect to training new enlistees into regular Army line units.

Soldiers who cross the line set by the rules of engagement should be punished severely and the defence of heat of battle, serving their country should not be considered. The modern soldier should be sufficiently trained in the ethics and rules of killing the enemy that he will not cross the line into unlawful killing. I agree to an extent.

I think the call of whether or not a killing was justified should be made by first-line supervisors (NCOs and Company grade officers) who are actually on the scene when the shot is taken.

What you and I might consider acceptable from the comfy confies of our living rooms isn't necessarially the same as what troops in the field would consider appropriate.

Basically, I think that if we have never been in "the heat of battle" we need to STFU about what goes on in the "heat of battle".

We have absolutely no frame of reference from which to pass judgement.

[mplawssix]

fishjoel, et al,

If you don't know, then that is great! Keep it that way for as long as you can.

I'm just curious about what that does to a person. You aren't in the heat of the moment. You aren't in danger where it's a kill or be killed. You are calculatingly ending someone's life.

(COMMENT)

This is really not a question that is keen on being discussed. Combat effects everyone just a little bit differently; and is especially true if you see your kill.

But it is really not a polite question to ask. It is seldom talked about even among the most hardened combat veterans.

Most Respectfully,
R

[nicegirlflor]

Interesting article that looks in to the association between sleep depravation and psycological issues:

Researchers are finding that longtime sleep deprivation can have devastating consequences, including chronic insomnia and psychological disorders.

Especially vulnerable are downrange troops on repeated deployments, experts say.

Army doctors now recognize that sleep-deprived troops can be a danger to themselves on the battlefield, with slower reaction times, fuzzy memories and impaired judgment. But as suicides continue to spike within the military and more servicemembers are diagnosed with PTSD, some researchers and doctors have focused on sleep deprivation as a possible root cause of those issues as well.

Seeking better sleep - Stripes - Independent U.S. military news from Iraq, Afghanistan and bases worldwide

[Usesdiums]

I was thinking about this, today (my mind wanders), and I'm wondering what people think about it. Please don't be side-tracked about the current theaters and the politics involved. This is a generic combat setting.

War is said to be hell and all that and many times you are put in a situation where it's kill or be killed. That's more understandable, yes? You are out on patrol or troop movement and you encounter the enemy. You kill them before they kill you. It's almost like a grand scale battle of self-defense.

Not so much if they signed up for it. In that case, it's as much self-defense as the case of a bank robber shooting an armed security guard that tries to stop him.