WAR RULES

[IndyDave1776]

There are very good, practical reasons for all of this: First of all, it's very hard for most of us to deliberately kill another human being. I've read that only one-in-ten soldiers fired aimed rounds in combat during WWII (since that's the ratio of combat-to-support troops, I'm not sure what this statistic is supposed to mean). I do vividly remember watching videos of US troops poking their M-16s over their cover and emptying their 20 round magazines in the general direction of the bad guys in Vietnam.

The Army instituted pop-up "human shaped" targets along with standard targets in order to make it easier for soldiers to be able to squeeze the trigger on "enemy" targets in combat.

Efforts to dehumanize and/or demonize the enemy are also tactics to make it easier for newbies to engage the enemy.

Regardless, the point of preparing soldiers to engage the enemy while still retaining their own humanity is so that we don't change them so much that we wouldn't want them living next door to us when they get home. This is yet another reason why we don't fight wars "to the knife" as brutally as some would have us do it; the negative effects on our soldiers and our society would be nearly as bad as losing a war would be.

Absolutely true. For further study:

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Society/dp/0316330116]Amazon.com: On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (9780316330114): Dave Grossman: Books[/ame]

 

[cobber]

Absolutely true. For further study:

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazon.com: On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (9780316330114): Dave Grossman: Books

Is Grossman focused contextually on modern-day America?

In the past, most people would have been much more familiar with death and dying, more folks died at home than in hospitals, less comprehensive medical care, more people would have raised, slaughtered and eaten wild and domestic animals. ("The Deer Hunter" notwithstanding...)

Just as many WWII soldiers-to-be were adapted to the coming privations of the war, having survived the Depression.

 

[Trooper]

There are very good, practical reasons for all of this: First of all, it's very hard for most of us to deliberately kill another human being. I've read that only one-in-ten soldiers fired aimed rounds in combat during WWII (since that's the ratio of combat-to-support troops, I'm not sure what this statistic is supposed to mean). I do vividly remember watching videos of US troops poking their M-16s over their cover and emptying their 20 round magazines in the general direction of the bad guys in Vietnam.

The Army instituted pop-up "human shaped" targets along with standard targets in order to make it easier for soldiers to be able to squeeze the trigger on "enemy" targets in combat.

Efforts to dehumanize and/or demonize the enemy are also tactics to make it easier for newbies to engage the enemy.

Regardless, the point of preparing soldiers to engage the enemy while still retaining their own humanity is so that we don't change them so much that we wouldn't want them living next door to us when they get home. This is yet another reason why we don't fight wars "to the knife" as brutally as some would have us do it; the negative effects on our soldiers and our society would be nearly as bad as losing a war would be.

Video games have gotten kids used to "killing" far more than anything that the military does in training.

As for getting newbies over their fear of combat, the Marines started making a big deal out of having your first confirmed kill. Also there is a statement of "having blood on your boots" for someone who has been in a fire fight. The Army combat troops have adopted these traditions.

Plus the Army makes an official statement of being under fire by issuing the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB), the Combat Medic Badge and now the Combat Action Badge (CAB) for the no combat arms troops. Having this award can make the difference in getting promoted. Thus the troops now want to see action.

 

[Trooper]

Is Grossman focused contextually on modern-day America?

In the past, most people would have been much more familiar with death and dying, more folks died at home than in hospitals, less comprehensive medical care, more people would have raised, slaughtered and eaten wild and domestic animals. ("The Deer Hunter" notwithstanding...)

Just as many WWII soldiers-to-be were adapted to the coming privations of the war, having survived the Depression.

My mother had over 50 years in nursing. One of her complaints was that many young nurse have never seen someone die. Nor have many young people have had a lot of contact with their grandparents or even old people. Thus nursing schools are now making nursing students work in nursing homes in their sophmore year. If they can not take old people, they most likely can not take nursing.

Basically we are no longer a frontier nation thus increasing our young people are weaker than in generations past.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Is Grossman focused contextually on modern-day America?

