Psychology of killing.

[baddo 0]

Hi all

In reply to Baddo

The books and articles we are refering to are actual or based on primary source research work carried out by the army to find out why their soldiers did not kill the enemy in war. Armies want to know this kind of stuff it is useful. The lessons learned from this have lead to operant conditioning which is why modern armies can now claim 90% of soldiers will kill.

Of course the result is very high levels of PTSD and is the current main area of research in armies. Lots of suicidal potential postal types is not very good for an armies image vietnam vets anyone?

Many fear that Iraq may be storing a vast new resevoir of the same and so the military are spending a lot on research into treatment methods for this.

Kind Regards walker

Well...

If you try to determine if a soldier is psychologically able to kill other people based on how many shots he fired and how many enemies he killed with those shots. I am saying that kind of comparison is not going to be reliable. Or at least there must be huge amount of error in such conclusion. I emphasize that now we are speaking only about the psychological side of killing. If you look only at how many shots were fired blah blah, and say "it is now clear these soldiers were not psychologically able to kill" is nonsense, as it leaves all other factors out, many of which I mentioned in my previous post. Physical ability of the soldier in question, environment, what kind of weapon is used, how enemy is protecting himself, you just can't leave those kinds of things out as they inevitably affect how many enemies you are able to kill. In my opinion the psychological side is quite small (if we talk about sane, well-trained, well-lead and well-organized normal people and not about already crazy people who can't control themselfs under stress) compared to the other factors.

So. To sum up what I am saying. The article, which is based on the book, makes a comparison between number of shots fired versus enemy casualties, and then draws conclusions of the psychological state of the soldiers based on this ratio. Such direct comparison leaves all other factors out! Like there are no other things than psychological ability to kill enemies... this simply can't be true, which is, the whole point of my argument.

[ran 0]

Unless you have been in a war - a real war like WW2 or Vietnam, or Chechnya, or Falkland Islands, etc - this thread is futile.

War is war, no matter where or when.

[Baff1 0]

We ended slavery.

As it happened that went on to give us economic dominance for many years to come.

All the slave dependant economies like America fell into civil war or slave revolution, thousands of innocents died and we all got very rich.

Nothing in this world is simply black or white. Good vs evil.

Oil is necessary to the defence and ability to financially provide for and feed the people of this country.

We're currently on our third invasion of Iraq.

We fought for oil in WW2 as well. And in WW1.

The oil producing countries hadn't attacked us then either.

But we should have lost had we not done so.

Were we wrong? Immoral? Should we have just stood their and waited to die?

Perhaps we should have said "our mistake Mr. Hitler, since it's so wrong to invade countries for oil, you can keep Poland".

Sometimes you have to choose evil to avoid greater evil.

Not every choice in life presents you with the opportunity to come out smelling of roses.

If you win you are a "hero". That's the big difference. Everyone has their reasons WHY.

[ran 0]

What about going back ontopic ? which was the intricate psychological mechanisms of killing and its side effects and not pseudo-historico-ideologico-geopolitical mishmash

[Dallas 9]

I'm a secret hitman for a goverment agency and I have a very professional attitude towards killing, I only do it between nine and five or I charge 100% overtime.

[shav4life 0]

I'm a secret hitman for a goverment agency and I have a very professional attitude towards killing, I only do it between nine and five or I charge 100% overtime.

ur either 14 or under

[Baff1 0]

Sorry Ran, my underlying point and opinion is that circumstances make that decision for you.

There are very few people that are unwilling or unable to kill.

There however many many people that are unwilling to kill in their current situation.

Most of us here typing don't feel under any direct physical threat or feel that our loved ones are in jeopardy.

The prospect of killing is totally alien and non-productive to the circumstances we have lived our entire life in.

But I view this as a luxury born out of our current enviroment, not a defining psycological trait of mankind.

I do buy into all that statistical nonsense however. I believe the human shape provokes an instinctive psychological response on a subconscious level.

It's silhouette attracts the eye. Much like in a videogame when you learn the tell-tale pixels of your rival player and become attuned to look for them.

My mother built a scarecrow and left it in the house.

When I would walk through that dimly lit room it's presence would usually make me jump.

It's a primeval response to that particular stimulus.

And I do believe that it is man's instinct to avoid hurting another man by default. A Darwinianly evolved response

I can see why military minds seek to condition people to override this and I think there is something to it.

