You are enrolled into conscription, and sent to war...

[Cute Wolf]

Well, just want to share some possible scenario if your country are at war (let's take general country to made no bias), and then enroll conscriptions from your age (such as for male, healthy and fully capable to fight, preferably 18-32 years old). The conscription is compulsory, and everyone evade the draft can be punished on the basis of "cowardice". So in this scenario, you (with consent or not) are allready in the Military camp, and allready got some decent military training (so you are chosen not to become mere "barely trained cannon fodder" troops, but a proper infantryman, because of your intelligence).

1) You haven't seen your first taste of battle yet, and now you are on the route to your first engagement with the enemy. You are already in the personel carriers and you know, soon, your first assault will begun. On your hands, lies a proper, and well functioning assault rifle with enough ammo, some grenades, as well as standard automatic handgun for sidearm, as well as dagger for melee backup. You are know how to shoot precisely (but not as good as a specialist yet, you are just well trained conscripts afterall) and you know well how to operate antitank RPG and where it was stored. You never do any homicide/manslaughter/murder before, are you ready to kill in this condition?
2) Your platoon are deployed and soon, the enemy camp are in sight, and soon, the open fire was started. Will you take part on firing seriously (proper cover and fire)? or just try to get a good cover and pretend to get some fire (but not deliberately kill enemy combatants)?
3) Thankfully, aside for some minor injured personels, your platoon didn't get any casuality (all are still alive), and enemy fire are become less frequent (your platoon score some killings, but they still need some fire occasionally, as your enemy didn't retreat yet). You are still in perfect condition, and your platoon leader orders your team to flank the enemy, while the rest hold the line, you are chosen to become the team leader (because of your smartness, charisma, discipline, or mere (mis)fortune). And your team have sucessfully sneak though and take a minor sideway, lead to the back of enemy's holdings. That way is guarded by a lonely enemy soldier who didn't know about your team yet, and your team has a clear sight to caught him off guard, but as you observe, that soldiers carry some signalling/communication device, and unless immediately killed from behind, your team's position has a potential to be revealed... Will you shoot him / cut his throat personally (according to your preferred method of killing, order another men in your team to do the job (of killing), or still try to capture him alive?
4) And after get the job with that poor lonely guard, your team has successfully sneak in and your teammates immediately use their assault rifles and start killing the much surprised and confused enemy soldiers, before they realize what happened and retaliate. Will you join the party? Or choose to refrain yourself?
5) And Mission complete, almost... your teammates has kill most of the enemy, all the open fire has stopped, and now you see a scene with several enemy corpses lying on the ground... and when you goes near with them to investigate your team's "victims", an enemy who previously just lying on the ground trying to wake up, and you are aware with that, as he was clearly helpless, but his eyes still has much of angry and agony toward you, and if no one took any action, he will try to kill you and your team... As he struggle to grab his knive and crawl toward you... will you just shoot him at the head? or try to wrestle him and kill him in melee (he was pathetically wounded), or just wrestle him and try to get him alive? remember he clearly had no intention to surrender...
6) And this men was killed (or if you didn't kill him, he was died out of his wounds)... as your team has clear the area, (most of your enemy was dead or allready captured)... suddenly a door opened, and a small boy (only 8 or 9 years old) suddenly burst out toward that man (that for somewhat reason still lies in your hand).... running while saying "DAAAADDDYYYYYYYYYY!!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!!" and when you see him, you see he has a handgun at his hand, and aiming at you.... You still have your weapon ready and has some time to respond that boy (but if you try to wrestle him, he was allready enraged, running in high speed, and may kill you if you try to disarm him "peacefully" - you MUST kill him or you die)... will you kill that boy instantly? or still trying to disarm him?

That's all, thank you...

No, it wasn't a psychopathic tests, It was a psychological lists on what will you do if you must face what Hell on Earth we called "WAR".... It was actually a test developed here (I was reposting this from Indonesian forum, but I didn't certain if this test was started here, or from another country... please don't kill me if this was a repost :sweatdrop:)

We're total war players here, but some degree of peacefulness and disapprovement on killing must exist in someone who wasn't a psychopath. Is anyone here has real experience at battlefield?

If I must answer these questions myself:
1) I will reluctantly accept I'm about to kill or killed, but will force my heart and mind to doing that.
2) I will take the firing seriously, because my life is in danger.
3) Even if I was reluctant to kill, I will ensure the death of that guard with myself, I'll shoot him at the head.
4) I won't join the party, I will guard their back and put complete trust in my team.
5) If he was really pathetic, as he must crawl toward us, I will shoot both his hands and feet instead to incapacitate him.
6) Because he was aiming me with a pistol, even as he was just a children, maybe I'll shoot him... but I certain that I will get a huge remorse afterwards....

