Psychology of killing.

[walker 0]

Hi All

In reply to Rustman

You have just proved my point about operant conditioning. Most western armies use it. However that soldiers can be conditioned to kill, against their natural instinct not to kill their own kind, does not alter the fact that 90% of us instinctualy cannot kill other human beings.

Nor does it alter the after affects; I draw your attention to the results of the research in the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study (NVVRS) which found that PTSD was higher and more severe among those who had killed and higher yet among those who were involved in the commition an atrocity.

http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain....rr=true

Analysis by Rachel M. MacNair of the Institute for Integrated Social Analysis, Kansas City, Missouri showed that PTSD scores were higher for those who said they killed compared to those who did not. Scores were even higher for those who said they were directly involved in atrocities compared to those who only saw them. PTSD scores also remained high for those who said they had killed, but in traditional combat form.

Quote[/b] ]The Military Ethicist’s Role in Preventing and Treating Combat-related, Perpetration-Induced Psychological Trauma

Major Peter G. Kilner

Infantry, U.S. Army

JSCOPE 2005

DRAFT, 3 January 2005

Abstract: I argue that military ethicists have an important role to play in preventing and treating combat-related Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Syndrom (PITS), which is a particular form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).   Recent research provides compelling evidence that guilt resulting from having killed in combat is a very significant factor in a veteran’s development of PITS/PTSD.  However, the military’s medical community is not addressing this factor.  This is not surprising, given that the medical community as a whole tends to focus on environmental conditions and what happens to a person, not on what a person does.  Ethicists, in contrast, do focus on people’s actions and on the morality and repercussions of their actions.  I propose that military ethicists take a leading role in generating an organizational dialogue on the morality of killing in order to prevent and treat psychological trauma that is caused by the guilt of having killed in combat and not being able to make sense of the experience.

Background

Five years ago at this conference and two years ago in Military Review[1], I argued that military leaders have an obligation to explain to their soldiers the moral justification for killing in combat. The argument was: since we recruit soldiers to kill, train them to kill, develop plans for them to kill, and order them to kill, we also owe it to them to explain why killing in war is morally justified, because we don’t do this, and there is a lot of evidence that many soldiers cannot live with having killed.  At the time, my evidence was qualitative and largely anecdotal. Although research at the time did indicate overwhelmingly that combat exposure and participation in atrocities predicted PTSD, the interpretation of this evidence focused on what had happened to the soldiers (e.g., experienced fear, witnessed dead bodies), not on what the soldiers had done (i.e., killed).

I. Killing in combat can lead to PITS/PTSD

Led by the seminal work of Rachel MacNair[2], there is now a growing body of research that indicates that what soldiers do—not only what happens to them—can lead to psychological trauma.  Using data from the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study (NVVRS), MacNair compared veterans who reported that they had killed in Vietnam to those who reported that they had not killed.  She discovered that those who had killed in combat scored higher on most indicators of PTSD, as measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).  The NVRRS data indicated that veterans who had been directly involved in atrocities were much more likely to report symptoms of PTSD than were veterans who merely witnessed atrocities.[3]  Also, while combat exposure and PTSD are correlated, veterans who reported that they had killed during an overall tour of light combat were more likely to show PTSD symptoms than were those who reported that they had not killed during a tour characterized by heavy exposure to combat.[4]  In other words, killing—much more so than exposure to atrocities or combat—is a major factor leading to PTSD...My use of emphasis in the last line  

Follow link for the full article

http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE05/Kilner05.html

The implication is clear that those who are operant conditioned to kill despite their natural instinct suffer higher levels of psychological dammage as a result.

This is after all why the military and veterans medical research are spending money on looking for better medical treatment for soldiers suffering PTSD. It is also why it should not be swept under the carpet. The more people who are aware of this the better treatment veterans will get for their PTSD and the better for society as a whole.

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

You have just proved my point about operant conditioning. Most western armies use it. However that soldiers can be conditioned to kill, against their natural instinct not to kill their own kind, does not alter the fact that 90% of us instinctualy cannot kill other human beings.

I think you've taken it too far.