[SlipperyJim 0]

I'm a secret hitman for a goverment agency and I have a very professional attitude towards killing, I only do it between nine and five or I charge 100% overtime.

Cool, just like Blackwater except they get bonus for murdering civilians.

[ran 0]

Sorry Ran, my underlying point and opinion is that circumstances make that decision for you.

No stone cast there, used to get carried away a bit in discussions too.

I agree with you, soldier are basically conditioned to kill through training, to execute the act of killing, though not (yet ?) to face the consequences implied by such an act in regard to the social conditioning and deep instictive behavior and affects.

Walker explained that quite well.

[Spindry69 0]

I voted yes, if I didn't believe in the mission I wouldn't be there. Then it's pretty simple, kill or be killed, support your comrades. Heres an interesting article.

http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/vietnam_war/3038266.html

[Major Fubar 0]

Just a general warning - let's try to stay ontopic, as this topic is perilously close too "too OT for OT" as it is...

[gazmen 0]

Think of this scenario: you come from Rural Bumfuck, a town in the middle of nowhere and where theres very little work except farming. You don't want farming - you want to go and be a doctor or a scientist, whatever. How do you do it? Well, you sign up for the army, thinking it's only 2 years and there isn't a war on so you'll sit it out without even leaving the country. Then suddenly BOOM! Theres a war going on! And so you are sent off to kill humans - and thats where the real question arises: can you kill someone? Can you kill someone when there are dead and horrendously wounded people all around you, when you see people torn apart and burned. Would you be able to pick up a rifle and add to the devastation?

You ask to much yourself of course they will shoot, army use drugs in soldier food & drink, to anger them, without speaking about insult of the sergeant... Also they are guided by Psyops (officer) that control & possess them... And they are conditionned by subliminal messaging (propaganda video & audio) & other sci-fi tech (like mind kontrol)...

[bonko the sane 2]

Sorry Ran, my underlying point and opinion is that circumstances make that decision for you.

No stone cast there, used to get carried away a bit in discussions too.

I agree with you, soldier are basically conditioned to kill through training, to execute the act of killing, though not (yet ?) to face the consequences implied by such an act in regard to the social conditioning and deep instictive behavior and affects.

Walker explained that quite well.

couldnt agree more with you, but as it is, the concept of war is by itself a sort of a blackhole regarding the normal behaviours of living in society, i suppose one can say society will forgive you for being a killer while wearing the uniform, to do things that will get arrested for life or sentenced to death if done by a civilian, that say, the process of forgiving oneself must be the hard part, i dunno, the most i killed were cats (bb gun practice as a child ) and a sick dog (to my great shame, but it had to be put down), that was bad enough.

[vilas 475]

Quote[/b] ]"Oil is necessary to the defence and ability to financially provide for and feed the people of this country."

thats why there was bombing in metro, 9-11, but you seem not to understand still, until way of thoughts will be in that way still, there will be just more and more violence and terrorism attacks

if you take somebody's property (now or some time ago), one day he will be back and kick you

Quote[/b] ]"our mistake Mr. Hitler, since it's so wrong to invade countries for oil, you can keep Poland"."

no - hitler was establishing death camps, all SS should be killed because they were killing innocent people for example in Auschwitz (Oswecim) and occupying other countries, his troops were burning villages with people inside wood houses, his Gestapo was torturing prisoners - hitler and all his system deserve to be dead, and there is no "invasion on germany", it was act of repay and it was good

fighting/repay bad is good

if you go to war not to help innocent victims, but to get rich/profits you are fuckers, mercenaries

if you are going with gun to help innocent victims you are heroes (just like Policeman) just like fireman or medic goes without gun

this is very very big difference

if i see man who needs help on the street - i am helping, because this is "humanity"

if i would him help only if he pays me for that - i would be son of bitch than

John Paul II said that "humanity is attitude to poor and weak"

Europe grown on Christianity, Christ would never invade other to get rich,

i see that you - from "west" don't understand this, money more important than "human", previously when i was not talking about those things with western European, i was thinking worse about Arabs, after talk with you i think other way,

no business is more important than human for me (unless this human is honest man / not criminal)

if someone comes to other house and say "i need your work for me for free, your goods" there always will be hate and revenge

as US citizens have their big cars pick-ups using a lot of fuel, and not respecting convention about smoke / co2 emissions world will have problems

for me ARMA , OFP, RTCW , MOHAA are just games, but i am totally against wars

[Balschoiw 0]

While it´s true that military personel get "prepared" to kill others, the training stops with gun-handling and practise on non-human targets. It´s a different story when it really happens.