[Kadagar_AV]

1. Depends on if I thought the war was a just one. If I, say, would be shipped off to Afghanistan to fight in the war on terrorism, I would most certeanly not be ready to kill.

On the other hand, say the USA invades Sweden or Austria to get to some natural resource or whatever, then yes, I would be ready to kill.


2. I would fire properly. I mean, if I was in a situation where I was shooting, I would do it right. But I wouldnt be in the situation if I wasnt prepared to shoot. I am old and smart enough to get on a flight to the Carribeans in case of a badly thought out war.


3. I would kill him myself. Dont see the difference between ordering someone to kill him, and doing it myself. And it must be done.


4. Would def refrain myself normaly.


5. If he was not a threat, I would try to handle it sparing his life. It does not mean I would be very gentle though, like, I might shoot him in the arm holding the knife or something.


6. If I deemed I had a reasonable chance to disarm him, I would. Otherwise I would pop a bullet in him. Note again though, that I would try and make the shot non-deadly.






Answered as honestly as I could.

Another interesting mind game, one could answer in addition.




QUESTION: You are group commander of a small unit guarding a minor military installation. Suddenly, your look-out some minutes away reports that there is a APC incoming, heading straight towards the military installation you are guarding. On top of this APC, there are 10 or so children, boys and girls between maybe 5 and 10 years old. You can not tell what nationality these kids are, might be your own. You have RPGs enough to take out this APC without a problem. Will you open fire on the APC, or order your team to open fire? Or will you let the APC pass and move on to the place you guard?

[Beskar]

I would work in the medical units, either behind the scenes or front-line if needed if I was conscripted (I am Red Cross first-aid trained at least). I would only shoot in self-defence if I had to, however, I won't be going around just killing people.

1) Since I opened up stating I would be working at least as a front-line medical unit, I would most likely have that sort of equipment "just in case". I would be primarily concerned with the welfare of my comrades with only shooting if needed and in self-defence (depending on circumstances, might do a neutralising shot). I wouldn't hessitant to kill under these conditions if I had no other choice.

2) I would go into cover and treat the injuried and run to their need, even if it would mean I would have to possibly escape cover to do so.

3) Highly doubtful conditions due to the role I would be playing, but if you can get close enough to slit throat, and have an open shot, it is highly possible to render him unconscious or take him down none lethally then possibly render him in-operable.

4) Wouldn't be my task, and generally wouldn't be in that situation.

5) Disarm him at least.

6) Neutralising shot. It is better for him to have one less arm then dead.

[HoreTore]

Depends on the war.

If my government are acting like dickheads, I'll run to the border waving the invaders flag.

Anyway.... My conscript role was/is a radio relay, so I'll be all alone with my BV206 on a mountaintop, hoping nobody takes notice.

[A Very Super Market]

See, the varying answers to this question basically prove the idea of conscription to be flawed. Soldiers need to be motivated in some way to actually be effective. Lacking an invasion of the homeland, the average citizen has no desire to kill.

Now, how exactly does the military we assume a role in, work? Is it a modern, relatively tolerant Western military, or is it a 1940 Soviet penal battalion mess of privates and commisars? If it was the former, as Beskar, I would hope to be given a non-combat role and not take part in the fighting. The latter, on pain of death if I do otherwise, I would have to fight.

1. Yes. At this point, the actual training would kick in. I am not a schmuck picked off the street and dropped into a village, I have been through training. With a relatively low-stress enviroment, I can function properly and follow orders.

2. Again, I have been through training. Besides that, only an evolutionary failure of enormous proportions would not attempt to kill in this situation. Fight or Flight - Flight = Fight.

3. I wouldn't have the stomach or will to kill him myself. However, I do recognize that he needs to die. Someone else does it.

4. If I did not, I would not be doing my job.

5. A "pathetically wounded" man on the ground with a melee weapon? Disarm him.

6. There would be no "trying". There would just be shooting. You don't have control over bullets apart from the direction they start off in. If he has a gun pointed at me, I shoot to hit him. I don't care where.

[Hax]

I wouldn't go to war. No matter the circumstances, no matter how much they threaten or hurt me; I would refuse to kill other people. From what I see, as a Buddhis, the end (in this case ending the war) does not justify the means (killing another human being). This is also the reason why I am against war in every case.

When out of other options, I'd go Vietnam style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc).

[Ja'chyra]

I wouldn't go to war. No matter the circumstances, no matter how much they threaten or hurt me; I would refuse to kill other people. From what I see, as a Buddhis, the end (in this case ending the war) does not justify the means (killing another human being). This is also the reason why I am against war in every case.