In the past, most people would have been much more familiar with death and dying, more folks died at home than in hospitals, less comprehensive medical care, more people would have raised, slaughtered and eaten wild and domestic animals. ("The Deer Hunter" notwithstanding...)

Just as many WWII soldiers-to-be were adapted to the coming privations of the war, having survived the Depression.

I'm not certain how much hunting game and killing humans have in common (other than certain marksmanship aspects). Dealing death and watching death and deprivation are different psychological phenomena, I think. If you have relatives who were in ground combat during WWII or Korea, think of how reluctant most of them were to talk about what they did - and their generation trended far more toward patriotism than later generations have done. The traditional warrior tended to glorify battle and minimize the horrors of combat (think GEN Patton of WWII); today's "warriors" seem to be made of different stuff; combat and killing are parts of what they do, and they do it well, but they don't seem to glorify war and battle the way some did in the past.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Is Grossman focused contextually on modern-day America?

In the past, most people would have been much more familiar with death and dying, more folks died at home than in hospitals, less comprehensive medical care, more people would have raised, slaughtered and eaten wild and domestic animals. ("The Deer Hunter" notwithstanding...)

Just as many WWII soldiers-to-be were adapted to the coming privations of the war, having survived the Depression.

Although he pulls in more Freudian psychology than I would prefer, he does a good job of working within the context of society contemporaneous to the events he addresses, including the timeless human aversion to homicide aside from the 2-3% of any population made up of certifiable sociopaths, who, of course, are devoid of any such aversion (and are very common among fighter aces and special forces operators). He does not bring in hunting of non-humans for the purposes of his analysis as that would not be relevant to the intrinsic aversion to homicide among non-sociopathic people. It really is a good read. It took me from completely not understanding a lot of things (not apparently related to combat or killing) about my dad (who fought in Vietnam) to being able to make perfect sense of it.

 

[archy]

Rules for the regulation of US Marines in the service of guarding the United States Mail,

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]And, in a 'circular letter', "Subject: Miscellaneous Instructions, dated 13 December 1921, from The Major General Commandant....[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]1. In cases where trains carrying Marines guarding mails cross the Canadian Boundry enroute to another point in the United States, the Marines, upon crossing the boundry, shall place their arms in a registered mail-sack and turn over the sack to Canadian Post Office Officials (who accompany the train) until such time as the train re-crosses into the United States. Under no circumstances shall Marines exercise a military function in Canadian teritory.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2. Shotguns preferably will be carried with filled magazine and empty chamber, in order to avoid accidents.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3. Pistols may be carried loaded, cocked and locked. The holster should be fastened to the leg and the flap tucked or tied back, so as not to interfere with drawing. The Marine (if not carrying other arms) should carry his hand on the pistol butt.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4. Arrangements should be made for each mail-coach to carry a supply of ordinary railroad flares, which should be ignited and thrown out of the car if an attack is made on it. Also, in case of attack on a car, interior lights should be put out. On trains lighted with electricity the guard should be prepared to turn out all lights.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]5. The Marines should be continually reminded that they will use their firearms to wound or kill only[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]when necesarry to prevent robbery or theft of the mails. The use of firearms except for this purpose must be avoded.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]6. Where it is decided to convene a summary court-martial and a shortage of officers exists, a request may be made on the local Recruiting Officer for one or more officers to report for this temporary duty. When they report, the Commanding Officer may order them as members of the Court-Martial. In such cases, the officer or officers requested should be junior to the officer ordering the court.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]7. Cases have arisen where men have been transferred to barracks without punishment for the offense which caused their transfer. Except in cases serious enough to warrant trial by General Court-Martial, men should be tried, before transfer, by a Deck Court or Summary Court-Martial, as it will be impracticable to bring them to trial after transfer. Men committing offenses warranting a general court-martial should be held at their station until a decision in the premises has been received from Headquarters.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]8. The official title of the Detachments is --U.S. Marine Corps Detached Guard Company ( Place ). For instance, "U.S. MARINE CORPS DETACHED GUARD COMPANY, WASHINGTON, D.C.". Hereafter no other title will be used.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]9. Commanding Officers must take steps to provide a suitable Christmas and New Years for their commands. No doubt much can be done for their entertainment by enlisting the good offices of local welfare organizations.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]10. Precious orders regarding transfer, for discharge of men from U.S. Marine Corps Detached Guard Companies to nearest Recruiting Office or Barracks, are rescinded. Hereafter Commanding Officers of U.S. Marine Corps Detached Guard Companies will discharge their men in the same manner as any other Commanding Officer.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1](signed) LOGAN FELAND[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]by direction"[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[IndyDave1776]