Most of the times the situation is very different to your regular living-conditions, e.g. other country, other surrounding, people who look, talk, life totally different than you do. In such an ambience it´s not that hard to kill people if you feel threatened, but the bitter taste comes when you return back to your regular living conditions and realize that your behaviour would never be accepted in your personal surrounding.

Apart from that, there are so many things missing, when you just watch a TV report on a massacre or play a wargame like Arma and I am thankful for that. The "smell" of dead people and the metallic smell of blood are smells that you don´t forget and whenever I go into a butcher shop it reminds me of that.

I´m pretty sure that killing is easier when you are fed the right dose of fear by your superiors, but if that fear is too big you will see things like in the latest conflicts with excessive use of force not only by single units but by whole squads who simply mowed down everything just because they had panic in their own heads. The moment they find out that they have just killed some women or kids is most of the times the moment where their personal life begins to be spiralling downwords. Maybe not while they are on duty, as such things are not really talked about, but finally when they return back home, when their wife hands in the divorce as they don´t know the person who´s talking to them anymore.

I see a big problem for the US with all that traumatized people who are returning from Iraq. In a few years you will see a sharp rise of numbers on suicides among veterans. Not even the best training can prepare you for the aftermath of the things you will experience during a duty-trip.

War alienates you from real life.

There are people who can "switch". If they are on duty, they are on duty, if they are at home, they are at home. Unfortunally this doesn´t work for all and that´s why they have problems keeping on with their daily life after they return back home.

It´s a totally different reality. At first they will try to talk about the things they are allowed to talk about, but the audience they have does not really want to hear about all that negative stuff, and some will hesitate to tell anyone because they are afraid to be labelled as a "whiner". So in the end you will be alone with the things that you have done or experienced and this can destroy you from the inside, no matter what training you had prior to all this.

It´s still considered weak to consult a psychologist and a lot of guys refuse to go there as they are told to be tough, male, and unique over and over again, so they end up alone with their problem and get more and more isolated which will only fuel their self-destruction.

Edit: I didn´t vote as non of the listed options makes sense for me.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]John Paul II said that "humanity is attitude to poor and weak"

Europe grown on Christianity, Christ would never invade other to get rich,

This is what Pope Pius XII (WW2 Pope) said when Hitler invaded Poland:

Quote[/b] ]Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism.

Who's that atheist enemy? -The socialists in the east. So much for humanity. An early supporter of Hitler. And the current one fought for humanity through Hitler.

Popes are for "some reason" always comfortable with the society around them. Let it be with slavery, feodalism, monarchies, slavery by wage, fascism, the plutarchy (of today). They are always content, they help as long as the regimes (even if they murder and oppress) like and help them. So when bolsheviks want and end to that, they are made enemies of the church. And everyone who supports them or votes for them gets excommunicated.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think the premise of the poll is fundamentally flawed for two reasons:

Firstly the obvious inability of a human to make a correct assessment of if they can kill when they have never done it before.

As I pointed we as humans are genetically programmed not to kill our own kind just the same as any other animal. So statically most people who have been answering yes were plain and simple lying to themselves and in their poll answer; unless we have a statistical anomaly and have a whole bunch of sociopaths in the forum or more real and former professional soldiers than I thought even in the latter case those soldiers are not consciously aware they have been subconsciously programmed to kill, so would consciously answer no.

Secondly in war any of us fighting for a professional army will have no choice in the matter we would kill whether we wanted to or not that is what operant conditioning does.

As I pointed out and several people on the forum who are or were to my knowledge real soldiers alluded to, that then leads to the big problem. Operant conditioning means that many soldiers who would in the past have not have killed another human because their instincts are so strong will under operant conditioning now kill. That may well be the reason for the very high and rising PTSD coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is the dark secret that many in the military do not like to admit though thankfully some do but I think that until it is talked about we doing bad and continuing damage to the soldiers who protect us. That must end; this needs to be talked about, researched and medical solutions found.

