# General questions



## ltgrenier (7 Apr 2011)

Hi,

This is my first post on this forum, I've been reading alot lately about Canadian forces and military life. I'm thinking about joining the forces and trying to figure out if it's for me. There are a couple questions I haven't really found an answer with the search tool. 

1. How are the recruits mentally prepared to kill someone (respecting the rules of engagement, of course) when the situation requires it? I'm sure I could probably kill someone trying to kill me, but the thought of killing an innocent civilian by accident/collateral damage would hunt me for the rest of my life. I would not join a Combat Arms trade, but I'm sure it can happen to anyone in their career. 

2. Being in the military, does the CF expect you to be ready to give your life if the situation requires it? I'm thinking of a situation where a powerful nation would attack Canada and we would have to defend ourselves against this much more powerful enemy (Let's say China invades US/CAN). Would we actually capitulate before sending our troops in a war where alot of soldiers would not come back (thinking WW2)?

Thank you from your answer(s) and keep this forum alive! It's a wonderful tool for anyone thinking about joining the CF!


----------



## Occam (7 Apr 2011)

1.  I don't know that there is any specific preparation - I would imagine that someone shooting at you is powerful incentive to be motivated to shoot back!  I'm sure some Army types can expand on this.

2.  Yes, you're expected to give your life if required.  It's called "unlimited liability".


----------



## Sizzle709 (7 Apr 2011)

These are just my opinions.

1. Either them or you. You're just doing you job.

2. If you're not prepared to give your life for your country then don't join the Forces. This may not be the proper career for you.

AND FYI:

If China ever invaded US or Canada I'd say we'd be able to hold our own. They have numbers but we have technology and the proper training. The US would be up to back us up within 2.4 seconds.


----------



## Pusser (7 Apr 2011)

Sizzle709 said:
			
		

> 2. If you're not prepared to give your life for your country then don't join the Forces. This may not be the proper career for you.



I've never agreed with this line of thinking and I don't agree that "unlimited liabilty" includes a willingness to die.  To paraphrase Patton (may my departed great uncle forgive me), "your job is not to die for your country.  Your job is to make some other dumb sucker die for his country!"

My rationalization is that as a member of the Canadian Forces, I accept that the fulfillment of my duty in accordance with the military ethos I have come to believe in, may result in my death.  BUT, I am not "prepared" to die and I do not lay down my life willingly.  I will do my duty to my utmost ability and do whatever I can to win the day.  If I die in the process, so be it,  but I will not sacrifice myself foolishly.  I will not go gently into that good night.

Finally, with the exception of Chaplain, all occupations in the CF have a duty to fight if required.  There are no "non-combat" ones.  If you want to be in the CF, you need to get your head around that.  Even a cook enables the infantry to take the fight to the enemy.  On board ship, everyone is in the same boat   and has a role to play in fighting.


----------



## Sizzle709 (7 Apr 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> My rationalization is that as a member of the Canadian Forces, I accept that the fulfillment of my duty in accordance with the military ethos I have come to believe in, may result in my death.  BUT, I am not "prepared" to die and I do not lay down my life willingly.  I will do my duty to my utmost ability and do whatever I can to win the day.  If I die in the process, so be it,  but I will not sacrifice myself foolishly.  I will not go gently into that good night.



I should of typed this out because this is EXACTLY what I meant.


----------



## ltgrenier (7 Apr 2011)

Thanks for the replies.

For my question #1, I understand that when you are being shot at you return the fire. I'm concerned of the psychological aspect of taking a human life, something that you can never give back, from someone who did not deserved to die (civilian collateral damage, accidents, etc). How can you drill into someone's head that you're just "doing your job" when your job killed an innocent civilian in the process? 

Have a nice peaceful day!

Edited to remove completely tasteless question.


----------



## ltgrenier (7 Apr 2011)

I'm not saying this in a "I'm proud of it" way. I want to know how you feel after doing it, if you feel remorse or if you get over it easily. Not everyone is fit to pull the trigger and some people must develop problems after doing it. I just don't know how you can figure that out before having to do it.

PS: Sorry if my terms are a bit... simple... english is not my primary language :S

Edit: My last line got edited out... but I think it was a legit question... whatever. I'm sorry if it wasn't appropriate.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Apr 2011)

Thanks to those who spent time thinking about their answers and helping the original poster to understand the concepts he is starting to think about.

For anyone else preparing to join it, some food for thought for you to consider first:

The OP is presenting some valid questions, whether or not you like the posting style or choice of language. I know that when I graduated high school I certainly wasn't fully conversant on concepts like "unlimited liability" and "civilian casualties as unavoidable collateral damage" - but the visibility on warfare the current generation of applicants has means they see it happening and still don't have the vocabulary or ethical training to discuss the issues.  So, they ask the questions the best way they can - using simple words and ideas.

