• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trained killers?

Sh0rtbUs,

since this is your thread I do owe you a reply to your question:

In a society worth protecting those who choose to do so have to face being critisied for their choice - a fundamental dilema.

However, as long as there are people willing to solve a dispute over a parking space with an automatic rifle, those wanting to peacefully change the world for the better (one of which is your grandfather I assume) need someone to watch their back.

An old German saying says that "The smarter one will give in." - I have a variation hanging here which I fear is closer to today‘s realities: "If the smarter ones will always give in, eventually the stupid will rule the world."
 
I just wanted to say Thx to George Wallace for posting that.

MY folks were origianly against me joining up. But after some time they came around. For some reason they think that when you joing is because you a war mongerer or something. But time has passed and they have acepted my choice.
 
Just look at it this way, if someone has a bomb on him, there are hundreds of people around, he‘s about to detonate the bomb, and you as a soldier, you have your C7 in your hands and you have the choice to kill this person who may kill 10 times more people if you don‘t kill him. If you do kill him, you just saved many lives and that‘s what you are there for as a soldier.

Even as a civilian things like this comes up. Let‘s say a drunk guy with a knife is about to kill someone you love and you have the choice to take away his life and save the person you love.

In the end it comes out to the same thing exept the life that gets taken away is the one that was going to kill someone for no good reason.

Yes, you are trained to kill. But you aren‘t trained to kill anyone.

Have a serious talk with your family and explain this stuff. I‘m sure if you do you‘ll feel a lot better afterwords.
 
If you are not trained to kill, you are not a soldier, a policeman maybe but not a soldier, no illusions here, that to kill when needed is your fundamental priority! Your parents may not be as stupid or stodgy as you think, many have first hand experience and know what they mean when they speak. Don‘t sell them short, remember Kyle Brown and the "Air Borne" things have not changed as much as you might think! Think some more, you really need to understand, you are signing on to be "KILLERS" if you do understand, then I hope your good at it!
 
I got one for you guys, this one was asked by my Commanding Officer to me and the other subbies.

What is the philosophical difference between a police force and an army?

I know that this show be in the question of the week, but it has relevance here too.
 
tmb, how do you know things have not changed, you haven‘t been in since 68?? Where do you get this?
 
I think we may be getting wrapped around the axle over terminology. "Trained Killer" is being a bit simplistic for identifying soldiers. There is a big difference in what a soldier is and what someone who takes life is. Soldiers abide by a whole code of conduct and ethics. It is a lifestyle, a way of thinking and acting. Soldiers conduct themselves by a warrior‘s belief. Traditions, morals (both individual and society‘s) all play a part in the make up of warriors.

That being said, all this training, education, preparation and the approval of your fellow citizens may not be enough. Some folks in this thread innocently included certain situations where soldiers would or wouldn‘t shoot. In certain studies in the past, statistics (I know they can be interpreted many ways by many people) showed that as little as 30% of soldiers actually shot their weapons in a general direction of the enemy. This was even when there was a clear and present danger to them. This was unacceptable to the generals who thought that they could not have soldiers not killing each other. Through training and social conditioning the stats were improved to a much higher number. There are still modern wars where many soldiers do not fire but still carry out active roles by pointing out targets, encouring fellow soldiers or other battle tasks. This was even noted during Op Enduring Freedom/Op Appolo and Iraq today.

"Cold blooded killers"?....
I think not.
 
I really didn‘t want to wade into this one, but here is my opinion.
In a literal sense soldiers, especially combat arms, are trained cold-blooded killers. This means they have been trained to do it, and they kill in a dispassionate deliberate manner (in contrast to hot-blooded which would imply enraged, angry or vengeful).
That is the job, and there is no comparison to any in civilian life. Regardless of what your family thinks, if you have a problem with this concept, there are other trades where the killer aspect of the job takes a backseat to filing papers, handing out kit, etc.
 
Gambler,

I should not argue against your opinion but it implies that soldiers can be automatons, parade square drill aside.
I think you are doing this guy a disservice by implying that anyone (psychopaths not included) can kill anyone dispassionately no matter what training they have received. There are some (probably a small minority) who can pull it off but I think emotions play a big part in this action. We are not talking about squashing a bug underfoot. I don‘t buy into the whole "post killing" soldier wracked with guilt and remorse, not being able to make amends with killing someone in spite of socially imposed values. Most go on to kill again in combat. One way to help soldiers over come this in the past was to dehumanize the enemy. I‘ve strayed away from the topic. I still think that family will play a big role in his decision but he is his own man.
 
"Cold blooded killers"?....
I think not.
You‘re responding to the insinuation that by "trained killers" what is being implied is that Canadian troops are cold blooded killers. Maybe this guys grandpa isn‘t against the military, and doesn‘t belive that all soldiers are cold blooded killers. Maybe he just doesn‘t want to see his grandson be placed in a situation where he is forced to live the rest of his life with the survivors guilt of combat.

When I included hypothetical scenarios, they were meant to serve as a demonstration that as a civilian, you really wouldn‘t know what to do. However, as a fully trained soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces you would know what to do, or you would be ordered to do something and you would do it, because that‘s what you have been trained to do.