Kind Regards walker

[Rustman 0]

Ehhh...been there, done that...got the T-shirt.  Frankly, I believe the statistics on the number of soldiers who fired on the enemy in World War 2 is complete BS.  I've been in a number of firefights and I can't think of single time myself, nor anyone else in my squad has ever not fired because it felt "morally wrong".  I didn't shoot alot because I'm a team leader and, frankly, most of my combat time was spend directing fire and leading my troops...but, by god, when I wasn't busy doing that I was laying some serious well-aimed fire down on some insurgent bastages.  In the entire year and some change I've spent in Al Anbar I can think of 1 person....ever....who hesitated behind the trigger.  It was our platoon sergeant doing an overwatch on a stretch of road in his Bradley when they spotted about 4 or 5 children (12 to 14 years old) emplacing an IED.  He would have been fully in his legal right to have blasted those little bastards to oblivion, but just couldn't bring himself to do it.  That's the only time...one person in one instance over 15 months.

[the_shadow 0]

since i have never been put in a combat situation i chosed to answer option 3...

yes.. i would fire... no doubt about it...

would i aim for a body part?

hard question.... dependes totally on the situation... is someone shooting at me then i´d likely just put a few rounds in the general direction of the enemy in order to make him take cover so that me or my friends can aim better and take him out when he shows his face the next time...

but as i said... i have no idea if i can kill, but i would defenitly fire my rifle if needed...

and yes... im a soldier irl (not professional but still a soldier)

[majoris 10]

This is the worst thread I've ever seen created. It needs to be locked and closed.

Get away from your computers and join the military, then get deployed to a combat zone. Unless you already have been, since there are several ArmA players who have been in the REAL thing like I have, lose your 14 year old attitude of thinking that video games are equivelant to real life.

You kids are ridiculous.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I have been in the military, and if I was shipped out, I would do some pretty nasty things to keep myself alive, no doubt about that.

I would also turn to torture if I believed I could save some of my friends using vital information.

Killing or torture isn't right, but fighting in the dirt isn't nice either, and when it comes to combat, i'm pretty sure we all would react differently than sitting at home infront of the computer .

I do, however, both things are a last resort, and if I could bring myself and friends out of a lifethreatinging position without aiming directly on another human, I would do so. So to answer ya question, I would probably just aim towards the general enemy position, whenever that opportunity is present.

[BadBone 0]

This is the worst thread I've ever seen created. It needs to be locked and closed.

Get away from your computers and join the military, then get deployed to a combat zone. Unless you already have been, since there are several ArmA players who have been in the REAL thing like I have, lose your 14 year old attitude of thinking that video games are equivelant to real life.

You kids are ridiculous.

Quote[/b] ]This is the worst thread I've ever seen created. It needs to be locked and closed

............

Quote[/b] ] Armed Assault forums, where censorship and anti-Americanism run amuck

.........

Quote[/b] ]lose your 14 year old attitude of thinking that video games are equivelant to real life.

come again?

Yes loads of childish replies eh...?

I wanted to know who THOUGHT that they were able to do the job of a real soldier amongst the ArmA players, and im happy to see most replies have been very mature when the replies could of gone very pear shaped due to the nature of the poll and forced this thread to be locked long ago.

But now you have spoken, hey, lock the thread, i can see by your sig that you have a negative attitude tothese boards any how, if you didnt like the thread why read and post, you dont even like the game, infact you give the game a hammering in one thread ?

Quote[/b] ]The game is garbage, you are kidding yourself if you think that "possible" patches, years from now, automatically make the game good in it's current state.

Too many bugs, too many problems. It's a graphical step forward (a small one, at that) but with the performance, it doesn't even matter how good it looks. There's no reason performance should be that atrocious. On a brand new PC, I'm dragging at 20 FPS on low settings.

The HDR system makes ACU and other uniform textures seem to glow in the dark, rendering 90% of all camoflauge patterns entirely ineffective.

The weapon sounds are as fake as ever. AK's are still sniper rifles, and machine guns have NO recoil or dispersion whatsoever. Weapons still magically reload and there is no decent animation system for the weapons.

Tracers still look like Star Wars lasers. Fine, they can't use the same ones as VBS. But how hard could it possibly be to make something at least remotely realistic?

Player animations are slow, bulky, clumsy, and awkward. Trying to slowly move forward is like trying to drive drunk, high, and coked up. Someone can be in the middle of reloading, be shot 50 times, and still continue to play the reload animation as if the bullets only affect him when he's not reloading. Getting in and out of a vehicle is more a magical disappearing act than something a child could do.

Patches seem to create more problems than solve them. The game was released in a horribly sloppy state, and still remains such. BIS will not fix these problems. Like I said, there is absolutely no excuse why a game should be judged on it's potential patched capability YEARS from now, when the actual product is a piece of garbage.