I would by no means say that 90% of humans "cannot" kill another human, only that it is their natural instinct to avoid killing them during "natural" circumstances.

When placed in a position of threat by another human an entirely different natural instinct manifests.

I think if 90% of humans were holding a loaded gun and a blood drenched axe wielding maniac ran towards them screaming for example far more than 90% of us would pull the trigger. Not by any conscious decision either but by instinct, by reflex.

I think the military conditioning is perhaps also targeted towards hesitation.

I think political conditioning is also a factor. Subhumans, Commies, Tyrants, Dictators, Religious Fanatics, Terrorists...all those little words we use to dehumanise our enemy.

But I do not believe that current day Post Traumatic Stress Disporder rates is any markedly higher than WW2 Battlefatigue or WW1 Shellshock.

Or even any worse then when Wellington's troops after a particularly bloody battle went on to kill and rape the civilians in Badajoz.

Vikings raped and pillaged with gay abandon!

There is nothing new here.

@ Blackscorpian, Italian POW's in England had no guards either. (Unlike the Germans). They lived in open prison and freely interacted and worked within the community.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Baff1

Quote[/b] ]I think you've taken it too far.

I would by no means say that 90% of humans "cannot" kill another human, only that it is their natural instinct to avoid killing them during "natural" circumstances.

When placed in a position of threat by another human an entirely different natural instinct manifests.

I think if 90% of humans were holding a loaded gun and a blood drenched axe wielding maniac ran towards them screaming for example far more than 90% of us would pull the trigger. Not by any conscious decision either but by instinct, by reflex.

I would submit that the reaction of the untrained Argentine draftees who faced fully operant conditioned British troops in the Falklands contradicts your belief. And it is only belief; you present no statistical evidence or research to back up your assertion of what you think.

While I will not question that you hold those beliefs strongly and with conviction; they count as nothing when compared to the work of people like Richard Holmes in his book Firing Line for he researched the actual firing rates in the Falklands war.

To Paraphrase your own statment:

The plane facts of Richard Holmes' study are that when "90% of Argentine humans holding a loaded M16 gun and faced with a blood drenched bayonet wielding maniac in the form of an operant conditioned SLR equipped British soldier running towards them screaming at the top of his lungs with murder in his eyes 90% froze and did not react"

It is a fact inescapable and for those poor draftees final.

Sir you just made the same assumption that the Argentine generals did. That people will kill if you give them a gun.

People do not easily kill each other thank Darwin, if they did we would be quickly extinct.

Heck with out that training and conditioning we wont even kill when our lives are directly threatened as the research of Richard Holmes proves.

There is also US justice department research that backs it up; that is why the police moved to human shaped targets and pop up target training grounds. Until they did when faced with a real live sociopaths the normal human policemen far too often did not fire even when their life, the lives of their colleagues or innocent people were threatened.

To make us kill one another most of us need to be trained that will lead to 15% to 20% effectiveness (WWII Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall) with the beginnings of operant conditioning 55% become effective killers (Korean war US Army statistics) with the refinement of effective operant conditioning we reach 90% to 95% (Vietnam war US Army statistics and Richard Holmes the Falklands war)

The mass of other people and organisations who have actually studied the human ability to kill such as Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall, Ardant du Picq, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, US Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Army statistics etc. all support the same conclusion. One or even two might be wrong but not so many studies.

Kind Regards walker

[Commando84 0]

i would propably kill if my life or some one i knew was in danger.

But i would go for 2 or 3, i live in sweden and have no army training byt i know i could learn basics probably easy.

[memnoch 0]

Headshot. Put them out of their misery rather than let them lay there and bleed to death. But I'm not a great shot so would probably end up hitting the body anyway.

[alext223 0]

Honestly, I really don't know. Most of us don't. Personally I wish that upon no man, but human nature puts us to these situations, be it for or against our will. It really depends upon the persons motivation and training. How propaganda had indoctrinated him, if he is fighting to defend or regain his homeland. can he justify what he is doing is right, how hard he has been pushed to hate his known enemy. But if these factors are all checked, there is still the human element left to pull the trigger. What would make me pull the trigger, it is either him or I, and, I don't want to let my team/ mates/ brothers fall by my side because I failed them. From all the books I've read on war, it is the men who you see hell with that get you through and help you find your strength to survive . I truly hope that none of us have to experience such a choice.