We need to accept that they are not coming to these issues with the experience of formal training and sometimes decades of contemplation some of us have behind us. If you want to respond, do so in a manner that shows respect and instructs.

Milnet.ca Staff.


----------



## Nauticus (7 Apr 2011)

ltgrenier said:
			
		

> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> For my question #1, I understand that when you are being shot at you return the fire. I'm concerned of the psychological aspect of taking a human life, something that you can never give back, from someone who did not deserved to die (civilian collateral damage, accidents, etc). How can you drill into someone's head that you're just "doing your job" when your job killed an innocent civilian in the process?
> 
> ...


I'm guessing that the exact conditioning techniques that the Canadian Forces use is probably OPSEC, so instead I'll direct your attention to two books that you should read.

On Killing and On Combat, both by Dave Grossman. They are basically outline the psychological cost of killing, and they do cover modern developments in this type of conditioning. Dave Grossman is a leader in the psychological aspects of this field, so I highly recommend both books as they could answer your questions than we can, or are allowed, to.


----------



## jwtg (7 Apr 2011)

ltgrenier said:
			
		

> ... I would not join a Combat Arms trade, but I'm sure it can happen to anyone in their career.



One thing worth thinking about when you're considering a career in the forces is that the goal is to protect people (be it Canadians, Afghans, Haitians, etc.) and the way that goal is often (but not always) accomplished is by, to put it simply, killing the bad guys.  Whether it's your finger on the trigger or your finger on a pen/yoke/steering wheel/stirring spoon/sonar device/hammer/power drill/etc., your job will be to contribute to this end goal.  I belive that because of that, it also makes you responsible for the trigger-pull, in a way.  Sure, by not picking a combat arms trade you may spare yourself direct involvement with combat and therefore the effects of having to take a life, but I don't think that removes you from the responsibility of someone dying.  

The pilot who flies the troops over, the LOG people that ensure all the details work out and the cooks that feed them are all part of the same team with the same goal.  It's a long stick with a pointy end, but everyone along the length of it is part of the fight and responsible for their part of that stick doing the job.  

I don't think that by simply NOT being the person who pulls the trigger you can be absolved of the responsibility of that trigger having been pulled, when your job is to support the organization that ordered that trigger pulled.  (With the obvious exclusion of illegal killing...everything I said bears the assumption that everyone else in the chain does their job as they're supposed to...)


----------



## Nauticus (7 Apr 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> One thing worth thinking about when you're considering a career in the forces is that the goal is to protect people (be it Canadians, Afghans, Haitians, etc.) and the way that goal is often (but not always) accomplished is by, to put it simply, killing the bad guys.  Whether it's your finger on the trigger or your finger on a pen/yoke/steering wheel/stirring spoon/sonar device/hammer/power drill/etc., your job will be to contribute to this end goal.  I belive that because of that, it also makes you responsible for the trigger-pull, in a way.  Sure, by not picking a combat arms trade you may spare yourself direct involvement with combat and therefore the effects of having to take a life, but I don't think that removes you from the responsibility of someone dying.
> 
> The pilot who flies the troops over, the LOG people that ensure all the details work out and the cooks that feed them are all part of the same team with the same goal.  It's a long stick with a pointy end, but everyone along the length of it is part of the fight and responsible for their part of that stick doing the job.
> 
> I don't think that by simply NOT being the person who pulls the trigger you can be absolved of the responsibility of that trigger having been pulled, when your job is to support the organization that ordered that trigger pulled.  (With the obvious exclusion of illegal killing...everything I said bears the assumption that everyone else in the chain does their job as they're supposed to...)



You're definitely correct. With that said, though, I'd argue that it could affect a person more, psychologically and physically, being the person put in a situation to actually complete the deed.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Apr 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> You're definitely correct. With that said, though, I'd argue that it could affect a person more, psychologically and physically, being the person put in a situation to actually complete the deed.



You would think so, but it isn't.  There are threads here that tell of people who never went outside the wire, having PTSD just as bad, sometimes worse, as some who did go outside the wire.  Everyone will treat situations in or near combat differently mentally.  What works to keep me sane, may not work for you, and vice versa.  What triggers someone to mentally breakdown will vary from person to person.  Some people are able to handle situations, some are able to mask their inner conflicts with those situations, some are not able to deal with or mask their inner conflicts with situations.  Everyone is an individual and will deal with this in their own way........or not.


----------



## Waters81 (8 Apr 2011)

ltgrenier said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> This is my first post on this forum, I've been reading a lot lately about Canadian forces and military life. I'm thinking about joining the forces and trying to figure out if it's for me. There are a couple questions I haven't really found an answer with the search tool.
> 
> ...



