Shooting to kill - how many men can do this? 

awesome

The Emperor ordered the Galactic Army to miss intentionally so that the Emperor could make Luke join the dark side of the Force, but failed. Obi wan Kenobi said that the Stormtroopers are THE BEST sharpshooters in the Galactic Empire. So no... They are just soldiers that are doing they're jobs better than any assassin or any other soldier in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF STAR WARS. Hope that settles it! Thanks for reading.

So when you look at SW again you realize that the protagonists are the sociopaths, since they shot to kill

Perhaps the protagonists are just aware that the stormtrooper armour disperses the energiy of a blaster hit, turning a lethal hit into a stun.

Mad man genes from both sides. Han Solo offs people while remaining cheeky, Darth Vader chokes people just for the prestige of being a Sith Lord (extra points for looking at their face) . At least Kylo feels the pull from the Light and only takes his anger out on machinery, barely bullying his officers. Not such a bad guy now, is he?

ThεληgεlGαmεr Gold comment.

thats a good one

rainbow I take it

theawsomegamer 😂

it all makes sense now

DIO i wish

@DIO good i am most alpha painting

Meanwhile in the Nanking...

Well, both the Nazis and the Soviets were told the other were beasts, inhuman, and that they didn’t have lives. It’s incredibly easy to kill blindly, that’s why chemical weapons were so often used as it took the guilt away from the murderer. The soldiers were brainwashed to believe the others weren’t human, and that’s why most soldiers struggled to return to life after the war as they were taught people weren’t human.

@@Onyxiate nazies don't gave soviets much of a choice, fight or be enslaved and 💀

it doesn't even look like govs give a damn :(

@@RomaInvicta202 well they don't. but police are the government, so they are gay or something...

@@jaighter wtf

Exactly, they spend years and tons of money to desensitize you for battlefield and then expect you to go back to civie life the week after your discharge.

Why on earth should we deprogram our soldiers? That'd make them like 80% less effective, lol

mind=blown

you say that but i've known clinically proven psychopaths to have an issue with this. so the question would be is are the clinical tests wrong, or is it something a bit deeper than not giving a f@k about others lives? besides the protagonist we are supposed to hate and are often more nightmare than potentially realistic. (trying to stay constructive)

He's having a goof.

No it's because it's a video game. Come on use your brain

More like that the player are not able to sense the fear of their enemy, or the game producer(s) didn't really intended to... well basically they don't give a shit

Hahaha yes!!

In b4 an anti-war punk band named that

Black pistol fire has a song called Trigger on fire which is close

I call dibs on that name

@@bronillabear4104 damn

When I think back to all the war movies I liked as a kid, like "Where Eagles Dare", "The Guns of Navarrone", "Battle of the Bulge", I notice now that the Germans all conveniently die without utterring a word. They just crumple over dead. That is very considerate of them! In reality, most of them would not die instantly. They would cry out, begging for aid. And their comrades, their buddies, would risk their own lives to try to save them. As a viewer...that would make me squirm in my seat. And to have Clint Eastwood smiling as he mows them down as they scream in agony, begging for their pals to rescue them? No. No way in hell I want to watch that.

Because they are "killing" the same stuntmen over and over. A lot of video games you are shooting up zombies or other NON human style bad guys.

Reminds me of Warframe, which is a game and not a movie. You play as someone who kills literally tens of thousands of enemy soldiers (because its super future, past human race) where half of them are greed strickened (their government that is) and wear rubber suits with a box helmet that completely hides any resemblance of a humanoid face (until you headshot them at least). The other half is a much bigger war mongering faction (lore wise, iirc) that consists of countless clonings upon clonings that their bodies are so frail and terrible looking. But you still learn that some of those people try to defect from those factions and you sometimes get tasked with saving them. Even recently you learned about a few characters who were killed because of them wanting to help others. Its fun playing games like these, but sometimes I really do enjoy the human nature elements that get sprinkled here and there.

@@ashcarrier6606 There is a diary from a Japanese officer at Iwo Jima: "We were told Americans were inhuman monsters, yet you hear them crying for their mothers as they lay dying..."