Video games have gotten kids used to "killing" far more than anything that the military does in training.

As for getting newbies over their fear of combat, the Marines started making a big deal out of having your first confirmed kill. Also there is a statement of "having blood on your boots" for someone who has been in a fire fight. The Army combat troops have adopted these traditions.

Plus the Army makes an official statement of being under fire by issuing the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB), the Combat Medic Badge and now the Combat Action Badge (CAB) for the no combat arms troops. Having this award can make the difference in getting promoted. Thus the troops now want to see action.

Good point. Incidentally, Grossman devoted an entire book to dealing with the issue of teaching our children to kill with video games taking the top spot of dishonor.

 

[armedindy]

so, were fighting against people that dont follow the rules while we DO??? are roadside bombs and suicide bombings considered in this....i can unsderstand the rules for when were fighting another NATION that agrees to and follows them, but why do we have to follow these guidelines in the war on terror...when our enemy is not required to follow the same rules

 

[churchmouse]

I really miss Napalm and flamethrowers. They seemed to work very well. Just saying...carry on.

 

[halfmileharry]

I really miss Napalm and flamethrowers. They seemed to work very well. Just saying...carry on.

Spot on!

 

[Trooper]

so, were fighting against people that dont follow the rules while we DO??? are roadside bombs and suicide bombings considered in this....i can unsderstand the rules for when were fighting another NATION that agrees to and follows them, but why do we have to follow these guidelines in the war on terror...when our enemy is not required to follow the same rules

Look at Syria. They have "shadow armies" that go into villages and just massacre all the women and children. This is how Muslims in most of the world conduct themselves.

However they know how to play our media, having gone to our universities, so as to give us a guilt trip.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

How do you perceive the Southern Invasion of U.S.??

"Is There Not A Reason" to repel it, quoting a famous king? I vote for HARD, but short of brutal. This must stop.

I believe that war should be as brutal as possible. The more distasteful it is, the shorter wars will be and less likely people will want to fight them. <in here: If you want to win, don't do loser things. We were bound by Convention to NOT use gas in the tunnels of Viet Nam. THAT lost us the war.>

When we make the decision to go to war, we should commit ourselves to the concept of overwhelming force, using everything at our disposal to subdue those we have targeted. War should be, for the most part, "anything goes". I don't mean things such as attacking civilians, mistreating POWs or using nuclear weapons without <snip: WHAT in hell does THIS mean ??> good reason, but I do mean killing everything with a gun and uniform in sight by any means necessary.

The non-sense of not shooting until fired upon, not using certain weapons because they're "inhumane", etc. is absolutely silly. War is inhumane. There's no nice way to kill someone. The faster you can kill the enemy the better. Get it over with, and hopefully it will be so bad that no one will want to ever do it again. <in here: this is what Gen. T. Sherman had in mind, and Johnnie Rebs still hate him for it. They are the same losers now, in 2012 as Negroes are who feel the Union Gubmint still has their mule. Get over it. >

If someone invaded the U.S., rest assured I would kill every one of them I saw using anything I found that could be used to dispatch them. I would burn them, shoot them, booby trap them, gas them, blow them up, you name it. That's how you make them leave.