1.As "Nautica" had mentioned, both "On Killing" and "On Combat" by Lt Col Grossman are books that I had read after asking myself the same question. They are both incredible reads and give a lot of incite as to how a soldier is prepared more than how the soldier prepares himself. I think that ultimately it is the individual who decides whether or not he/she has the capability to pull the trigger, but the training methods used during training help prepare the individual mentally for when that time comes. If I am mistaken, then someone please correct me or feel free to elaborate.

2. As far as this question goes, depending what trade you decide to get into, it's a question you need to ask yourself and look deep inside for the answer. What are you truly willing to risk your life for? Are you willing to lay down your life for your friends? Your family? Your country? But again, the possibility and risk of such a situation may not be as high depending what route you decide to follow, but once you join, you are a soldier first.

Again, if anyone would like to correct me, feel free to do so, but be nice, I'm sensitive.


----------



## Occam (8 Apr 2011)

Waters81 said:
			
		

> 1.As "Nautica" had mentioned, both "On Killing" and "On Combat" by Lt Col Grossman are books that I had read after asking myself the same question. They are both incredible reads and give a lot of incite insight as to how a soldier is prepared more than how the soldier prepares himself.
> 
> Again, if anyone would like to correct me, feel free to do so, but be nice, I'm sensitive.



Consider yourself corrected.


----------



## Waters81 (8 Apr 2011)

Ahhhhhh crud, missed that one, thanks.


----------



## BlueOne (12 Apr 2011)

ltgrenier said:
			
		

> Let's say China invades US/CAN



I don't know if we have learned the same geography in school but isn't some big big big oceans surrounding Canada?

If anyone tries to move troops, that would take a lot of time to move and let enough time for us to bomb them. From my point of view, Canada is not possible to invade. We would see that big slow ship coming wayyyy before they can do anything (Imagine then what Can/US would do?) It's not possible to send planes/bombers neither over these oceans. Too far, they won't get back and will be destroyed far from here.

Conclusion: You can sleep on your two ears tonight. People who would give their lives are ready for anything and they are 61,000 from the last numbers I've got!

Good luck with your application!

BlueOne


----------



## aesop081 (12 Apr 2011)

BlueOne said:
			
		

> It's not possible to send planes/bombers neither over these oceans.



Not possible you say ?

The USAF sent its B-2 bombers to targets in Kosovo, direct from their base in Missouri. In Iraq in 2003, the B-2 again conducted non-stop missions from Missouri.


Possible to send planes across vast oceans? Hell yes.


----------



## Sapplicant (12 Apr 2011)

BlueOne said:
			
		

> It's not possible to send planes/bombers neither over these oceans.


----------



## ringknocker82 (12 Apr 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Finally, with the exception of Chaplain, all occupations in the CF have a duty to fight if required.  There are no "non-combat" ones.  If you want to be in the CF, you need to get your head around that.  Even a cook enables the infantry to take the fight to the enemy.  On board ship, everyone is in the same boat   and has a role to play in fighting.



I think this should be included on a recruiting poster or in a recruiting video.  When people find out that I have served in the CF and plan on doing so again in the future, 9 times out of 10 the first question they ask is, "Does that like mean you'd have to like go to war or something?"  No, I'm just joining for the great dental plan.  :facepalm: Just today I was at the RC to see my recruiter and a guy came in to drop off his paperwork.  He actually asked if there was anyway he could avoid seeing warfare.  This really ticked me off.  They want to have all the benefits of wearing the uniform with none of the risks involved. As you said, everyone is trained for basic soldiering, even the guy that makes sure you get paid or the guy that makes those awesome green scrambled eggs.  Is my level of frustration unwarranted?   If it is, I apologize for my little rant.


----------



## BlueOne (13 Apr 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not possible you say ?
> 
> The USAF sent its B-2 bombers to targets in Kosovo, direct from their base in Missouri. In Iraq in 2003, the B-2 again conducted non-stop missions from Missouri.
> 
> ...



Yeah I know, what I meant there is that it's not possible for to achieve a mission if the target is Canada or USA  Correct me if I'm over-confident but I never felt in danger here. There is a missile barrier in Alaska, and Sarah Palin, which is very dangerous to anyone who tries to cross the line 






What I mean is let say Whatever country sends in some bombers. That involve fighters to protect them, which involve a carrier, which involve frigates for support. A carrier have a slow moving speed. We will see them coming and let us enough time to react. The bombers alone would be taken down easily. No matter what, I still think that's "impossible" to militarily bomb/takeover Canada.


----------



## BlueOne (13 Apr 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

>



That picture illustrate a very weak situation, a CF-18 would make a pleasure to take them down in 2 sec! Nice try


----------



## aesop081 (13 Apr 2011)

BlueOne said:
			
		

> I still think that's "impossible" to militarily bomb/takeover Canada.