@@ashcarrier6606 Interestingly, in Wolfenstein, the Germans actually shout when you shoot them, but the shouts are made in a very comical way.

So his only two choices with that boy was too let him go or shoot him? He couldn't bring himself too shoot the boy, But he could have took him prisoner.

@@timothycook3566 lmao let's see you in that situation

@@itscrono7073 You're right, But I like to think I'd kill the fucking crout, or take his ass prisoner.

@@itscrono7073 No, this is pretty antithetical to everything we're trained for these days. I get that it's different times and different enemies, but a guy who's terrified one second can still find his courage later on and rejoin the fight. In that situation I could understand not shooting him, but you absolutely take the enemy prisoner. Otherwise, one of your fellow soldiers could be killed by him at any point in the future, and then that's on your head. If we were to see that happen these days that soldier in question would be NJP'd at a minimum, if not court martial'd.

And that soldier went on to kill a bunch of actual innocents. Good job.

what was his name?

Originally the quote I saw read anonymous, but upon doing some minor research the original speaker of this quote is Gilbert K. Chesterton, and his version reads "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."

gayyyyee

Alternatively because he loves those beside him.

An amazing quote.

I realize you're likely referring to earlier pilots (WWII), but that's a straight up war crime as outlined in the Geneva Convention.

***** if you shoot the pilot out of the craft, you don't have to keep shooting, saving ammo, so you can shoot down more. All the vitals of the craft are located near the pilot, including the engine. And it is hard to hit a specific part of a plane when its weaving. Having flown simulators, i cant even take a plane down thats an ai

Strategically, the machine is cheaper to replace than the crew manning it. The necessary logistics and training involved to create a fully fledged fighter pilot or tank crew usually costs more than the aircraft or the tank itself. It also takes more time to produce fighter pilots and tank crews than it takes to construct a fighter jet or a tank. So from a strategic perspective: killing the crew or the pilot hurts the enemy more than merely destroying the vehicle. Or better yet, maiming and hospitalizing the pilot or crew is the most costly result you can inflict on the enemy and help you win the war faster. Dead soldiers only need a wooden box and a hole in the ground, which doesn't cost the state that much. Living but injured men on the other hand costs a fortune in required medical care, physical therapy and financial support after they are no longer fit for duty due to their injuries or are able to do any kind of job at all as a civilian. A state could of course cut financial costs by refusing their injured soldiers proper healthcare, battlefield recovery and financial aid etc. But would then suffer a huge blow in soldier morale because if the soldiers doesn't feel that their government is looking out for them even when they are risking their lives to protect it, they won't perform as well in battle.

+Grand Nagus Zek (Zekki) you are wrong. the fuel tank is the weakest, especially, in a tank (i mean the vehicle), you have at least 3 operators, and you won't win by just killing one of them. but if you take out the fuel tank, instant profit. btw the operator is also harder to hit, because it's relatively small compared to the other weak points, and with a little bit of luck, the operator can dodge any type of non-exploding rounds.

Ever played war thunder? Most of the time, destroying the tank is killing the crew, as destroying the vehicle itself is insanely hard. A tank can still survive with a massive hole in the armor. And since a tank can still kill you if its engines and tracks are destroyed, you have few options. One is to disable it by destroying the gun or the ammo rack, however, there's still the machine gun and tankers do carry small arms. So, you kill the crew. Why? *THE TANK CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT ITS CREW*. It can still work without the engine, or even the gun. It cannot work without the people operating it.

I don't doubt your dad's sincerity but I don't buy the detente story.

The real stories are always the best. Thanks for sharing.

Lol what a load of shit

viet moiws cha nam

@@majungasaurusaaaa you have no basis to believe or disbelieve, do you? It's a shame to insult his father, and more diplomatic ways to ask for others with experience to comment.