When out of other options, I'd go Vietnam style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc).

Good for you but unfortunately it would probably see you dead, still if that's your decision the world would be a better place if everyone done it, until everyone does I would die and kill to protect me and mine.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

6. There would be no "trying". There would just be shooting. You don't have control over bullets apart from the direction they start off in. If he has a gun pointed at me, I shoot to hit him. I don't care where.

This is the only acceptable answer. You can't seriously aim to wound in that time, you'd have to be an absolutely brilliant shot, have very quick reflexes, and be extremely lucky to pull it off. Even then he could still get a shot in at you. When you shoot in that situation or any similar situation, you aim for the centre of the mass and fire until it drops. Sounds bad, but that's life.

[Cute Wolf]

1. Depends on if I thought the war was a just one. If I, say, would be shipped off to Afghanistan to fight in the war on terrorism, I would most certeanly not be ready to kill.

On the other hand, say the USA invades Sweden or Austria to get to some natural resource or whatever, then yes, I would be ready to kill.

It looks like you hate them more than what we called "terrorists"... :laugh4:
But sadly, if you are US citizens, you are most likely to be sent on afghanistan, iraq, or even iran (if something happened in bad bad bad way)...


QUESTION: You are group commander of a small unit guarding a minor military installation. Suddenly, your look-out some minutes away reports that there is a APC incoming, heading straight towards the military installation you are guarding. On top of this APC, there are 10 or so children, boys and girls between maybe 5 and 10 years old. You can not tell what nationality these kids are, might be your own. You have RPGs enough to take out this APC without a problem. Will you open fire on the APC, or order your team to open fire? Or will you let the APC pass and move on to the place you guard?

Well, actually using childrens as "human meatshields" are the method that some certain rebels used as "nothing to lose" method of war... bet this APC (if clearly identified as enemy APC) would have some suicide bombers (in case of middle eastern war), or heavily armed men, hiding inside, and waiting you to let your heart dictates you, and let them made a crack on your army's defense line.

I didn't know know, what mental illness that I will suffer after I commit this action (attaching RPG head to the launcher, aiming at the APC, and fire!)... but because I know that kind of dirty tactics was used, it was better to get condemned in International court later, than found my family's life ruined. Actually I was at sympathy with some troopers who conviced of doing war crimes like this http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=103650&sectionid=351020201 because if we only used our blind "heart" rather than "cool mind"... most of us, especially the anti war side will instantly condemn them because killing those childrens... but... you must know

Yeah... variations of this tactics are mostly used with certain :daisy: guerilla here (note: not in Iraq, or middle eastern, but here in :daisy:)... you must know that these guerillas usually hide behind *cough* church walls... (you should know what guerilla I means *cough* here), and then sent childrens to run forward, toward the waiting enemy military personels. After that, they will sprang out and doing some wild firing, even without the consent of those children's lives. That was "almost nothing to lose" tactics with them. If our military personels retaliate their fire, International rights group will condemn us more (for killing innocent childrens), but if we didn't retaliate, we will lost our men, and hence demoralize our troops, and they seems to be fond using those kind of tactics, because almost no-one will believe, that such *cough* freedom fighters could do this horrible act with their own kids... And after reading that similar news from US soldiers... I think every guerillas have similar dirty tactics in their minds. That's why war is hell.... I think those US soldiers are actually innocent....


I would work in the medical units, either behind the scenes or front-line if needed if I was conscripted (I am Red Cross first-aid trained at least). I would only shoot in self-defence if I had to, however, I won't be going around just killing people.

Yeah, everybody conscripted hopes that they will be placed as medics, chaplains, communication opperators, and POW prison's warden. They won't go in frontline assault anyway.


See, the varying answers to this question basically prove the idea of conscription to be flawed. Soldiers need to be motivated in some way to actually be effective. Lacking an invasion of the homeland, the average citizen has no desire to kill.

Now, how exactly does the military we assume a role in, work? Is it a modern, relatively tolerant Western military, or is it a 1940 Soviet penal battalion mess of privates and commisars? If it was the former, as Beskar, I would hope to be given a non-combat role and not take part in the fighting. The latter, on pain of death if I do otherwise, I would have to fight.

