All things joining the military (but not wanting to deploy) - merged

[mariomike]

That would be Col Alvin York, right? What a man.

Sgt. York, actually. 
There was also a Mess Attendant ( what we would call a Steward ) at Pearl Harbor who won the Navy Cross:
"When directed to assist in loading a pair of unattended Browning .50 caliber anti-aircraft guns, Miller took control of one and began firing at the Japanese planes, even though he had no training in operating the weapon. He fired the gun until he ran out of ammunition. Japanese aircraft eventually dropped two armor-piercing bombs through the deck of the battleship and launched 5 × 18 in. (457 mm) aircraft torpedoes into her port side. Heavily damaged by the ensuing explosions, and suffering from severe flooding below decks, the West Virginia slowly settled to the harbor bottom as her crew—including Miller—abandoned ship."

There was also in the movie "12 O'Clock High" a Padre who flew a mission aboard a B-17 as an Air Gunner, but I don't know how true that is.

 

[PMedMoe]

Med tech, doctor, nurse, well, that's a grey area. But I believe any of those trades CAN be ordered to be a soldier first, trade second, and be ordered to take part in combat and reign destruction on an enemy....

No they can't.  Medical personnel are allowed to defend themselves and their patients, depending on the ROEs.  The minute they start shooting at the enemy and tossing grenades, all bets are off.

 

[ballz]

No they can't.  Medical personnel are allowed to defend themselves and their patients, depending on the ROEs.  The minute they start shooting at the enemy and tossing grenades, all bets are off.

But they can (I know it's unlikely) be ordered to be a soldier first, trade second, just like any other trade other than padre, right? They *can* be ordered to start shooting the enemy and toss a grenade as part of an offensive campaign, no? Sorry but your post wasn't clear so I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[Dean22]

But they can (I know it's unlikely) be ordered to be a soldier first, trade second, just like any other trade other than padre, right? They *can* be ordered to start shooting the enemy and toss a grenade as part of an offensive campaign, no? Sorry but your post wasn't clear so I'm not sure what you're saying.

I am pretty sure that's against RoE for a med tech to be wearing the internationally recognized red cross on his arm and participating as a combatant (unless he changes uniform?).

This was especially seen in the Gaza strip as militants from Hamas used a single ambulance to escape a battle and then after that the Israeli army began opening fire on all ambulances. It's one of the things the U.N. says the Israeli military did wrong since the militants had the right to evacuate their wounded/dead.

 

[aesop081]

I am pretty sure that's against RoE

International law is what governs the actions of those wearing the red cross/red crescent.

 

[PMedMoe]

No they can't.  Medical personnel are allowed to defend themselves and their patients, depending on the ROEs

But they can (I know it's unlikely) be ordered to be a soldier first, trade second, just like any other trade other than padre, right? They *can* be ordered to start shooting the enemy and toss a grenade as part of an offensive campaign, no? Sorry but your post wasn't clear so I'm not sure what you're saying.

What part of "No, they can't" was unclear?  Yes, everyone is a soldier/airman/seaman first and trade second but all medical personnel and padres are covered under the Geneva Convention and International Law (as CDN Aviator stated). So no, they cannot be ordered to throw grenades as part of an offensive campaign.  We can certainly be trained to do so, but to use it against the enemy is contravening the Geneva Convention.

You might want to also check out Laws of Armed Conflict.

See the link for more info, but here is a quote:

Nevertheless, to enjoy immunity, they must naturally abstain from any form of participation -even indirect- in hostile acts. We saw in Article 21 that the protection to which medical units are entitled ceases if they are used to commit acts "harmful to the enemy". This proviso obviously applies to medical personnel also.

Link:  http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/GC_1949-I.pdf

 

[gcclarke]

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that medical units would still be entitled to protection their usual protection under the Geneva Convention and other Laws of Armed Conflict. The question is whether or not a medical unit could be ordered to forgo said protection in order to participate in an offensive. Would an order to a field hospital to take off their Red Cross armband, pick up their rifles, and move out to destroy the enemy be a legal order?

I'm not sure if it would be or not. However, I rather doubt that many commanders would even contemplate giving such an order, let alone actually issue it. Our health care personnel are generally a lot more useful in that role than they would be trying to pretend to be an infantry platoon.

 

[PMedMoe]

See what happens with "quick" questions? 

IMHO, if you have no intention of deploying, don't join.  Of course, that's just me. 

 

[GAP]

I haven't joined yet but Ive been wanting to get into artillery.

Let's say I completed BMQ, SQ, etc and at some time down the line my battalion/unit was called to Afghanistan and I refused to go. In short Im asking how do they deal with soldiers that have no intentions of going to Afghanistan?

(Moderator edit to clarify thread title.)

This was the original question.....I think we've kinda slipped away from it....

 

[Dean22]

See what happens with "quick" questions? 

IMHO, if you have no intention of deploying, don't join.  Of course, that's just me.

That's what I was trying to say originally.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Dean22 why don't you consider getting some more time in soldiering before answering questions about what soldiers can and can't do?

 

[Dean22]

Dean22 why don't you consider getting some more time in soldiering before answering questions about what soldiers can and can't do?

I was merely commenting on how medics cannot engage in combat unless it's defense of themselves or their patients. If you'd like to mislead people then go right ahead.

 

[aesop081]

If you'd like to mislead people then go right ahead.

Funny, usualy its you who does the misleading.

Translation..........STFU.

 

[Dean22]

Funny, usualy its you who does the misleading.

Translation..........STFU.

Usually.

No MSN talk please (at least those are the rules), also I fixed your spelling errors.

 

[PMedMoe]

Usually.

No MSN talk please (at least those are the rules), also I fixed your spelling errors.

You just don't know when to quit, do you?  :

 

[aesop081]

No MSN talk please (at least those are the rules

I'm sorry. Please let me rephrase.


SHUT THE FUCK UP !

 

[Jarnhamar]

I was merely commenting on how medics cannot engage in combat unless it's defense of themselves or their patients. If you'd like to mislead people then go right ahead.

You're talking out of your ass here and on other threads. People are trying to be polite and steer you on track, but you're ignoring them. People are being direct with you and attempting to help, for lack of a better word, you from getting on the 'warning system' here and ultimately banned but your giving them the big GFYS too.

In the end you won't take any direction because you are to butt hurt to listen and you'll get banned.  Have fun.

 

[ballz]

What part of "No, they can't" was unclear?

Obviously the part that I bolded... Had you not added that to the end of it, I probably would have taken your comment as black and white.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that medical units would still be entitled to protection their usual protection under the Geneva Convention and other Laws of Armed Conflict. The question is whether or not a medical unit could be ordered to forgo said protection in order to participate in an offensive. Would an order to a field hospital to take off their Red Cross armband, pick up their rifles, and move out to destroy the enemy be a legal order?

Yes, that is my question, thank you.

 

[PMedMoe]

Obviously the part that I bolded... Had you not added that to the end of it, I probably would have taken your comment as black and white.

Regarding the part you bolded, what I meant was if the medical personnel start shooting at the enemy for reasons other than protection (of themselves and patients) then they are no longer protected under the GC and the enemy can fire upon them, their equipment and their establishments.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Obviously the part that I bolded... Had you not added that to the end of it, I probably would have taken your comment as black and white.

Yes, that is my question, thank you.

Legal? Probably, but it's not going to happen. No sane person is going to give that order. Think about it. If you're in a situation where they need to fight as grunts, you are going to need them more in their trade capacity that ever.

Now, let's cut out the outlandish hypotheticals and get back to the original question.

Milnet.ca Staff