I reckon it does work like a switch. A normal person can't flip it up but if you kick it with enough force it eventually turns on. The problem is the lever sticking out breaks off in the process

Shut up dude, when has a civilian employer asked you to hold a weapon and not shoot someone? If you couldn’t transition properly, you are dumb

Really memorized that script eh

@@raialasio1574 Lmfao. This is from 3 months aho and the video is 3 yesrs old. Gargle razors

I don't think he has a script he sound like a passionate teacher when a student asks a random question about his favorite subject

the script was more like a stamp for what he's gonna talk about. That kind of script, just some few words to get the lessons going.

@@danielrko9895 yeah, he seems like one of those few guy with a genuin knowledeg of what they are takling about.

Many of those interviewed in the survey were actually fictional, because the author (a journalist, not a social scientist) just made them up to create a better story.

That may be so, but I think there are a couple of interesting factors to throw in. 1) Modern drone pilots are also known for having issues killing their targets because they have full control and zero risk 2) WWII fighter pilots were mostly recruited from prisons because they were known to be capable as ex-murderers 3) back in WWII there were a lot of older people going to the front, today in the middle east it's mostly youngsters. 4) Basic training methodology has changed a lot since the 50s, nowadays it's all about psychologically breaking their minds, it's about turning ordinary ppl into order-obeying psychos. Just like ISIS does so successfully.

If it had been a social scientist all not just some would have been made up.

fairz

Nah, these findings were taken pretty seriously. The US military found they could get around it with different training methods. They also found that soldiers that used crew served weapons such as machine guns are mortars were significantly more likely to fire their weapon. There is a lot of psychology at work here. We simply weren't aware of it during WWII to the extent we are now. You'll find this phenomenon is much less frequent in modern militaries because of the changes to training after WW2.

Some people just cant take a joke! lol

"Sniper's a good job mate"

Stone cold.

"I once met a soldier who though of his gun as a time machine. He wasn't killing men, he was sending them forward in time to a point where they were no longer alive." (From Halo: Reach, but I can't remember the name of the character that said it.)

@@mitwhitgaming7722 one of the bazillion marines can say it randomly

@@Gussyboy06 I think it was Emile, I just couldn't think of his name a second ago.

@@mitwhitgaming7722 i am definite that it was a marine

@DIO 🅱️RUH!!

Who poops into a bucket on the front lines? If I'm somewhere between France and Germany at the edge of a forest I'm simply going to shit wherever I damn please, there is no reason to be sanitary about it.

So... that is your moral of the story?

CheezeWuz we in germany have a term for someone who is scared, that is "Schisser" (Shitter)because it was only allowed to leave you Position, if you had to satisfy your urgent needs. Same for the Term "sich zu verpissen" (to piss off) for going away/to flee

He'd have literally been shooting at someone with his pants down.

A bucket gives a person something to sit on. He didn't say it was a bucket they either carried with them or, if they did, use for anything other than a place to take a dump, then dump out. Remember that the English and Americans are used to sitting on a toilet - I don't think that Cheeze's teacher was Asian and, thus, used to stooping. Can they stoop, or lean against something? Sure - but why would they when they could easily carry a 'shit pail' on the rear of the tank for such uses.

XXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Sivert Heide yeah...

Of course...U don't want to get slaughtered with a bunch of pacifist hippies lol

Sigaby The Mage Gang members, serial killers, murderers and so on.

Did you not watch whole thing? You don't need psychopaths in today's military, you just need conditioning, you need to teach people to pull the trigger without thinking about it. Besides, there are only so many psychopaths in the world, never mind the fact employing them leads to problems down the line. In fact, I would say a modern military does it all can to avoid psychopaths, they are too unstable, and the lack of emotional bond cuts both ways. Far easier to just train them to kill without thinking about it. US military in WWII only 2% shoot to kill, only half of that 2% were psychopaths, yet today, US military has achieved over 95% shoot to kill ratio. Brain washing is far more effective then psychopaths have ever been!

As a gamer who played a good bunch of milsims, I can confirm completely that after a time where you "get good", you might just turn a corner and light up a guy, and only then realise it was a friendly. Granted, it's a very different conditioning happening - you aren't actually _killing_ anyone - but the core principles of reward and punishment are the same, so I believe it's a good demonstration of the principle.

