Combat ethics

[domesticated om]

I have a few questions regarding to the killing of "the enemy" during combat. Users who've served in the Military would probably consider these questions basic. At any rate, here goes:

If you shoot at the enemy and incapacitate them to where they can no longer fight, are you obligated to finish them off, or do you seek medical attention and take them prisoner (assuming the situation allows)?

Are you obligated to kill an unarmed enemy soldier if they don't surrender?

Are you obligated to kill enemy soldiers who are unarmed, have not surrendered, but are totally trapped/surrounded (example -- a bunch of enemy troops are out of ammo, but holed up in a small dead-end cave.... your squad/unit/whatever is at the entrance of the cave......do you toss in tear gas, or start spraying napalm?

How do you handle a situation where the enemy's weapons are absurdly inferior to your own military?
Let's say an imaginary new tribe was discovered in a remote jungle. The tribe's chief declares war, and the 'warriors' of the tribe are armed with nothing but spears and clubs. They are all dedicated soldiers who will fight to the death no matter what, and never surrender - even when taken prisoner. Do you kill them, or do you use modern nonlethal riot control tactics (tear gas, high pressure hose, etc).

 

[Baron Max]

If you shoot at the enemy and incapacitate them to where they can no longer fight, are you obligated to finish them off, or do you seek medical attention and take them prisoner (assuming the situation allows)?

Can't answer that because you haven't given enough info about the situation, the location, the mission, the nearness of the aid stations, the degree of the wound, the number of enemy nearby, the amount of fighting going on at the time, the number of enemy planes dropping bombs on your location, the number of mortar or artillery rounds exploding close by, ......

Are you obligated to kill an unarmed enemy soldier if they don't surrender?

See answer above.

Are you obligated to kill enemy soldiers who are unarmed, have not surrendered, but are totally trapped/surrounded (example -- a bunch of enemy troops are out of ammo, but holed up in a small dead-end cave.... your squad/unit/whatever is at the entrance of the cave......do you toss in tear gas, or start spraying napalm?

See answer above.

How do you handle a situation where the enemy's weapons are absurdly inferior to your own military?
Let's say an imaginary new tribe was discovered in a remote jungle. The tribe's chief declares war, and the 'warriors' of the tribe are armed with nothing but spears and clubs. They are all dedicated soldiers who will fight to the death no matter what, and never surrender - even when taken prisoner. Do you kill them, or do you use modern nonlethal riot control tactics (tear gas, high pressure hose, etc).

Oh, that ones easy ....you let them kill you.

Baron Max

 

[kenworth]

the concept of surrender seems ridiculous.

 

[Baron Max]

the concept of surrender seems ridiculous.

Huh? Can you explain that a little more thoroughly?

Baron Max

 

[kenworth]

my basic opinion is that if you are willing to kill you have to be willing to be killed.
imagine on d-day you've just broken through the lines and the german machine gunners,who have slaughtered hundreds/thousands of your country men, are surrendering because they dont want to play war anymore?!
fuck that.
the fact that there are certain kinds of munitions that are legal also confuses the hell out of me.
it just turns war into a game.and i dont like the idea of rich mens' games being played with poor people as pawns.

 

[Baron Max]

my basic opinion is that if you are willing to kill you have to be willing to be killed.

Well, if you're ever in a war, you probably should remember something ...a dead soldier can't ever fight again. But a live soldier, even as a prisoner of war, can still escape and fight again. If the odds are overwhelming and death is almost certain, then surrendering is not a dishonorable thing to do.

imagine on d-day you've just broken through the lines and the german machine gunners, ..., are surrendering because they dont want to play war anymore?!

I don't understand your comment ...because many German soldiers did exactly that. So ...what's your point?

and i dont like the idea of rich mens' games being played with poor people as pawns.

Would it be better if poor people played the game with poor people's lives?

Baron Max

 

[kenworth]

Well, if you're ever in a war, you probably should remember something ...a dead soldier can't ever fight again. But a live soldier, even as a prisoner of war, can still escape and fight again. If the odds are overwhelming and death is almost certain, then surrendering is not a dishonorable thing to do.

i can understand why people try to surrender,i cant understand why it is unthinkable to kill people after they have surrendered.

[/QUOTE]

I don't understand your comment ...because many German soldiers did exactly that. So ...what's your point?

[/QUOTE]

my point is,i think i would have a hard time not just killing them all


[/QUOTE]Would it be better if poor people played the game with poor people's lives?

Baron Max[/QUOTE]


yes,definately.then they would be fighting for their own reasons and ideals.

