A violently true depiction of what war really is • Hacker News Board

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#211

Post by philwelch » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 7:55 AM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #132

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong way -- there are logical flaws with using that label. War is a part of society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. Having said that, it's a great first-person account of what real combat is like, at least for this one guy. I am concerned the effect on HN discussion will be negative. Hopefully I'm w…

>I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong way Geeze Louise. I don't think flagging, on this site, is meant as a downvote for articles where you disagree with some terms' definitions. >The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s. With a draft and mandatory conscription, everybody had the common experience of serving and perhaps doing really…

The World Wars were justified in the eyes of the population, Korea didn't last long enough to get worked up about, and there were draft riots during the Civil War as well as federal repression of the anti-war movement.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#212

Post by xyzzyz » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 8:41 AM UTC

bdunbar wrote: post #167

xyzzyz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And 5.56 won't help you if an enemy has a tank. What's your point? The argument was that as someone trained in martial has significantly better chance than someone that isn't. For instance, here where I live, the probability of enemy having a gun is infinitesimal. I think some people here underestimate what kind of preparation regular, twice a week, hour and a half long training for a year or two can provide. Many br…

And 5.56 won't help you if an enemy has a tank. What's your point? My point? To paraphrase Han Solo: "Hokey religions and hand-to-hand are no match for a good blaster at your side ..." Well, not quite. But that was too fun not to use. The argument was that as someone trained in martial has significantly better chance than someone that isn't. Depends on your definition of 'trained': attitude is everything. A guy can b…

A guy can be a trained martial artist, kick-ass in tournaments and still loose big in a fight because - away from the mat - he utterly lacks the will to fight.

Well of course, and a guy with a gun may still lose to a kid if he tries to operate it with his feet. In other words -- I don't accept your premise. If he has no will to fight, he will not fight. If he is forced to fight, he's at least no worse than someone who's not trained.

People trained in martial arts are more than capable of kicking ass, because, well, that's the whole point of martial arts. I suggest you to go to the martial arts training and see for yourself what kind of fight can trained people give.

And the whole gun talk only proves the fact that if you live in US, you're fucked and nothing can help you.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#213

Post by doktrin » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 8:58 AM UTC

ObjectiveSub wrote: post #184

On a similar note: I recently watched the movie "Act of Valor". I had no idea it was one big propaganda piece before I got in. As soon as the movie started I thought "Yep, here we go. 110 minutes of pure army PR". What I thought was more interesting were the comments on the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. You can check them out for yourself here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/act_of_valor/ It is a shit movie; no doubt…

This is a sentiment I also have had a hard time sharing and even understanding. The adulation and worship of the military that has risen in recent years is a strange bird indeed.

It's essentially unpatriotic to not consider every single service member a "hero", or fail to thank them for their service. It doesn't make sense to put the military on an unrealistic and imaginary pedestal.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#214

Post by burgerbrain » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 9:20 AM UTC

fdschoeneman wrote: post #202

burgerbrain wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. As I read the article, it seemed like the author was alternating between suggesting that experience was what turned people that way ( "he was the FNG [ed: fucking new guy] that got blown up because he was incompetent, who left the fight before it turned him into one of us." ), and suggesting that there is something else at play ( "only roughly 20% of combat troops ever get PTSD – when if you think about it, it s…

I'm not sure the author is real.

So?

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#215

Post by PakG1 » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 9:21 AM UTC

mkramlich wrote: post #197

PakG1 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought and read SEAL Team Six: Memoirs of an Elite Navy SEAL Sniper . In it, the author says that all snipers need to have a really strong faith, philosophy, or something like that to guide them so that they don't lose control of themselves and get intoxicated by the power. When you have someone in your scope, you really can feel like God, the decision to kill or let live is yours. He says that's why it was so easy…

> If you don't have something strong in you to guide you and keep you under control, you'll go wild, in his opinion. ethics and empathy is enough. no need to have religion.

He wasn't saying you needed to have a religion. He was saying you need to have something.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#216

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 9:24 AM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #74

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must be missing what ticked you off here. We set up a system where society approves of the use of lethal force. (In fact, many believe the true defining characteristic of a government is the monopoly in the use of force) People are instructed by this system to go kill people. As long as that's all the information we have, there's nothing to indicate that these people care nothing about societal norms. In fact, they…

You may be interested in Dave Grossman's "On Killing": http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Soci... Grossman is a Psychology professor at West Point (or was when he wrote this), and a former Army Ranger, although he never saw combat. His conclusion is actually similar to the author of this piece. First, he argues, with evidence, that humans have a pretty high disposition to not kill each other unle…

The evidence he uses to support that claim are the no-fire rates among front line soldiers in World War I and II. I think the stat he found was only about 20% of infantry in trenches shot their weapons.

I got to speak at length to some Vietnam veterans while I was in high school. One of them, who was in Army logistics in Vietnam told me that the people in the unit often laid down cover fire, but they were doing their best to scare the heck out of the Viet Cong but not kill any of them. Why? They just wanted to get out of the situation to safety, and the last thing they wanted was to kill someone's best buddy and have someone go all avenging hero on them.

I told this bit to another acquaintance who was a marine, whose entire family had a history of joining the marines, and he said, "That's army for you. My family, when we join the Marines, we sign up to Kill!"

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#217

Post by PakG1 » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 9:27 AM UTC

fdschoeneman wrote: post #200

PakG1 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's data about a lot of gang members entering the service these days and receiving a lot of military training, but then taking that training back to the gang (as well as smuggling some weapons). If it's reliable data, I wonder if the number of sociopaths in the military could be growing, if it's also possible that gang members have a higher probability of being sociopaths. A lot of conditionals there, I know.

Sorry, what data are you talking about? I haven't seen it. I'm sure there's a journalist who wrote something like a) a the number of gang members who wouldn't normally join the military are b) allowed into the military because of the dire need for same and then c) all kinds of hijinks ensue. But I don't think it happens very often, and I really doubt the transfer of mad military skilz is going back into the gangs.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national...

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#218

Post by gaius » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 9:36 AM UTC

PakG1 wrote: post #171

cobrausn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I could tell from my time in the service, your view of your situation is highly dependent upon who you are serving with. I'm willing to bet it is highly likely that the group this supposed sociopath served with had no such compulsions. Without proper oversight, I could easily see a group mindset of this kind developing. As such, I'm willing to bet he thinks all soldiers are like him, when the reality is tha…

There's data about a lot of gang members entering the service these days and receiving a lot of military training, but then taking that training back to the gang (as well as smuggling some weapons). If it's reliable data, I wonder if the number of sociopaths in the military could be growing, if it's also possible that gang members have a higher probability of being sociopaths. A lot of conditionals there, I know.

[Citation needed]

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#219

Post by burgerbrain » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 9:52 AM UTC

PakG1 wrote: post #215

mkramlich wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't have something strong in you to guide you and keep you under control, you'll go wild, in his opinion. ethics and empathy is enough. no need to have religion.

He wasn't saying you needed to have a religion. He was saying you need to have something.

Quite frankly that is the same line that AA uses, and it isn't any more accurate here.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#220

Post by burgerbrain » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 10:02 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #204

javert wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How soft and spoiled are the commentators who think war should involve no sacrifice It's horrible to waste soldiers for nothing , which is what's been going on over there for quite some time. The problem is, it is a total sacrifice - people losing their lives for nothing .

At last check, the Taliban doesn't control Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein doesn't rule Iraq. It might not have been worth it, but it's not nothing .

If you want to be sufficiently pedantic, then nothing is for nothing. Equal and opposite reaction and all...