Yeah, the idea of every able bodied citizens should go for military duties if required could be dated back towards ancient times, where the levy soldiers usually formed the bulk of battle line. But one certain aspect most government forgot today is how to motivate levies to go to war... In ancient times, war and aggresive battles means that you (as a normal, young male) will get loots, money, slaves, some enjoyment in torturing prisoners, and could rape some women for fun, and if you like you can take her home as personal sex-slave. But today, after Human rights is recognized wolrdwide and doing that is a war crime now... so it doesn't a surprise if most of the soldiers today lack motivation when goes to war. (compare that with ancient Hellens, or Romans, or even Medieval Europeans... at least loot and rapes is what drive most of them who interested to fight)


1. Yes. At this point, the actual training would kick in. I am not a schmuck picked off the street and dropped into a village, I have been through training. With a relatively low-stress enviroment, I can function properly and follow orders.

2. Again, I have been through training. Besides that, only an evolutionary failure of enormous proportions would not attempt to kill in this situation. Fight or Flight - Flight = Fight.

Flight are cowardice, and cowardice could be punished with death penalty.... well, everytime we are in battlefield, we're actually enter a little part of hell. Right?

[Boohugh]

Interesting questions but there are far far too many variables to answer them very accurately but I'll give it a go. On a side note, I totally agree with A Very Super Market here:


See, the varying answers to this question basically prove the idea of conscription to be flawed. Soldiers need to be motivated in some way to actually be effective. Lacking an invasion of the homeland, the average citizen has no desire to kill.

This is why countries should have professional military forces if they ever have any intention of actually fighting, you shouldn't send civilians into combat unless absolutely necessary (which is generally only an existential threat to your country nowadays).

Right, so here goes:

1)
You never do any homicide/manslaughter/murder before, are you ready to kill in this condition?

I believe anyone has the capability to kill (physical limitations aside) so it comes down to whether they are willing to kill. Having been given basic military training and a rifle, I'm certainly in a position to kill because it's alot more than others have been given when they've killed in the past, so it then comes down to whether I'm willing to kill, which depends on the situation, hence we arrive at...

2)
Will you take part on firing seriously (proper cover and fire)? or just try to get a good cover and pretend to get some fire (but not deliberately kill enemy combatants)?

The questions is really do I put my colleagues (and possibly friends by now as I've been through training with them) at risk because of my own moral beliefs. Well, by doing nothing you are still making a choice of who may die, so it's a question of looking after the people you know or the ones you don't. To me it seems clear that I'd take full part in the operation as it lessens the risk of failure and the chance of a colleague getting hit (imagine the guilt of watching someone you know dying in front of your eyes because you weren't providing covering fire to the position that the bullet came from).

3)
Will you shoot him / cut his throat personally (according to your preferred method of killing, order another men in your team to do the job (of killing), or still try to capture him alive?

Whether I try to take him alive depends on my orders. If we were tasked with trying to capture potentially valuable targets (and seeing as the opposition thus far seems relatively unsophisticated thereby making someone wearing communications equipment a potentially valuable target) then I would evaluate the chances of success in getting to him unobserved. If the chances were good then I'd order the team to move in and take him. If the chances were not good I or one of my team would go in and silently kill him (depending on who had the most expertise, which as I went to more advanced training from the sounds of things would probably be me), there is no point shooting him because that would give your position away anyway.

4)
Will you join the party? Or choose to refrain yourself?

That is a loaded question if ever I heard one. By calling it a 'party' there is the implication you take pleasure out of killing others. Would I take part in the killing? Yes, for the same reasons as question 2. Not taking part is needlessly risking a colleagues life, they are going to die by someones hand anyway so better yours now rather than in a minute or two when they may have had the chance to shoot one of your team.

5)
will you just shoot him at the head? or try to wrestle him and kill him in melee (he was pathetically wounded), or just wrestle him and try to get him alive?

If he was pathetically wounded then it sounds like you can disarm him without too much struggle (for instance, just slam the butt of your rifle on the arm he's holding the knife in as he crawls towards you, keeps you away from him and he drops the knife). I don't care if he wants to surrender or not, you don't give him the choice, it's yours to make for him.

6)
You still have your weapon ready and has some time to respond that boy (but if you try to wrestle him, he was allready enraged, running in high speed, and may kill you if you try to disarm him "peacefully" - you MUST kill him or you die)... will you kill that boy instantly? or still trying to disarm him?

The answer is in the question. If you don't shoot him you'll die, therefore I'd shoot him instantly.

[Ja'chyra]

In answer to the questions, who knows until someone is shooting at you?

[Beirut]

If I disagreed with the war, I would go to jail as opposed to battle.

If I agreed with the war, I would insist on using every nuclear, chemical and biological weapon on-the-spot and win the war as fast and as efficiently as possible, or else I would refuse to fight and go to jail instead.

If you're going to make peace - make peace. If you're going to make war - make war.

