Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
What Flying Pig said. It's just a different psychology. Perhaps simply there is more empathy for the fellow soldier than otherwise.
I disagree. I don't think that for example an atheist is more willing to risk his life than a guy who believes in some sort of afterlife. And aggressiveness (= willingness to attack to kill) always requires more boldness and risk-taking than a more defensive posture in battle (i.e. fighting to survive rather than to kill).
And this entire "psychology of killing" thing posted by Hygro is based mostly on experiences from 20th century conflicts, most of which saw mass (millions) armies of mostly conscripts. Ancient or Medieval armies were smaller but usually consisted of people more accustomed to war. Such a Medieval knight for example between major wars often fought in various petite conflicts - quarrels between neighbours, fights between clans, etc. - and even in times of peace they were addicted to duels and tournaments, where they usually fought with sharp weapons even if the purpose was not killing the enemy but only "first blood" or dismounting the enemy from his horse.
There has always been a psychological dufference between elite warriors and conscripts. But elite warriors always existed and if anything, the proportion of conscripts in wars increased in the last few centuries.
And that is why Vietnam repulsed U.S. invasion even without help of the Divine Wind...
Have you read the book? Because the book addresses all of this--particularly how there's a class of folks pretty much always down with killing. Funny how for a long time they were the ones willing to duel, and got to ride expensive horses, and dominate in society...
