Is what I do and am wrong?

[DNK]

Wrong. This is why small unit leadership is so important. I know in the USMC (probably the other branches as well) there is a big emphasis on not only knowing your job, but whoever is directly above you.

The converse of your example could also be true: by eliminating a Gen Patton you might just end up promoting a Gen Sherman, then you just screwed yourself hard.

As to the first point, I will take your word on it. Now would there be no problems faced by a company if their captain was killed?

There's not always a Gen Sherman behind each Gen Patton, though. In that case it is a matter of rolling the dice: at some point the skill of a general outweighs the risk of a better general taking his place. Could we argue that even a general of slightly above-average capability should be taken out since the odds are one of less, or at least fairly equal, capability would take his place?

War is a gamble, isn't it? Life as well?

 

[Defiant47]

You're assuming that the destruction of industry is a viable goal.

Or at least one that loses little.

Suppose you had captured a city that might be lost in a counterattack. Consider purging the city entirely.

Suppose you were walking along and saw a farmer or mechanic from the enemy along the road. Consider shooting him in the head. What have you lost, a bullet?

 

[Dachs]

Or at least one that loses little.

Suppose you had captured a city that might be lost in a counterattack. Consider purging the city entirely.

Suppose you were walking along and saw a farmer or mechanic from the enemy along the road. Consider shooting him in the head. What have you lost, a bullet?

Problem: conquest. Elimination of civilians that would generally be of good use in restarting economic activity is generally a bad thing, unless you happen to have excess trained population to move in for that very purpose (could also lead to further complications). Similar problem: peacekeeping and/or regime stabilization (relevant situation). Killing civilians is not going to endear either the occupying army or the unstable government to the general populace. Further, popular support - or indifference, or at the very least minimizing resistance - is helpful if one wishes to reoccupy that territory at a later date.

Mainly, you only kill civilians and damage industry if you don't expect to be winning any time soon, either because it's a long war against a regular, modern opponent or because you're trying for a Götterdämmerung. I don't think that applies to Chaz.

 

[DNK]

1) Civilians provide for the industry.
2) Civilians are easy to kill.

If it weren't unethical, killing civilians would be useful and efficient, assuming that a proper opportunity cost analysis is done (i.e. a better military target and damage is not available).

Oh we're getting ourselves into an ethical quandary here, aren't we

Arguably so. If the Boeing factory's destruction would bring a far higher "return" than a fuel supply column, the civilians working there would, by military definition, end up as "collateral damage" (but if you could warn them then do so). Of course, the fact that their skills and expertise were lost would be fairly positive as well. The fact of the matter is they, like the officers, knew what they were actively supporting and had taken part in the system insofar as they had gained those skills and expertise and acted to produce whichever F-xx/B-x Boeing produces. They in particular can be considered in the "gray zone", part civilian part military.

Then there's the counter-argument that killing "non-combatants" is an end in itself, one which if obeyed would lead to less suffering than a "total war" and so should be adopted by both sides to reduce the human cost of war to the point it becomes like a chess game where no lives are on the line.

Again, it becomes a matter of balancing your ends to determine the correct means. I would think the vast majority of the time the ends don't justify the means at all here.

Regarding your farmer/bullet story:
Your immediate costs (1 bullet) are low. Your immediate gains also low (1 less farmer). Ethical gains are marginal-null (how is this helping your ethically just war?), ethical losses (1 human life) are high in relation (ethics are based around the value of human life and well-being). Furthermore, the constant murder/killing of farmers will ensure that when that more powerful army comes knocking on your cities' door in 50 years your farmers will also be likely to be shot via the same simple cost-analysis scheme. End result: lots of people that have very little to do with wars getting killed and hurt. Long run ethical expectancy is very negative, therefore it is not an ethically positive decision.

Edit for subtext/clarity: the immediate material cost-analysis scheme is not an ethical cost-analysis scheme, but a subset of an ethical cost-analysis scheme as part of the material war positive side of the cost-analysis. The balance in the ethical cost-analysis is the negative, immediate impact on human well-being. The short-run is negative and the long-run very negative as this system of cost-analysis will probably be adopted and accepted as "normal business" regarding warfare.

You're assuming that the destruction of industry is a viable goal.

There's a clear argument for why it could be. What is your argument for why it isn't?

 

[Dachs]

There's a clear argument for why it could be. What is your argument for why it isn't?

See above; plus, not all warfare is total warfare. Further, implementation lags decrease the effectiveness of killing civilians in a shorter war.

 

[MobBoss]

Understood. But it is a legal contract, and if you feel following the contract would not be ethically sound, do you not have an ethical personal obligations to break the contract, assuming the perceived negative consequences of going through with the contract would outweigh whatever negative ethics would come out of breaking a promise/contract?

Yes, its a legal contract.

Yes, there are valid reasons and ways to void it.