<But what if THEY A R E you, they are your kids?>

 

[RockofStrength]

Video games have gotten kids used to "killing" far more than anything that the military does in training.

I strongly disagree with this. I've played violent video games (doom, half-life, halo, starcraft, ghost recon, unreal tournament, call of duty, every friggin rpg ever etc) and yet I still blanch at WATCHING my father kill a hog or chicken. Granted, I'm trying to work past that since it's a thing that must be done, but video games are not death-dealing simulators. They may desensitize you to the concept of death, maybe, but actually shooting something or cutting its head off and watching it die? Unless my brain is wired weird (which is quite possible, I admit ) There's a lot more needed than a few violent images on a tv/computer screen.

 

[MilitaryArms]

"Is There Not A Reason" to repel it, quoting a famous king? I vote for HARD, but short of brutal. This must stop.
<But what if THEY A R E you, they are your kids?>

I don't want my kids involved in a war regardless of how nicely the enemy promises to kill them.

 

[Trooper]

"Is There Not A Reason" to repel it, quoting a famous king? I vote for HARD, but short of brutal. This must stop.
<But what if THEY A R E you, they are your kids?>

What if it is you being bullied?

Every have an abusive person at work? Ever have to deal with a bunch of street punks? Or union types? Or anyone in a group who uses their numbers as a weapon? Even the KKK in the past was used to bully folks.

There are those who realize that if they have the numbers then they can push people around.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I strongly disagree with this. I've played violent video games (doom, half-life, halo, starcraft, ghost recon, unreal tournament, call of duty, every friggin rpg ever etc) and yet I still blanch at WATCHING my father kill a hog or chicken. Granted, I'm trying to work past that since it's a thing that must be done, but video games are not death-dealing simulators. They may desensitize you to the concept of death, maybe, but actually shooting something or cutting its head off and watching it die? Unless my brain is wired weird (which is quite possible, I admit ) There's a lot more needed than a few violent images on a tv/computer screen.

Actually what first-person video games MAY do is to divorce the player from the flesh-and-blood results of "squeezing the trigger". More importantly, to potential military trainers, is that properly structured first person shooter games may efficiently teach team tactics, strategy, and promote the hand-eye coordination needed to interface with increasingly sophisticated fire-control systems of combat vehicles and equipment.

 

[actaeon277]

There's also the train of thought that ROE and seeing your enemy as human leads to increased PTSD.
We were brought up it's wrong to kill and changing that mindset is difficult until you realize the enemy is an evil that cares little if any for human life.
I don't see fighting a humane enemy anytime soon but then again, what do I know?
It's usually not the populace that's inhumane but the diehard zealots.

Actually, there's evidence that PTSD is stronger among those that "dehumanize".
But, they haven't determined if it's the act of "dehumanzing", or the people that do/don't do it.
For instance, snipers usually have a better sight picture of their enemy. Also, at least the ones I knew, didn't go around with all the chanting and such.
Then again, there's a study that will tell you what ever you want, if you look hard enough.

 

[actaeon277]

Following the rules of war gives the combatant the feeling of have the "moral highground".

militaries are much more willing to fight, and fight hard, when they believe they are doing the right thing. Its hard to feel that way when you are being inhumane to the enemy combatant.

One of the reasons the Nazis went to the death camps, was because the soldiers initially tasked with executions, suffered from high rates of suicide, disipline problems, and AWOLs.
The "factory" set it a little apart, and they could recruit candidates they thought could stand it.
But the average soldier, needed something more.
(And no, I'm not saying all soldiers are perfect little angels either)

 

[actaeon277]

War means fighting.
And fighting means killing.
(not my quote)
But, I think the "rules" were adopted like most safety rules, in blood.
In war, there is much to make people not want to see.
But, there have been times, when an act was so dispicable, that war hardened people across continents were sickened.
They got together, or at least their diplomats did, and came up with these rules.
Maybe, you don't see the need, because you weren't there.