[Ice]

1) Depends on the war, but I'd probably be shaking and ****ing my pants. I'd kill if necessary.

2)I'd kill

3)I'd slit his throat

4) Kill

5) KIll

6) Kill without hesitation

[Hax]

Good for you but unfortunately it would probably see you dead.

Yes. Yes, it would.

[rvg]

kill, kill, kill.

then kill some more.

[rory_20_uk]

1) Probably. I've seen enough dead people and although I admit I've not actively tried to end their lives I'm prepared to kill other strangers rather than me / friends / family die.
2) If I don't, they will. More of them that are dead, the better odds I get home.
3) Kill him. The best man for the job does it. Prisoners have far too many rights of treatment, and no way of doing that in a stealth mission.
4) Kill until they surrender they are all fair game - same logic as 2)
5) He's not surrendered, therefore still an enemy combatant. Bang.
6) Armed combatant. Technically a war crime the other side has committed arming child soldiers, and not in uniform. Bang.

I have a fairly strong will to live.

~:smoking:

[drone]

The only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a soldier is supposed to function: without mercy, without compassion, without remorse. All war depends upon it.Best words I've ever heard to explain war from a soldier's point of view.


QUESTION: You are group commander of a small unit guarding a minor military installation. Suddenly, your look-out some minutes away reports that there is a APC incoming, heading straight towards the military installation you are guarding. On top of this APC, there are 10 or so children, boys and girls between maybe 5 and 10 years old. You can not tell what nationality these kids are, might be your own. You have RPGs enough to take out this APC without a problem. Will you open fire on the APC, or order your team to open fire? Or will you let the APC pass and move on to the place you guard?

I would station a soldier a distance from the base, who will scatter candy as the APC approaches. When the kids jump off, turn the APC into a Ronson. :yes:

[Azathoth]

Well, there's actually an interesting exercise in that wall of text. I'm a very apathetic, lazy, and cow-like kind of guy, my reflexes are nil, and I absorb information quite slowly. To be honest, in a situation like that I would probably get really confused and eventually just walk back in the direction of our base (Could just as well be the enemy base, I'm not very observant). Otherwise, I'd likely walk right into some enemy combatant, and after realizing it jump in shock and :

a. Get shot
b. Drop my weapon and surrender
c. If the enemy hesitates, bluff and bluster until he surrenders.

3. I'm not a good leader. I'd let the others decide.

4. I'd just hang around and take a few shots, I'm not Arnold Schwarzenegger. However, if bullets start flying my way or I'm so much as grazed, I will probably murder the **** out of everyone, even wounded and prisoners. Pain enrages me.

5. Throw a shoe at him I guess.

6. Why is there a kid anywhere near the place? Was it "Bring Your Child to Work" day? Anyway, I'd kill him. No one who screams "Daddy, no!" in that situation deserves to live, no matter what. This is despite the fact that a 10 year old wouldn't be able to hit me from 5 ft, let alone...wherever he is.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, there's actually an interesting exercise in that wall of text. I'm a very apathetic, lazy, and cow-like kind of guy, my reflexes are nil, and I absorb information quite slowly. To be honest, in a situation like that I would probably get really confused and eventually just walk back in the direction of our base (Could just as well be the enemy base, I'm not very observant). Otherwise, I'd likely walk right into some enemy combatant, and after realizing it jump in shock and :

a. Get shot
b. Drop my weapon and surrender
c. If the enemy hesitates, bluff and bluster until he surrenders.

3. I'm not a good leader. I'd let the others decide.

4. I'd just hang around and take a few shots, I'm not Arnold Schwarzenegger. However, if bullets start flying my way or I'm so much as grazed, I will probably murder the **** out of everyone, even wounded and prisoners. Pain enrages me.

5. Throw a shoe at him I guess.

6. Why is there a kid anywhere near the place? Was it "Bring Your Child to Work" day? Anyway, I'd kill him. No one who screams "Daddy, no!" in that situation deserves to live, no matter what. This is despite the fact that a 10 year old wouldn't be able to hit me from 5 ft, let alone...wherever he is.

This is the Russian peasant speaking. All questions asked about Soviet atrocities may be directed to him.

[Vladimir]

1. I hope so. If not, I"m screwed. :sweatdrop:

2. Proper cover and aimed shots. Once the bullets start flying, it's about more than just you.

3. You're a smart team leader: Kill him with your knife.

4. You're the team leader: Lead.

5. As was brilliantly said before: The choice of his surrender belongs to you, not him. His fight is over. Besides, I need someone to interrogate. :evil:

6. Tricky, but I like to think I'd go center mass.

7. See the chaplain and hope he gives me a "Deus lo vult."

So much for Scandinavia. Are there no real men left there? It's not that we enjoy this.

