Crosswords2 mins ago
Crunch time
I recently read that surveys have been carried out that indicate that when confronted with the opportunity to shoot the enemy, 95% of soliders in conflict deliberately missed their target as they felt unable to kill another human being. Is this true? This then suggests that only 5% of soldiers are fighting. Does anybody know where you can find further info about this? This gives me wonderful hope in the human race
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Pootle. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I saw this program and it was utter ********. Look at the casualty stats from any armed conflict and tell me that 95% of people were missing. I would hate to think of what might happen if soldiers actually start shooting properly. e.g. on iwo jima something like 20000 japanese and 7000 us soldiers dead on a tiny island, 27000 people. d-day causalties in the leading waves were 90%. WW1 entire battalions were wiped out advancing across no mans land. in the Napoleonic era when muskets were incredibly inaccurate, whole regiments were still decimated. Vietnam, the Gulf wars, casualties are simply too high for that to be true.
Add in the human survival factor and you have another nail in its coffin. No way most people would be happy to sit there and be shot at, quietly accepting the risk of death so that they can have a clear conscience. In my opinion this is just a fad bit of research that has been latched onto. In addition, I would hope this is not the case, as there are causes that are worth fighting for. Violence is a necessary part of the world.
I saw a programme detailing what you describe some months ago. If memory serves me correctly, the figures were taken from soldiers fighting in WW2. From what I can recall the figures from more recent conflicts were in stark contrast(Vietnam, The Balkans, Iraq etc) though I have no exact figures.
As a result of current world affairs soldiers no longer fight men whom they preceive to be their peers(i.e. family men who just want to do their job and get back home safe and well) but fanatical terrorists, prepared to give up everything in their quest for blood thirsty vengeance.
From personal experience I can state that when I returned fire(only once) from an aggressor it was with the intention of completely neutralising the threat to me. If that meant the express purpose of terminating his life with extreme prejudice, so be it.
Looks like El D and myself posted roughly the same time. I can only reiterate what he/she has said.
During my time in the Army I spent almost half of it in Northern Ireland. In the RUC/Army base in Crossmaglen there was a sign just above the door as you exited the base to go on patrol. The sign had five words on it. They were:
Thou Shalt Shoot To Kill.
'Nuff said really!
This was the subject of a documentary series about 6 to 8 months ago. BBC2 I think. Some surprising results throughout, as I remember.
Don't want to diminish your hope, but I think the 5% refered to WW1 or 2. These facts were then made available to the authorities, who, as is their want, set about "solving the problem".Since then, they've been developing training techniques which supress the inherent repugnance of the troops actually doing the dirty deed. The training has been very successful. I can't remember the figures, but there has been a massive turnaround (all according to the programme, of course).
It gives you hope and removes it in one single swipe.
Your hope would be dashed if you watch Farenheit 9/11 and see the attitudes of some of the US soldiers in Iraq. They seemed to be treating it as a game, it made me exceedingly angry (no doubt the intention of Mr Moore) to see these people fighting in the name of "freedom" and "justice" etc. I don't think they were shooting to miss, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did anyway, or just shot their comrades in the back by accident.
1 to 8 of 8