Again, 'I dont wanna' is neither a valid or legal reason to void it. BUT if people are willing to do the time for the crime of following their 'ethics' then more power to them. It provides guys like me with job security.

 

[Death_Machine]

As to the first point, I will take your word on it. Now would there be no problems faced by a company if their captain was killed?

There's not always a Gen Sherman behind each Gen Patton, though. In that case it is a matter of rolling the dice: at some point the skill of a general outweighs the risk of a better general taking his place. Could we argue that even a general of slightly above-average capability should be taken out since the odds are one of less, or at least fairly equal, capability would take his place?

War is a gamble, isn't it? Life as well?

1. A Captain would be a platoon level leader, not a company......... but yeah, if the CO goes down then the XO takes over.

2. Generally speaking (no pun intended) there are plenty of capable people in the military and to lose somebody to death, retirement, or whatever is to be expected. The system is structured to absorb the loss & move on.

 

[bhsup]

Since when are Captains not possible company commanders?

 

[Death_Machine]

^ I never had one.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm sorry, the following is not meant to be personal or anything, but just an opinion that you asked for. I'm not going to give you the self-justifying answer you seek.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

A sentence that I completely disagree with. How exactly is killing a teenager on the other side of the world, who only wants to defend their home, protecting freedom and the 'American way of life'?

Yet I am sent on missions and patrols that often cost many people their lives. To include Americans that fight for the same cause I do.

May I ask your opinion as to exactly what you believe that cause is?

I risk everything in my job. My wife, daughter, my life, am I merely a murderer?
(...)
I am still a killer. That is what I train to do. Kill people. Does that make me a monster? Am I nothing but a murderer?

I'm sorry to say, but from what information you've given; yes you are.

People it seems, are easy to kill. There are a hundred different ways to do it, and they train me in 99 of 100 ways to kill someone. I am resourceful and unrelenting. I am remorseless. Is this "uncaring, unwavering, unsettling" way in which I bring about individuals deaths, does this make me unhuman?

Dr. Gustav Gilbert, the psychologist of the Nazi war criminals, said, "Evil is the absence of empathy." Now, your attempt to self-justify indicates to me that you do have a small degree of empathy, however, the bolded bit indicates otherwise. It is this lack of empathy that Hitler and the other Nazi war criminals possessed that made them so bad. And, combined with your shameless avatar, your statement shows that, yes, your actions are most likely unhuman and pretty much evil.

Why do I not care? Roughly 7 billion humans, and I bring about 50-100 deaths everytime they send me, does this make me a murderer?

Another think that you really need to steer clear of is underestimating the importance of life. Again, this statement indicates a lack of empathy on your part for those that you kill, and your complete disregard for human life. Which makes your killings evil, and murderous.

Am I one to judge America's destruction? Or am I just a cold-blooded killer?

Well, everyone is a judge of it. That is apparently what is so great about the freedom and American way of life you seem to think you are defending. You can not use the Nuremberg Defence. You have a choice to make; do you kill others, or do you stand up for what is right, even though it may be against orders?

Two weeks, two weeks and they send me again, I cause death once more. In a different country. A different mentality. A different sector in the world. I don't think twice about it. They shoot at me, I kill them. I offer my life as collateral. Am I a murderer?

Yes, IMHO, you are certainly a murderer. You seem to be bringing death on a premeditated basis, with complete disregard for humanity and human life.

We set out to kill arabs, trained from day one to kill that particular faction. Is it racist?

Only one of the most racist things I have ever heard. And thankyou for making me lose any faith in America I still had. Actually, this is not only murder, this is genocide. The deliberate murder of a particular racial group. It is absolutely despicable.

It's like I die a little bit inside each time I pull the trigger and I see a body go limp and I know I caused it.

A little of you dies each time you kill someone? I have absolutely no sympathy, and you appear to have absolutely no empathy. You have killed someone, taken there whole life away, and you are worried about the fact that you may be slightly hurt by this. I really do apologise if you have taken any offence to this, I am really not trying to just shout you down, as such, I am just completely and utterly morally outraged at what you have described. My tone may seem a bit harsh, but, IMHO, it is something you need to hear, and hear loud and clear. Please, for the sake of many, many people, take it into consideration before you go off murdering again.

 

[Japanrocks12]

That's an absolutely fantastic and ballsy post, Camikaze.

EDIT: Although I disagree with the part about genocide; that accusation undermines the force of feeling that is contained in that post. Genocide occurs in a completely different context and I'm sure that Chazumi wouldn't engage in it if he were in a position to do so.

 

[Death_Machine]

That's an absolutely fantastic and ballsy post, Camikaze.

No, not really.

 

[Japanrocks12]

No, not really.

No, it is. Step outside the mentality of an American ex-soldier and imagine Chazumi to be from a different army for just a second. The power and veracity of this post would be more or less exactly the same.

 

[Death_Machine]

No, it is. Step outside the mentality of an American ex-soldier and imagine Chazumi to be from a different army for just a second. The power and veracity of this post would be more or less exactly the same.