[Viking]

Should I ever encounter such situations, I'll make the decisions then; no earlier.

[HoreTore]

So much for Scandinavia. Are there no real men left there? It's not that we enjoy this.

War is about men having to prove that their penises are bigger than they actually are, not about being "real" men.

As they say, you're still a recruit until you learn to hate the military, until you see just how idiotic the concept and implementation really is. As for me, I was a recruit for.... about 3 months, if I remember correctly.

[Jolt]

Well, just want to share some possible scenario if your country are at war (let's take general country to made no bias), and then enroll conscriptions from your age (such as for male, healthy and fully capable to fight, preferably 18-32 years old). The conscription is compulsory, and everyone evade the draft can be punished on the basis of "cowardice". So in this scenario, you (with consent or not) are allready in the Military camp, and allready got some decent military training (so you are chosen not to become mere "barely trained cannon fodder" troops, but a proper infantryman, because of your intelligence).

1) In a war if you don't kill, you'll most certainly be killed. In that condition, I would undoutedly be prepared to kill enemy soldiers, since I suppose they are equally ready to end my life forever.
2) This is open battle. If everyone acted as cowardly then we would all die or be captured, and the other side would win the war. I would shoot to kill no doubt.
3) No doubt, I'd kill him without blinking.
4) Kill them all. The fact that you don't gives the other side chance to respond and probably ends up killing one of your own men.
5) If he was wounded, and posed no threat to me, I'd just wrestle him off his dagger, clear the area of any potential weapons and probably grab the guy and place him somewhere the team could control him. Killing him would be a violation of International Law.
6) He's dead, he just doesn't know it yet.



QUESTION: You are group commander of a small unit guarding a minor military installation. Suddenly, your look-out some minutes away reports that there is a APC incoming, heading straight towards the military installation you are guarding. On top of this APC, there are 10 or so children, boys and girls between maybe 5 and 10 years old. You can not tell what nationality these kids are, might be your own. You have RPGs enough to take out this APC without a problem. Will you open fire on the APC, or order your team to open fire? Or will you let the APC pass and move on to the place you guard?

It probably depends on what was more specifically reported. If any of the children carried any sort of firearms, then I'd probably order the team to ready the RPG, while firing at the armor to attempt to stop it. If it didn't slow down immediatly I'd order the troops to blow the APC to smithereens.

If the children were reported to have no weaponry, I'd give a bit more leeway and time for the firing against the armor to work. Regardless, if it continued to speed up for the fort, my first instinct would be to place some Anti-Vehicle Mines along the road. Provided there was no such thing or the vehicle avoided them then the RPG would follow suit.

[Centurion1]

This doesn't apply to me. I cant even consider consrciption because i am trying to become a volunteer in The united States Military. on top of that i am trying to be an Officer. and then to add to that i am trying to Join the USMC and USA. And to top all that off i am trying to pursue a role as a combat infantrymen.

I agree with avsm though, one of the reasons things went wrong in Nam'. A all volunteer force which is well trained is always going to triumph a conscripted force whose common men don't want to be there. There ar enotable exceptions of course (Israel, America WW2 era.)

(1)
Yeah ill kill but then again i am willing to go to war for my country of my own volition

(2)
YES! not only to serve my nation, but to help myself and most importantly to aid my brothers in arms.

(3)
For once in my life i agree with kadagar, i do it myself. ordering one of my men is in my opinion worse than doing it yourself. you are basically killing himself but spreading his blood around to men who you are supposed to care for.

(4)
Yeah They are reatalitaitng and are properly identified hostiles. Blaze away

(5)
lol, i dont try to shoot him unless i have to or do anything stupid like shoot his arm. the man is crawling at us. psh i walk up and kick in the head and cuff his hands.

(6)
Kill him. he wants to play with the big boys, well ill probably have nightmares but he has identified himself as a hostile and i have to protect myself and more importantly my men.


Would i have nightmares about the horror of war? Probably but it wouldnt be guilt id be having nightmares about dying or seeing friends corpses. Why feel guilt for killing in war. I see nothing wrong with it if it is done for a purpose.

If i killed civilians in cold blood for nothing? id hang myself in shame.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's striking to see how most answers revolve around the concept that (a) I am going to defend myself at all; and (b) I am going to aim at all. This is doubly striking since neither correspond much to historical records (most soldiers do not shoot/slash/hack/w-ever or shoot/slash/hack/w-ever at random; few actually aim; and very few in fact aim to kill).