[Baff1 0]

Hi all

In reply to Baff1

Quote[/b] ]I think you've taken it too far.

I would by no means say that 90% of humans "cannot" kill another human, only that it is their natural instinct to avoid killing them during "natural" circumstances.

When placed in a position of threat by another human an entirely different natural instinct manifests.

I think if 90% of humans were holding a loaded gun and a blood drenched axe wielding maniac ran towards them screaming for example far more than 90% of us would pull the trigger. Not by any conscious decision either but by instinct, by reflex.

I would submit that the reaction of the untrained Argentine draftees who faced fully operant conditioned British troops in the Falklands contradicts your belief. And it is only belief; you present no statistical evidence or research to back up your assertion of what you think.

While I will not question that you hold those beliefs strongly and with conviction; they count as nothing when compared to the work of people like Richard Holmes in his book Firing Line for he researched the actual firing rates in the Falklands war.

To Paraphrase your own statment:

The plane facts of Richard Holmes' study are that when "90% of Argentine humans holding a loaded M16 gun and faced with a blood drenched bayonet wielding maniac in the form of an operant conditioned SLR equipped British soldier running towards them screaming at the top of his lungs with murder in his eyes 90% froze and did not react"

Well that's a pretty crap study then isn't it. They were holding FN's too, not M1-16's; and plenty of British Soldiers died during that bayonet charge.

Neither for that matter were the Argentine conscripts "untrained". They were the Batallón de Infantería de Marina 5, the Argentinians most elite Marines.

Honestly, what a laughable statistic.

What did he do? Interview all the dead Argentinians and ask them if they froze?  What a load of old claptrap.

Do you really believe battles are decided by he who can fire the most bullets?

That simply totalling up the number of bullets fired alone, can give you any great insight into the nature of a battle.

In an ambush situation is the reason the victim doesn't fire back, because he is psychologically incapable or because his enemy shot him first?

The superiority of the bayonet at point blank range is that it doesn't run out of ammo and it's not difficult to aim.

It can be readily wielded in the confined spaces of buildings and trenches with comparative ease.

Add to this that the referred to assault was at night time, in the dark, and you begin to understand why the bayonet is superior to the loaded rifle, when tactically deployed.

Not much point having a loaded rifle with an effective range of 600 metres if the first time you see your enemy he is standing next to you with a spear.

Bayonets mate, battle winning technology. Lesser skilled infantry never deploy them. They think it's all about firepower.

[jman 0]

Yes, I think I could do it. In combat, in self defense and defense of family, and while defening any innocent person being attacked. I don't think Id have a problem, espessally since I would feel responisble if my inaction caused the deaths of other innocents.

[chipper 0]

I'd aim for center mass and fire.

"The object of war is not to die for your county but make the other BASTARD die for his!" - by sum old guy

[ozanzac 0]

I can't think of any circumstances, where faced with the prospect of a premature death, I wouldn't do all in my power to prolong my existance. If that meant sacrificing someone else for the sake of mine, particularly if they were an uncontrollable threat, then so be it.

[JeRK 0]

If I really had to shoot at someone I'd try to hit a place where it won't kill that person immediately and I'd try to get a medic over to my target if possible. I'd rather try to keep both of us alive instead of getting one of us killed.

[Average Joe 0]

"IF" Is the word.

[mxbean 0]

Interesting question probably the most significant of all in any forum... "That is the question ...." we of all ages either young and old maybe from 10, 12 up to 50 or more years play around OFP and other shooters (I know OFP is more than that) but still we manage to get the adrenaline pumping when we click our mouse and blow up a few virtual victims (oh its fun all right ... ) it does give us some felling of satisfaction.

In real life... well let see... for my family and loves ones I would resort to it if they were under threat, after all think about it almost all animals will kill without hesitation even risking its own death in the defense of their young cubs. But for country ... That's another question it does not take much to see the horror War can do to people "the non combatants primarily" with all the videos on the the net... you may consider if you could do the same thing.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Could I do it? I don't know at all, and I hope I never have to find out.