How could you deploy an infantry platoon to "close with and destroy the enemy" if you haven‘t trained them how to kill?
Just because we don‘t frequently go on the offensive into combat situations as the Americans do, doesn‘t mean we train to be self defense experts, or submission hold aplicators, or missonaries who try to change the world with a bible in their hand.
Our troops carry guns, knives, and explosives. Tools used to injure and kill enemies. The bulk of training to become a soldier relates to a soldiers ability to effectivly engage and defeat an enemy, and how to best insure that he stays alive while doing so. Usually thats going to involve deploying lethal force.

What I‘m trying to say, is that this guys grandpa didn‘t say "why do you want to be a cold blooded killer?". He said "trained killer", which all soldiers are by definition.

I think everyone in this forum understands that our soldiers are much more than simply being trained killers. I think however that getting upset about peoples views which contradict the militaries core functions such as training our youth effective ways to kill people, is a waste of time. There will always be people who have that viewpoint, direct family members especially. The only thing you can really do is try to explain why you belive it‘s right.

People who take it a step further and express the viewpoint that soldier ARE cold blooded killers, or murderers, or women and children killers, obviously have no concept of what our military does in this world, and their extemely uneducated opinion on the matter is worth less than nothing.
It is an incindiary viewpoint when it is expressed, and ironically since they are ones getting on a high horse and taking a position that many "advocates of peace" or "anti military types" are known to take, they are generally making an attempt to incite conflict with someone they deem as a violent person who they think is likely to act out when they are made angry. (which is obviously contrary to their own belief that conflict resolution through violence is wrong)
 
Seeing there has been no takers yet I will elaborate. Soldiers are not "trained killers", you could under all definitions pretty much lump in police officers under this catagory.

What a soldier does under permitting ROE is when there is a situation that arises, he uses a means of force to quell it.

With a police officer, they have to cycle through a series of set protocol before they can use force.

That veiw is what many have adopted to be a soldier. This is true primarily, however our secondary role (as shown in peacekeeping) is pretty much police officers. We are to cycle through a set protocol before action can be taken. I think it is an misconseption that we are now solely "trained killers", other organizations that protect the sovriegnty of our nation can be "trained killers" as well.

I dont believe that the way a soldier defeats his enemy is in cold blood either. Most do not know the person that they are killing, most do it in a very impersonal way, most do it without an emotional attachment to the act. They do the act because they are told to, they do it to survive. You try not to be killed, you kill who would kill you, that is all, none of that assasin crap.
 
I was just discussing this yesterday with a police officer friend of mine.

We agreed that the fundamental difference is that police are trained to use less-lethal force options, and their mandate is only to take life is the extremest of circumstances, when it is totally unavoidable.

A soldier seldom has less-lethal options (let‘s not include JTF2 or whatever here), and the training centres around ways to utterly destroy and repel a clearly defined enemy force, necessary as a tool of last resort in implementing foreign policy.

Although civilians are a factor on the battlefield, and the soldier must still respect ROE‘s and minimize damage to non military assets/people, the bulk of the training is blunt, lethal force, with few lesser degrees discussed.
 
Has anyone ever trained on the ROE mission in the SAT? I‘ve only used in for PWT‘s and defensive scenarios. Part of this SAT was portrayed on Truth Duty Valour during the Naval boarding party episode. Shoot/don‘t shoot could be played out here.
 
It‘s one thing to play a video game...

It‘s TOTALLY different when it‘s for real. :eek:

Regards
 
Originally posted by GrahamD:
[qb] What I‘m trying to say, is that this guys grandpa didn‘t say "why do you want to be a cold blooded killer?". He said "trained killer", which all soldiers are by definition.
[/qb]
Soldiers are *not* trained killers, especially not Canadian soldiers.

The ability to engage in combat, and yes, if nessascary, take life IS part of the training, but "trained killers" implies that it‘s the sole part of the training...

Bare in mind for many years now, the bulk of work performed by Canadian soliders is NOT war making, but peace making, peace keeping, and very notably with respect to the "trained killer" idea, civil assistance operations.

That‘s right, the folks who you for some reason define as "trained killers" are the one‘s who rescue Grandma when an ice storm hits, the ones who save lives when floods hit, who are out there along firefighters when forest fires hit, again, saving lives.
 
Soldiers are *not* trained killers?

WTF are you talking about? Do we train to shoot and do related activities that is designed to beat the **** out of the opposition for fun?

Yes, Canadian soldiers don‘t typically go to battle to kill the opposition, but that does not mean what we train for is not for war.

Being a professional soldier is what we are first. Peacekeeper is just another role we do in addition to being a soldier.

JustASigOp, you‘re probably type of people who get offended by ‘What makes the grass grow? BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD! What do we do? KILL!‘ :confused:
 
The military is trained to kill its opposition, while the police are trained to save the lives. A SWAT team goes in to a building to save lives, both the hostages and the "suspects". They will shoot, but bringing the suspect out alive is the objective (secondary to the lives of hostages and fellow officers). If the army is sent into a similar building, people will be killed. The army trains to shoot first while the police tries to avoid physical confrontations at almost all costs. It may not always be that simple, but it is one of the fundamental differences.
 
Thanks for enlightening us on how the army works, recruit. "If the army is sent into a similar building" we would try just as hard to get the hostages, we don‘t just kick down the door guns blazing if we know there are civilians inside.
 
Soldiers are not trained killers, they are trained to get the job done, no matter what the costs.
 
Being a professional soldier means part of your job is train to be a killer and if necessary, kill.
 
Back
Top