 

[kenworth]

dammit,i cant do multi-quote :'(

 

[Baron Max]

...,i cant understand why it is unthinkable to kill people after they have surrendered.

Then you don't know anything about war. What do you do with prisoners if you're fighting the rest of the enemy with everything you've got? Tell everyone to stop shooting so you can take the prisoners back to camp????

...,my point is, i think i would have a hard time not just killing them all

You don't have a real good grasp of what it's like in combat, do you? Do you really think that it's a little philosophical classroom lesson? People get killed in combat, people die ...that's what combat is!

...,yes,definately.then they would be fighting for their own reasons and ideals.

So all poor people all have the same ideals and philosophies of life? All poor people are alike?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

dammit,i cant do multi-quote :'(

Just hit "quote" at the top left corner of the post (my post, for example), right under my name, then see how the "reply with quote" is arranged. Then just copy and paste as you would any other document.

Baron Max

 

[kenworth]

thanks.you really should re-read the first two parts of my last post,you seem to have the wrong end of the stick.

 

[kenworth]

So all poor people all have the same ideals and philosophies of life? All poor people are alike?

Baron Max

no of course not.where did i say something even close to that?

 

[Baron Max]

thanks.you really should re-read the first two parts of my last post,you seem to have the wrong end of the stick.

Well, let's just say that I can't understand your version of English, and we'll just forget this little discussion, okay?

Baron Max

 

[kenworth]

no,lets not.
re-read the posts and come up with a response.
i think i was quite clear,its just that you have to read ALL the words BM not just the ones that make you excited because you have a folksy response to them.

 

[Baron Max]

no,lets not.
re-read the posts and come up with a response.
i think i was quite clear,its just that you have to read ALL the words BM not just the ones that make you excited because you have a folksy response to them.

Which post? There's a number in the upper right side of each post.

Baron Max

 

[Anti-Flag]

Kenworth I get your point about how it's hard not to kill someone who's just killed a few hundred of your comrades, even if they've surrendered. You seem to have missed something though, not everyone volunteers, what of conscripts and draftees? These people didn't WANT to fight, but they've been thrown into a situation where it's kill or be killed, they're likely to surrender at the first oppurtunity, do you think you should still kill someone who had no choice?
Surrender is perfectly valid when it gives you a chance to survive, particularly if you didn't want to be there in the first place, it's always a risk giving up you're only defence though, and plenty of people have been killed in all wars after surrender.

 

[kenworth]

Which post? There's a number in the upper right side of each post.

Baron Max

post #7

 

[kenworth]

Kenworth I get your point about how it's hard not to kill someone who's just killed a few hundred of your comrades, even if they've surrendered. You seem to have missed something though, not everyone volunteers, what of conscripts and draftees? These people didn't WANT to fight, but they've been thrown into a situation where it's kill or be killed, they're likely to surrender at the first oppurtunity, do you think you should still kill someone who had no choice?
Surrender is perfectly valid when it gives you a chance to survive, particularly if you didn't want to be there in the first place, it's always a risk giving up you're only defence though, and plenty of people have been killed in all wars after surrender.

you are right.but i think a lot of people who are involuntarily conscripted dont do enough to stop it.
when someone tries to make you fight for a cause you dont believe in,that is when you fight to death against the people who are conscripting you!

i think a lot of people dont really understand what war means.
people are STILL suprised that american soldiers are getting killed in iraq?!?!
what on earth did they think was going to happen?
you dont sign up for the army and then complain when you have to fight!!!!

 

[Baron Max]

i think a lot of people dont really understand what war means.

Like you! And your posts are proving that point clearly.

Baron Max

 

[Anti-Flag]

you are right.but i think a lot of people who are involuntarily conscripted dont do enough to stop it.
when someone tries to make you fight for a cause you dont believe in,that is when you fight to death against the people who are conscripting you!

I don't see what else they can do, they will want to survive, same as someone surrendering. In the USA you may get away with being jailed, other regimes will kill people refusing to fight. The worst thing is being sent as a non-combatant, who in their right mind would allow themselves to be forced into a warzone without a gun?
To resist conscription would require a large enough civil unrest to have an armed force to oppose the leaders or it would just be a slaughter.

i think a lot of people dont really understand what war means.
people are STILL suprised that american soldiers are getting killed in iraq?!?!
what on earth did they think was going to happen?
you dont sign up for the army and then complain when you have to fight!!!!

We're an occupying force after invasion in Iraq but were led to believe we'd be a liberation force. That's the governments lies and peoples ability to fall for it more than anything else.
I don't think the soldiers are the one's complaining though they would have every right to, even if they should know better than to believe things like "over by christmas" etc. At least they're all volunteers though.