@@darth_dan8886 Reminds me of how the very first time I played ARMA, I unloaded a whole magazine into some random guy because I was already so terrified by the idea of some Viet Cong soldier popping out of the jungle I panicked and just started firing.

@@doob195 Yep, sounds about right.

​@@darth_dan8886 Uniforms matter a lot, I played nearly a thousand hours of Red Orchestra 2 and 80% of that time I played as the germans. So I got used to surpressing and shooting guys wearing brown, yellow and green colours, while wearing pilotkas and bowl helmets (Soviets), while aiding and not shooting guys wearing gray, white or black colours, while wearing coal scuttle helmets (Germans). Also Axis soldiers (Germans and Japanese) sprint while holding their weapon on one hand and Allied soldiers (Soviets and Americans) sprint while holding their weapon with both hands, so even if you cannot see their clothes properly, you can distinguish them via their silhouettes... Though most milsims do not have something akin to this. When you integrate these infos into your reflexes you never shoot friendlies no matter the circumstances of your position. May it be the hard to see envinroments, long distances or pure chaos. That being said, friendly fire still happens from time to time. But its mainly because of poor positioning. Like a newbie or an idiot running in front of a firing MG or hip-firing with a high fire-rate weapon in close quarters combat with friendlies around.

this :)

Yeh I watched a documentary on the British SAS all but 2 of them were self proclaimed psychopaths quite frightening really.

Psychopaths are great at reading emotions, but the chief characteristic is that they don't really feel them in the same way, if at all. So they don't just not give a shit, they don't empathize because they don't know what it feels like. They might even feel something else...like pleasure where one would expect to feel pain or concern. This doesn't mean they're dangerous in general, they are still aware about right and wrong and can suppress urges or lack thereof.

I can't see a single reason a psychopath would even join the army, what is there to gain from it? As far as I've understood psychopathy, they are motivated purely by their own needs and wants? Also, a unit of psychopaths would be a bad idea, as I could not possibly see anyone of them putting their lives on the line for the other ie. coming to the aid of his fellow soldier when he is pinned down or something like that (why should I risk my life for someone who isn't me?)... But I am no expert in this, I've not even read about psychopaths, I just based this of +Olivia Lambert comment and what I've heard about them elsewhere, so I might be very wrong indeed :P

Phelix Kelevra I can't see a single reason they WOULDN'T join the army. What is there to make the army worse for psychopaths than normal people? They care a lot less about killing others so one of the major drawbacks is gone. What do they gain? Well money in an economy where regular jobs are very hard to get. They can use the term military veteran to get easy respect and credibility. They might even find the training fun in the same way sports are fun. Psychopaths have no reason to join the army less than normal people. A unit of psychopaths wouldn't be a great idea, I'd worry about them killing their commanders. Apparently it used to be a regular thing to throw a grenade at a dangerous commander termed "fragging" and that was normal people, a psychopath very well might do that far more often. However having a few psychopaths dotted around regular soldiers wouldn't really be too bad. They know that acting out like that would end badly so its not a huge issue. Also we have to remember that we're talking about the worst psychopaths, most of them aren't remotely this bad and a lot of them can live a fairly normal life and even care about others. VarietyGamer I'm fairly sure its less about them reading emotions differently and more about them just not caring. It is a well known common thing for psychopaths to be exceptionally good at empathising with others and using that fact to manipulate people. It is incredibly rare for them to find pleasure in hurting people and really only happens when they have another mental disorder as well as psychopathy. Of course combining other mental disorders like that results in an exceptionally dangerous individual but since both psychopathy and sadism are rare having both combined is insanely rare. They haven't experienced some of the emotions first hand but that doesn't stop them from empathising with the similar emotions they have experienced in the same way that I can empathise with motherly love despite not having nor wanting children. And yes they know right or wrong and a lot of them have a good moral compass but here we seem to be more talking about the rare and interesting ones who might have less of a moral compass and be constrained more by the legal system. But yeah, on average they will be significantly better at empathising because it helps them get their way. Scott Fordham I really wouldn't be surprised if thats true. Not true for everyone of course, but a higher percentage of psychopaths wouldn't be surprising at all. I spoke with an ex-SAS member. He certainly wasn't a psychopath mind. He had severe PTSD. He had alcoholism and was drunk at the time. And even mentioning the name of the well known Iran Embassy fiasco he broke into tears. You could see the pain in his face and you could see he was telling the truth whilst saying he regretted some of the things he did. It wasn't stated outright but it was heavily implied it included multiple episodes of torture. Quite honestly I don't think most non-psychopaths could handle some of the things he was talking about for very long. And the majority of these missions and tortures were done in Ireland against the IRA. A country bordering England, people looking exactly like you speaking your language and could almost be your countrymen. It makes you think they need to be looking for psychopaths just to avoid the psychological torture you're left with when you retire.