Furthermore the supposition that to not kill is ergo to be killed is fundamentally flawed since it completely ignores all basic training aspect of life the world and everything: when confronted with something bigger than you: run or hide. Think: POW, AWOL. Those acronyms have meaning beyond just another dictionary entry. Deserter, and to surrender amount to so much more than not to kill as well.

Just a FYI: the actual amount of humans killed in combat in WW1 is dwarfed by the amount of humans killed as the result of broken down infrastructure/sanitary support -- even without factoring in the Spanish flu.

Similarly, the amount of humans killed in combat in WW2 is almost tiny in comparison to the casualties amongst civilians, POW's, etc. etc.

[A Very Super Market]

Of course, because people who take the time are not sociopaths...

[Kagemusha]

a) I would never be conscripted to anything as in my country there is already a mandatory military service, rest is blabber.

[KukriKhan]

If I disagreed with the war, I would go to jail as opposed to battle.

If I agreed with the war, I would insist on using every nuclear, chemical and biological weapon on-the-spot and win the war as fast and as efficiently as possible, or else I would refuse to fight and go to jail instead.

If you're going to make peace - make peace. If you're going to make war - make war.

Amen.

I oppose the draft in any form. If a war cannot be fought with volunteers, and with majority populace support, then it should not be fought. To do otherwise is to enable tyrants.

[Boohugh]

It's striking to see how most answers revolve around the concept that (a) I am going to defend myself at all; and (b) I am going to aim at all. This is doubly striking since neither correspond much to historical records (most soldiers do not shoot/slash/hack/w-ever or shoot/slash/hack/w-ever at random; few actually aim; and very few in fact aim to kill).

Perhaps in a conscript army this is true (and to be fair to you, we are trying to answer these questions from the point of view of a conscript, which is why I said before my answers they wouldn't be very accurate, as our own experiences will inherently affect our answers), but in a well trained modern professional army the soldiers certainly do aim (more to suppress the enemy than to kill, but they still aim) so you can't really tar all soldiers with the same brush. I also think looking at the historical records (especially going back as far as WW1) is very misleading as combat has changed fairly radically since then.


Furthermore the supposition that to not kill is ergo to be killed is fundamentally flawed since it completely ignores all basic training aspect of life the world and everything: when confronted with something bigger than you: run or hide. Think: POW, AWOL. Those acronyms have meaning beyond just another dictionary entry. Deserter, and to surrender amount to so much more than not to kill as well.

You are right than it is flawed to say 'to not kill leads to being killed yourself', however it is equally flawed to therefore say that 'to not kill won't lead you to being killed'. If you don't kill, you are increasing the chances you, or your colleagues, will be killed and, if nothing else, war is unpredictable. Now, I myself don't play russian roulette because I don't like rolling the dice of fate with my life at stake. By not fighting when you are in combat, you are effectively playing russian roulette with your life and the people around you. You may not die (and the chances may even be quite good) but are you really willing to take that risk?

Surrender is equally dangerous. How do you know the enemy will accept your surrender? From the sounds of the situation outlined by CuteWolf, you are fighting some sort of informal militia force. Correct me if I'm wrong but that doesn't sound like the sort of outfit that generally respects the Geneva Convention (or has even heard of it!) and will know when to, or even want to, take prisoners.

I also disagree with the assertion that you either run or hide when faced with something bigger than you. Far too many achievements were performed in the face of adversity, far too many victories won when confronted with something bigger than you. Yes, some people may run or hide, but it's the ones that are willing to stand up and face the threat that often end up victorious at the end and the more who stand up, the better your chances of coming through at the end.


Just a FYI: the actual amount of humans killed in combat in WW1 is dwarfed by the amount of humans killed as the result of broken down infrastructure/sanitary support -- even without factoring in the Spanish flu.

Similarly, the amount of humans killed in combat in WW2 is almost tiny in comparison to the casualties amongst civilians, POW's, etc. etc.

Coming back to a point I made earlier, using WW1 and WW2 as examples of war is misleading. They represent the exceptions rather than the rule. I'd also disagree with your statistics relating to WW1 and the number of combat related deaths and those caused by other factors (of course without factoring in the Spanish flu). According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties) (not the most accurate of sources but it gives a decent indication), there were 6.8 million combat related deaths out of a total of 9.7 million military deaths, therefore the majority of military deaths were caused by combat rather than disease, accidents, etc. If you include civilian deaths (roughly 7 million, although estimates do vary), then yes more people died due to non-combat related causes but I wouldn't say it dwarfs combat related deaths.

World War 2 is also misleading as there were specific attempts to target civilians (through both military and non-military means, e.g. starvation), thereby massively increasing their casualty numbers. It just isn't representative of your average conflict.