[AgentJonathan 0]

I would grab an M82A1 50. cal sniper rifle, and load it with Highly Explosive rounds... And then OFF GOES HIS HEAD!!!

Mwahahahahahahahaaa!!! BLOOD, GORE, VIOLENCE, DEATH, BATTERY! Woohoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Balschoiw 0]

Grow up and repost when you´re there.

[allanorg 0]

Oh yes. i could kill, when you work 45+ hours a week, and come home to more nagging. i'll tell you about killing.

you can all die.

[4 IN 1 0]

Oh yes. i could kill, when you work 45+ hours a week, and come home to more nagging. i'll tell you about killing.

you can all die.

LOL 45 hours a week is not long m8, come back and tell me how is your feeling after working 66+ hours for a hold week and your boss tells you that someone is having a off and needs you to work another 77 till the next sunday, which packed with all kinds of worst customers in the world you have ever seen, i would really like to hear from you how may ppl you've already killed by that time

back on topic, i really dunno, i dont think i would ever take joy over killing, but if the orders is there, and reason is strong enought, i would, but none the less, if you join in services, the first thing you learn shoule be something like "dont think too much, do it first, ask later(if its ever possible)"

[allanorg 0]

im not a wage slave, and i don't need orders to kill people. just beer and an eightball.

and maybe a bag of cat.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

im not a wage slave, and i don't need orders to kill people. just beer and an eightball.

and maybe a bag of cat.

These posts sound stragely familiar....

I do not hunt but own guns and enjoy target shooting. I have no desire to kill, but cannot say what I would do if put in a position if I or loved ones were in harms way.

I have had the unfortunate experience of fearing for my life on several occasions. One such occasion stands out. I got caught walking alone late at night and must have looked like easy prey as I was stumbling drunk.

I was unprepared for the 5 on 1 that suddenly appeared. I knew I was in a bad spot. As the leader of this little hate fest pulled out a knife I knew hesitation = my ass, so i broke his nose and ran like hell.

I didn't make it the 5 blocks back to my friends house...and in the blury moments that I lay on the ground taking repeated kicks and blows to the back of my head there was no thinking going on...only survival instinct.

With blood gushing from my face I made a desperate lunge gripping a rock and cracked one of them in the head...they were stunned...and in that moment I put my arm around ones neck and held the rock high screaming I was going to kill him...I almost felt bad as I realized the one I had grabbed was a girl that was with them and had been standing there watching.

As my blood gushed over her she began to squirm and scream for them to call the police...breaking the mood and casuing them to abandon her in my deranged arms. As they ran away I let go or she broke free ...I don't remember...and she ran crying after them.

The point is in that moment that my survival instinct kicked in, I would have done anything to survive. Rage and adrenaline had put a large rock in my hand, comical circumstances kept me from crushing someones skull, and most likely immediatly being killed myself.

I wasn't thinking about killing, just surviving. So yes, put in a situation like that, I could kill. And i would likely be haunted by it for the rest of my life.

[GAU-8 0]

i wondered a few times about this when growing up. usually it was "hesitation, but will if i have to" type reply. now that i am older, and have wife, children, home to safeguard.. my ideals have changed.

on my home, involving my family. sorry, but mr stranger is going to get some shots to the head and chest. yeah a may have remorse later, but you can always cry, or deal with it however later on. but you cant bring a family member back.

[Rustman 0]

Hi all

In reply to Baff1

Quote[/b] ]I think you've taken it too far.

I would by no means say that 90% of humans "cannot" kill another human, only that it is their natural instinct to avoid killing them during "natural" circumstances.

When placed in a position of threat by another human an entirely different natural instinct manifests.

I think if 90% of humans were holding a loaded gun and a blood drenched axe wielding maniac ran towards them screaming for example far more than 90% of us would pull the trigger. Not by any conscious decision either but by instinct, by reflex.

I would submit that the reaction of the untrained Argentine draftees who faced fully operant conditioned British troops in the Falklands contradicts your belief. And it is only belief; you present no statistical evidence or research to back up your assertion of what you think.