This cracks me up. People think they're enlightened with a statement like yours, but it is nothing profound. For you this is some kind of epiphany, while to me I would expect the members of my enemy's military to have exactly that type of mindset.

 

[Masada]

Only one of the most racist things I have ever heard. And thankyou for making me lose any faith in America I still had. Actually, this is not only murder, this is genocide. The deliberate murder of a particular racial group. It is absolutely despicable.

So you can't kill Arabs in a war because its racist? Explain you logic. Because I'm reading Chazumi's comment as a simple statement of fact. He was trained to operate in Iraq which means he has to kill Arabs (the majority of the Iraqi population aside from the occasional smattering of Turks and Persians) if required. He didn't state that he was gunning to just kill Arabs or indeed that he intended to kill without provocation merely that he was trained to do so. It's not genocide not by any measure. It is simply the nature of warfare. To pretend that war does not potentially entail the killing of enemies regardless of race, religion or creed is ridiculous.

 

[Japanrocks12]

This cracks me up. People think they're enlightened with a statement like yours, but it is nothing profound. For you this is some kind of epiphany, while to me I would expect the members of my enemy's military to have exactly that type of mindset.

That's why I reflect on why it's a sad mindset to have for anyone or everyone.


The reality is, of course, that this will happen and nothing can stop it. And to ignore it in a real combat situation is folly. I still happen to think it's profoundly wrong.

 

[Camikaze]

So you can't kill Arabs in a war because its racist? Explain you logic. Because I'm reading Chazumi's comment as a simple statement of fact. He was trained to operate in Iraq which means he has to kill Arabs (the majority of the Iraqi population aside from the occasional smattering of Turks and Persians) if required. He didn't state that he was gunning to just kill Arabs or indeed that he intended to kill without provocation merely that he was trained to do so. It's not genocide not by any measure. It is simply the nature of warfare. To pretend that war does not potentially entail the killing of enemies regardless of race, religion or creed is ridiculous.

We set out to kill arabs, trained from day one to kill that particular faction.

This statement indicates almost unequivocally that the object is not to kill enemy combatants, but to kill members of a particular racial group.

 

[Hygro]

I'd like to start out with a quote, from Robert A. Heinlein, author of Starship Troopers.



I am a killer. A destroyer of men. Funded by tax dollars and time from the government to destroy those we don't agree with. I am a weapons expert, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life. Yet I am sent on missions and patrols that often cost many people their lives. To include Americans that fight for the same cause I do.

I risk everything in my job. My wife, daughter, my life, am I merely a murderer? In 15 days time from this post I will be in Afghanistan. Not my first tour of duty as an "infantryman". I have been to Thailand during the uprising, Kuwait, Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and now Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanisan. I kill people. That is my job. I am trained and even through numerous training sessions of "We are there for Hearts and Minds men", I am still a killer. That is what I train to do. Kill people. Does that make me a monster? Am I nothing but a murderer?

People it seems, are easy to kill. There are a hundred different ways to do it, and they train me in 99 of 100 ways to kill someone. I am resourceful and unrelenting. I am remorseless. Is this "uncaring, unwavering, unsettling" way in which I bring about individuals deaths, does this make me unhuman? Why do I not care? Roughly 7 billion humans, and I bring about 50-100 deaths everytime they send me, does this make me a murderer? Am I one to judge America's destruction? Or am I just a cold-blooded killer?

Two weeks, two weeks and they send me again, I cause death once more. In a different country. A different mentality. A different sector in the world. I don't think twice about it. They shoot at me, I kill them. I offer my life as collateral. Am I a murderer?

Hey, I hope I'm not overstepping my lack of expertise, but you sound like a psychological casualty in the making. Definitely seek out some counseling because you really could put yourself or others at risk. And posting a thread like this you have a lot of intellectually minded people my age who don't even have the academic understanding of what you are going through, let alone real world experience (I have no personal connection to your experience, but the book On Killing, written by either an Army or Marine colonel really enlightened me), seems to be leading people--the very people who you are serving, to view what you do as wrong. You can't go letting yourself think what you are doing is wrong if you're going to go into battle. If you do, you come home a wreck, your family suffers, you suffer, and while in the theaters of war, your comrades might suffer. Definitely seek some counseling, we need you in good shape.

 

[Masada]

This statement indicates almost unequivocally that the object is not to kill enemy combatants, but to kill members of a particular racial group.

They're one and the same. What were American soldiers training to kill in the Second World War... surely not Germans and Japanese?!

 

[Camikaze]

They're one and the same. What were American soldiers training to kill in the Second World War... surely not Germans and Japanese?!

The statement indicates that the training was to kill members of a particular racial faction; be they enemy combatants or not, and not to kill enemy combatants; be they members of a particular racial faction or not.

Even assuming that they are one in the same, it is a ridiculously racist generalisation to say that Arabs are the enemy.