Maybe in the star wars universe they never learned about this part of psychology so all the stormtroopers are just normal guys that don't want to hit anyone

And it's the heroes who are the real monsters! D:

weren't storm troopers basically 6 month old clones? though i guess it would explain why they where better able to kill off droids

Of course the heroes are the real monsters. Heck they loot everything not nailed down to the floor and slaughter dungeons full of monsters like it was nothing.

poor stormtroopers...

"so we knew enough not to ask veterans “did you kill any Germans?”" What why? The first thing I ever asked my ancestors about wars they have fought in is how affective they where on the battle field. "he told us how automatic it all was." That is how it is supposed to be, thinking is slow you need to operate on trained instinct and muscule momory. "He said he raised his Sturmgewehr, lined his sights on the centre of mass of the “man shaped target” as he was taught, and squeezed the trigger like a robot. The Soviet soldier fell immediately." All correct here. Like in the text books and practace. "Initially, he felt no remorse" What Why? "he was brainwashed to think the Soviets were not humans but beasts." I highly doubt that. "It wasn’t until then he saw that he was indeed a human." So what? Did he think he was shooting at something else? "He said that he couldn’t describe the horrible feeling he had" Why did he have bad feelings, war is war people die. "he hopes that we (my friend and myself) never had to do that." I guarnte you that the germans born after 2000 will have to fight to survive.

@@gunarsmiezis9321 the guy is just retelling what he heard, cut him some slack.

@@gunarsmiezis9321 "War is war people die" does not equal that killing other people is not horrible. Also why do you think germans are going to war anytime soon?

what an asshole

@@gunarsmiezis9321 Really genuinely curious what you are implying with that last sentence

Good quote

@@Holuunderbeere it is .. the history of the US soldiers Marines is proof.

Humans are humans after all.

The same is with bomber crews. You are just dropping bombs you dont see the people who are being killed. There was a really good episode on M.A.S.H. about a pilot dropping bombs and not seeing the damage its doing.

Yeah. With this context, the militaries' fascination with fully automatic weapons and "accuracy by volume" suddenly makes a lot of sense. Not because it's actually better than a single shot or a short burst, but because it has actual real chance to hit when the shooter isn't quite aiming.

@@darth_dan8886 Not just that but even looking back and wincing at some decisions, seeing how out if touch old men were and still kind of are with an increasingly modern world. Like how the U.S., Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia aimed to get semi automatic rifles standardized, with the Soviets having some developmental problems with the AVS-36 select fire rifle having reliability issues before they made the SVT-38 and then the 40 before having to fall back on the Mosin somewhat due to how easy and cheap it was to produce. Then once they regained elbow room they made the SKS rifle and the RPD machinegun as the first real light machinegun before introducing the AK platform as they went from people who thought cavalry would outlast tanks due to WW1 experiences to making some modern weapons. The idea being "individual soldiers can make a difference, their rifles should give them greater ability to fight" while Germany, by contrast, was very reluctant to do the same and tried making the bolt Mauser the way to go as they believed Machineguns were the real firepower in squads and Mausers supporting them is sufficient. America was weird about automatic weapons and they thought it was wasteful so they would accept machinegun with lower rates of fire and this was reflected in the M16A2 where the U.S. Army decided a 3 shot burst was more sensible than automatic fire. And between WW2 and Vietnam the AK existed and was doing well while the West tried battle rifle as intermediate rounds were thought to be "too weak." Only for Battle Rifles to be largely too unwieldy and having less ammo on each soldier. Like you can tell when a visionary is at the helm of decision making and someone clueless and it pops up far more noticeably than before. It's incredible