This is not what you said in your post. You said that :



> It's not possible to send planes/bombers neither over these oceans



Maybe you should be clear next time eh ?

and then you follow it up with :



> That involve fighters to protect them, which involve a carrier



You know fighters can refuel in the air too right ?

then you posted this :



> Sarah Palin, which is very dangerous to anyone who tries to cross the line



Poor attempt at humour and it makes your entire argument here nothing more that a bad joke.


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Apr 2011)

I think the point is that it's a logistical challenge to invade a country on the other side of the largest ocean on the planet -- at the far end of a very long supply chain.  But it isn't insurmountable: aircraft can be made to travel that distance, and it wouldn't be the first surprise air attack from the western Pacific.


----------



## dimsum (13 Apr 2011)

BlueOne said:
			
		

> That picture illustrate a very weak situation, a CF-18 would make a pleasure to take them down in 2 sec! Nice try



What you don't see (actually probably one of the planes taking the photo) is the fighter screen around the AWACS.  I don't think those things fly by their lonesome.


----------



## dangles (13 Apr 2011)

BlueOne said:
			
		

> No matter what, I still think that's "impossible" to militarily bomb/takeover Canada.



Why? The US could do it right now if they wanted to. Also, what if an attacking country simply set up positions in Greenland and used it as a base to fly bombing runs into Canada? Wouldn't be too hard. 
Anyways, I agree with N. McKay...I mean in the 1900s there have been two world wars where countries have invaded others from opposite sides of the world. Canada surely could be bombed, and Canada is also not immune to takeover, however unlikely it really is.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Apr 2011)

dangles said:
			
		

> Canada surely could be bombed,



In fact, Canada was indeed bombed once upon a time, from a country clear accross the Pacific ocean:

http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/01/12/


----------



## dangles (13 Apr 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> In fact, Canada was indeed bombed once upon a time, from a country clear accross the Pacific ocean:
> 
> http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/01/12/



Not to mention the German U-boat offensives in our waters...Nowadays submarines can carry nuclear weapons...
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/sub.cfm?source=history/secondwar/battlegulf/suboffens


----------



## BlueOne (13 Apr 2011)

Yeah but you guys are talking of 1945...

My only point, not to argue with you but just to point out the fact that we have plenty of satellites and now at the age of electronic war... Comm. Search trade guys could tell you more on this. I would be quite surprised if USA ever invade us, they are our allies. We are members of NATO and former Commonwealth. Sorry but I still think Canada is out of reach of China.


----------



## Waters81 (13 Apr 2011)

Where there's a will, there's way, and the numbers already exist on Canadian soil that it could be easily accomplished...not trying to kick the hornets nest, just hypothetically speaking.


----------



## Sapplicant (13 Apr 2011)

BlueOne said:
			
		

> Yeah but you guys are talking of 1945...
> 
> My only point, not to argue with you but just to point out the fact that we have plenty of satellites and now at the age of electronic war... Comm. Search trade guys could tell you more on this. I would be quite surprised if USA ever invade us, they are our allies. We are members of NATO and former Commonwealth. Sorry but I still think Canada is out of reach of China.



You're not doing yourself any favours, or silencing the peanut gallery. Trust me. Best to listen to the SME's, which neither you nor I are. Just give it a rest.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Apr 2011)

BlueOne said:
			
		

> Yeah but you guys are talking of 1945...
> 
> My only point, not to argue with you but just to point out the fact that we have plenty of satellites and now at the age of electronic war... Comm. Search trade guys could tell you more on this. I would be quite surprised if USA ever invade us, they are our allies. We are members of NATO and former Commonwealth. Sorry but I still think Canada is out of reach of China.



Read more and post less you are out of your lane and your league.
This is your friendly warning.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Waters81 (13 Apr 2011)

By The Way...I thought the whole Japanese balloon attack thing was hilarious...it's like Canada's version of 5 o'clock Charlie, would have made for a great "Corner Gas" episode.


----------



## jeffb (13 Apr 2011)

Waters81 said:
			
		

> By The Way...I thought the whole Japanese balloon attack thing was hilarious...



I'm sure the parents of the 5 children that were killed by the balloons didn't find it quite as amusing.  :


----------



## Waters81 (14 Apr 2011)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I'm sure the parents of the 5 children that were killed by the balloons didn't find it quite as amusing.  :


 Excuse me for a moment, I seem to have a foot in my mouth...oh wait, that would be mine.
 :facepalm:


----------



## Scott (14 Apr 2011)

Milpoints inbound. At least you admit when you've stepped on your dick, unlike some others.


----------



## BlueOne (14 Apr 2011)

I've re-read myself yesterday night and sent apologies to Ex-Dragoon personally.

Since then, now I feel like I must do the same in public. I did wrong.
I'm here to learn and will try my best. Lesson learned.

BlueOne

edit: Just remembered what shame felt like...


----------