War simulation? The hell it is.

 You clearly dislike both the ArmA game and forums, so why hang around and bash the game and threads?

Some of the more inteligent posters point out why the poll is flawed, and ofc it is, but " you are kids, this thread needs to be locked " with no reason why is just plain old trolling IMO

Im 37 btw

[Supah 0]

Don't know about shooting people in the face but dropping LGB's from FL200 or carpet bombing troop concentrations in a B-52 from about the same altitude seems largely doable

[Freshman 0]

When it comes to a situation where doing nothing kills people on your side it is a must that you shoot. Those who don't do not deserve that anyone does the same for them.

[BlackScorpion 0]

I, myself haven't answered the poll yet. Nor have I done any military service so far (still 17). Judging by my thoughts and some of the answers so far, I'd propably got somewhere between the others besides number 1. Should I be a soldier, defending my country and my life (also Finnish) against an aggressor obviously trying to kill me, I'd propably defend myself. Natural defence mechanism, I suppose. My grandparents did it. I love my country, like them. Why can't I?

Few quotes.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" - Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus. Reflects the attitude of i.e. FDF and Swiss army. Invade us, pay for it.

"The only crime is murder. The others... are just pranks or amusement." - Alfred Hitchcock. Partially in response to Vilas' comment earlier.

And one that reflects my own point of view... adaption of Shakespeare. "To be killed, or to be killed". Brought up in i.e. Rustman's post and earlier, and reflects modern warfare, atleast from my point of view. Refuse to work for the insurgents... get killed by them. Work for them and become one... get killed by the invading forces.

I'll be doing my FDF service in few years. Maybe it's easier to comment then. Not sure, but will propably apply for Rapid Deployment Force and/or UN peacekeeper service, meaning that I might get posted to Afghanistan, Lebanon or Kosovo for few years. Though I know a fair bit about military compared to my friends at school, I still consider myself as a pacifist. If I'd see the kids planting an IED... I have no idea what I'd do in a real situation. But I hope it'd go something like shouting, warning shots and speaking to them, maybe taking them to some sort of "custody". I'd propably run after them if they'd go running, instead of starting to plink them with my Rk. I'm not going there to kill people or to get killed, but to basically, help people. Even though not everybody "agrees" with it - we lost one peacekeeper in Afghanistan this week. He was part of Finnish-Norwegian team going on patrol, and escorting a Norwegian doctor. As usual, they just walked through the streets and market place without their helmets on, but with them, and wearing ballistic torso protection. IED went off about 2 metres from him. RIP.

But then again, knowing all that has happened in the past... I don't trust human nature. "Imagine"-like system or perfect communism with some variation would be ideal but... just doesn't work. People are too competitive, and partially, err ("to error") too much. Given the certain circumstances, most people will propably do almost anything to survive.

I tend not to pick up a whole group of people and make an opinion. SS, NKVD, LRA, IRA, Al Qaida... yes, evil "organisations". But I doubt all were that evil. Some were forced to join. Some joined not due to the idealogy, but because of either the fighting, or the training. This especially applies partially to SS, since AFAIK, Lauri Törni (Larry Thorne) wasn't a pro-Nazi. Yet he served in SS, received an Iron Cross... and got bored and came back to Finland for LRRP duties. After 1944 peace, he went back to Germany, and eventually got captured by British forces, and later escaped the POW camp. He came back to Finland, got arrested later released, and then he headed off to USA, landing illegally. He joined US Army and died in Vietnam in 1965, part of the Green Berets. The John Wayne character in the movie is supposed to be based on Törni.

Erwin Rommel is said to have managed to capture 2000-8000 Italians with only 100-300 men (Wiki states 300 men and 4000 total enemies), none lost and 132 Italians killed, in the Battle of Caporetto when capturing Monte Matajur. He escorted them to prison camps with only 2 men, they say.

In other words... I'd rather capture an enemy as a POW than kill him. Too bad that OFP or ArmA doesn't reflect it... nor suppressive fire, mostly, in their basic editions. There are quite a few instances where people have surrendered but have not been taken as POW. Eastern front and Pacific during WWII, many civil wars, Kosovo, and some hostage rescues (Iranian embassy 1980, Russian cases and Chechnya) are few of the most mentioned ones. Doesn't quite suite me, totally cold blooded killing... but anger...

Although there's be much to type, and much to desire, that's it for now. Feel free to comment, be it to agree or disagree.