actually heard about a theory that american casualties in vietnam were that high despite their greater gunpower, not only because of vietkong guerillia positioning and such but also because, contraryly to the vietkong, american soldiers didn't feel a reason to fight and so to kill there.

SuperKarlFriedrich May also explain how Israel managed to defeat all of its surrounding neighbors in 1948

Well check out the winter war.

mr box Like what the Afghan military did when they dropped their guns and ran from IS/ISIS and when France surrendered and collaborated with Nazis Germany? xD

You might find interesting to read about Israel's independence war - especially in the stages where it was losing. However these things already happened in the past, situations where you have no where to run and you know you gonna die. World War 2 is full of such stories, some of which are forgotten.

Lesedi Ben there always an exception

Except for islamists who go to heaven for killing infidels. Ideological processing also works.

What's an Islamist?

A muslim fanatic.

Roman Soloduhin but doesn't that apply to any armed fanatic regardless of thier beliefs?

He did good 👍 that's a soldier.

crazy story i would have shot them all too!

Jesus! What a position to be put in. Kill twice as many innocent as guilty, what a burden

Fuck man I'm sorry he had to live with that. I feel like they put the wrong people in those types of positions and it just fucks with them so bad for a long time. Which is completely unfair and a horrible thing to put people through especially conscripts which was most in nam. I often wonder if I should had joined military I didn't because the pay is garbage and the medical aide I hear is a nightmare. Plus honestly the real reason I couldn't qualify because of a wreck I was in when I was 13. That shit FUCKED ME UP lol But if I received an order like that I'm pretty sure I'd feel nothing. I don't know why I'm like this I've always had good friends and family but for some reason I feel absolutely nothing when it comes to doing heinous shit. I hope I'm wrong but I also know myself pretty well. At least there is self control. If there wasn't I would be screwed

yes, the idea was definitely taken to a whole new level in that one black mirror ep

+Rundra Which one ?

I think the episodes name was "Men of Steel", second season

and what about the french?

My thoughts exactly. It's kind of hard to not be afraid of Muslims when you're being led to believe any one of them is willing to blow you up in the name of religion. But since our brains are wired to sense dangers, these are the signals we pick up instead of "he's a human driving a cab" or "she's selling the stocks of her business to become a partner in a climate initiative". ... Actually, that last bit might sound terrifying to some people.

it's a pretty accurate summary.

I think that's called dry humor

High-n-rish Him-lah

@Nemean Lion german here with a good grip on my country's history. He really wasnt a nice chap.

STRENG GEHEIM

I had no personal animosity towards the Vietnamese. I felt that my enemy was Lyndon Baines Johnson and Local Board 112. By the grace of God, and six pounds, I flunked the physical.

"The ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame, and on each end of the rifle we're the same."

ecabernet THE Army? Which army?

guessing from ww2 and vietnam probably US. could be french though

The statistic about rounds fired per kill in Vietnam doesn't really support Lindy's argument, what it says is twofold. 1: Jungle combat is terrible for accuracy. 2: There are reasons to fire a rifle other than to kill someone (suppression).

actually the rounds fired has more to do with what the AR is capable of, its also why they only let us have 3 round burst now