[pevergreen]

1) I'm ready
2) Do what i need to keep allies alive, and enemies dead
3) if orders are no quarter, kill him, otherwise knock him out, if he looks big, shoot him in the knee if it can remain undetected by his friends. No need to kill him if i can safely get him as a prisoner to torture for info.
4) As Ellis says in Left4Dead2 "Kill all sons of :daisy:"
5) Kill him
6) Shoot him.

[Cute Wolf]

I wouldn't go to war. No matter the circumstances, no matter how much they threaten or hurt me; I would refuse to kill other people. From what I see, as a Buddhis, the end (in this case ending the war) does not justify the means (killing another human being). This is also the reason why I am against war in every case.

When out of other options, I'd go Vietnam style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc).

Well, you are lucky to life in the "Blue" zone...

If you are listed in the conscript tables and you refuse to go for war, you'll be punished, if it was war, and you refuse to become a conscript in most of the red zone countries you will be branded as "traitor" and get firing squad hunt you and your family (yes... entire family in some extreme cases), or if you are luckier, you only branded as "coward" and got prison penalty..... :wink:

But after searching for possible excuses, you didn't need to die immolating yourself to evade conscription, you just need to do one of these lists if you don't mind having some "problems" later as a man....

1) Get your brother to sent for the draft (looks weird, but there was a regulation if a family has 2 or more son, only one is required to actively participate as conscript, another son will get extra weapon, but their duty was primarily reserve, and just ordered to "guard your elderly father and mother" - dutch relics here)
2) Get a sex change surgery, cut your male identity, and you'll be fine if you evade the draft. (women and transvetites didn't get conscription)
3) Become a really blind (2 eyes, one eyes blind and you still found yourself drafted), deaf, mute, or cut one of your hand or feet. (disabled person can't be drafted - beware, having a mock disability to evade conscription will result you branded as traitor too)

[Tellos Athenaios]

You are right than it is flawed to say 'to not kill leads to being killed yourself', however it is equally flawed to therefore say that 'to not kill won't lead you to being killed'. If you don't kill, you are increasing the chances you, or your colleagues, will be killed and, if nothing else, war is unpredictable. Now, I myself don't play russian roulette because I don't like rolling the dice of fate with my life at stake. By not fighting when you are in combat, you are effectively playing russian roulette with your life and the people around you. You may not die (and the chances may even be quite good) but are you really willing to take that risk?

Surrender is equally dangerous. How do you know the enemy will accept your surrender? From the sounds of the situation outlined by CuteWolf, you are fighting some sort of informal militia force. Correct me if I'm wrong but that doesn't sound like the sort of outfit that generally respects the Geneva Convention (or has even heard of it!) and will know when to, or even want to, take prisoners.

I also disagree with the assertion that you either run or hide when faced with something bigger than you. Far too many achievements were performed in the face of adversity, far too many victories won when confronted with something bigger than you. Yes, some people may run or hide, but it's the ones that are willing to stand up and face the threat that often end up victorious at the end and the more who stand up, the better your chances of coming through at the end.

Hmm. I did not say one does necessarily run or hide instead of fight. What I am trying to assert is that in the scenario as sketched in this thread there is left surprisingly little room for such basic and fundamental instincts as not trying to stand in the way of a big tank; hurrying towards shelters -- hoping that you are not going to be hit/found.


Coming back to a point I made earlier, using WW1 and WW2 as examples of war is misleading. They represent the exceptions rather than the rule. I'd also disagree with your statistics relating to WW1 and the number of combat related deaths and those caused by other factors (of course without factoring in the Spanish flu). According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties) (not the most accurate of sources but it gives a decent indication), there were 6.8 million combat related deaths out of a total of 9.7 million military deaths, therefore the majority of military deaths were caused by combat rather than disease, accidents, etc. If you include civilian deaths (roughly 7 million, although estimates do vary), then yes more people died due to non-combat related causes but I wouldn't say it dwarfs combat related deaths.

I'm sorry: this kind of mixing sentences is what you get for posting late at night. :shame: I still stand by that point though: in a war the actual number of people killed in combat is surprisingly low compared to the actual number of people killed. And as far as I can see, this has a lot to do with the portion of the army that did not choose to enroll but was forced into it.


World War 2 is also misleading as there were specific attempts to target civilians (through both military and non-military means, e.g. starvation), thereby massively increasing their casualty numbers. It just isn't representative of your average conflict.

Anyways. WW1 and WW2 are highly relevant in the context of conscripted armies -- especially the scenario outlined in the OP which features a dramatic invasion of your daily life.