While I will not question that you hold those beliefs strongly and with conviction; they count as nothing when compared to the work of people like Richard Holmes in his book Firing Line for he researched the actual firing rates in the Falklands war.

To Paraphrase your own statment:

The plane facts of Richard Holmes' study are that when "90% of Argentine humans holding a loaded M16 gun and faced with a blood drenched bayonet wielding maniac in the form of an operant conditioned SLR equipped British soldier running towards them screaming at the top of his lungs with murder in his eyes 90% froze and did not react"

Well that's a pretty crap study then isn't it. They were holding FN's too, not M1-16's; and plenty of British Soldiers died during that bayonet charge.

Neither for that matter were the Argentine conscripts "untrained". They were the Batallón de Infantería de Marina 5, the Argentinians most elite Marines.

Honestly, what a laughable statistic.

What did he do? Interview all the dead Argentinians and ask them if they froze? What a load of old claptrap.

Do you really believe battles are decided by he who can fire the most bullets?

That simply totalling up the number of bullets fired alone, can give you any great insight into the nature of a battle.

In an ambush situation is the reason the victim doesn't fire back, because he is psychologically incapable or because his enemy shot him first?

The superiority of the bayonet at point blank range is that it doesn't run out of ammo and it's not difficult to aim.

It can be readily wielded in the confined spaces of buildings and trenches with comparative ease.

Add to this that the referred to assault was at night time, in the dark, and you begin to understand why the bayonet is superior to the loaded rifle, when tactically deployed.

Not much point having a loaded rifle with an effective range of 600 metres if the first time you see your enemy he is standing next to you with a spear.

Bayonets mate, battle winning technology. Lesser skilled infantry never deploy them. They think it's all about firepower.

Eh...the bayonet becomes less and less effective as technology gets better. Currently, I can honestly say I fight better at night than I do during the day. I can easily identify and hit targets at ranges out to 300+ meters with even 5 to 10 year old technology on my issued M-4. Does that mean that hand to hand combat should be dropped from training or that it isn't useful anymore? No...it has it's uses still. Sometimes technology fails...sometimes you just accidentally run head on into the enemy and got no other choice. The brother of one of our soldiers here received a bronze star for jumping into a drainage canal during a firefight and accidentally landing on 2 insurgents...he ended up knifing them both. But really, the day of the classic bayonet charge is over. We would never use it and those that would try it on us, even at night, better have a serious number advantage or they are getting slaughtered.

[4 IN 1 0]

LOL this reminds me one of the story told in another forum, the guy was in bosnia back in 95, on a mission a squad of troopers have been pinned down by enemy fire and their APC squad is the first to arrived there, time passes and they are all running low on ammo, this is the time that guy decided that its time for a bayonet charge, fixed bayonet, see that his m8 do the same, he charged out in no time, yelling over the field, leading the rest of his squad into enemy position(the APC is being used to bump some unlike bastard), he came face to face into the first enemy, he look stunned and cannot react in time, so our guy pull the trigger - click - notthing happen, this is the time that he found he make a very big mistake: being hot headed, he didnt realize that he have already shot his last round. Oh Shit, he through, and the enemy seems to back to normal and start to point the gun towards him, then BANG! the enemy is hitted, the guy's comrade arrived and put his bullet of death into the poor bastard body. Still confused, the guy's comrade hit him in the helmet and tell him to move on.

the out come is quite a happy ending, they managed to get to the last standing soldiers in time, and the bayonet charge guy did get himself a medal for carry out the charge with his empty rifle(which he never intented to)

i think the bottom line is, that ppl will do whatever things with whatever tools they could get if they have to(or feel that its very important), basic instinct. oh and YES, shits does happens

[chipper 0]

If someone is trying to take my life I won't hesitate to take theirs.

[miraoister 1]

yes, im sure i could do it.

next month i got my inital interview to join the RAF regiment.

i'm sure i could shoot a man and kill him but lets not forget he too may have the ability to kill me, and my foe, could be faster, although I will never know his name nor he know mine we will always be connected.

who can i blame when im dead?