Your two claims are actually both false: The AR-15/M16 Platform is an inherently accurate design, far and above what we've had to this point in history. The lockup design on them makes them very repeatable, and means that it's fairly easy to find an AR-15 which will do at least 1 MOA for mechanical accuracy on a bad day for less than $1000. What made the M16 what it was in Vietnam was a combination of bad ammo (different pressure-curve than designed), and a lack of training due to the US Army being mainly draftees. Few people ever get significant exposure to firearms, and we (the US) were drafting them to fight and not giving them enough training. What is more significant is that iron-sighted M16s are less capable than rifles equipped with optical sights which we have now, so there is some credence to your point there. This has led to the standardization of optical sights on US military rifles. The other claim that we now only have 3 round burst selectors now is also false. The early 1980's saw the adoption of the M16A2 and M4 Carbine rifles, which did feature a S-1-3 selector switch, but the A2 has since been phased out in favor of the M16A4 and the M4A1 Carbine which have gone back to a S-1-F selector layout. The reason we moved to a S-1-3 selector was because of experience in Vietnam with, again, draftees. Draftees never got enough training on proper fire discipline, and were often liable to do mag dumps with their rifles in full-auto. This lead directly to the adoption of the S-1-3 selector layout which has since been phased out now that we have a professional military.

It's by defnintion a disorder. PTS is often just the normal reaction to a highly abnormal experience.

Who would ever be ignorant enough to claim that PTSD is a weakness of Soldiers?

@@b.l.9764 PTSD is a weakness. Its caused by a soldier living a protected mommas boy life, never being in a fight in his life, and then suddenly going to war and seeing real raw life. This is exactly why the military tries to screen volunteers: to make sure they are psychologically advanced to withstand the harsh realities of combat A good example is fishing and hunting. If you've never hunted or fished in your life, your first experience at killing something will be quiet difficult. It will be even more difficult if you had been brought up as a sissy or if you are just not used to getting new experiences.

Artyom Arty I’ve been in the Army for 17 years and have known several Soldiers with some level to severe PTSD. People that were definitely not sissies as you put it or lived mommas boy lives. You are a ridiculous short sighted &$#!, probably incapable of having a half cognitive thought in your limited half empty skull.

@@artyomarty391, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is caused by trauma-inducing events or experiences: for some this is the horrors of war, for some it happens to be a rough childhood or even a near-death experience, and for survivors like myself it happens to be from abuse. You are perfectly welcome to call us what you will, but just remember that there's a good portion of us (including myself) who've got a ton of muscle and determination to survive against the odds: and we do Not take kindly to people who think they've got us all figured out. Next Time, go do some research ya twit.

As the Oldest Brother who's dad had to work jobs away from home a lot, I agree with your sentiment. I actually have a fear that I would hesitate in a scenario that would require me to kill someone. The Idea of my siblings, family, friends, or even people around me getting hurt or even killed because I failed or hesitated is terrifying to me.

Yes, but then most of these studies were of wars where men were often enlisted, with a minimum of training.

+OddballEasyEight you meant to say "conscripted".

thgreatandini Yeah, sorry, I'm swedish. Lost in translation, I guess.

I believe your accounts would go quite well with what was said here. If you have a training that started after WWII that conditions you to go for a kill, that`d become a problem in the future, thus training the men NOT to take shots to counter the initial training. As he said, you get that ball going but don´t have a clear idea of how to stop it. I hope you have a good long life, I can`t imagine what it´s like to be in your situation.

No, he's correct in saying enlisted; Many WW2 countries didn't perform any conscription at all, but enlistment of healthy men reached an exceedingly high percentage of available numbers. Canada, for instance, only conscripted a few hundred or thousand, and none actually left Canada to go to the Theatre of War.

"good guys" don't miss

they did not really flinch to kill anyone...

Well, they could've just cloned men who shoot to kill right?

Apparently the end of the Clone Wars gave them a coscience.

Came here to say this!

what if he missed a shot on someone who later wiped out his fellow soldiers?

Salute

Jesus man!!! What the hell were you doing in combat without the fortitude to pull the damn trigger?

Agron Legioneras I was never in combat is what Im telling you.

LibertarianUSA1982 oh lol

LibertarianUSA1982 Korengal Valley myself. Where were you deployed?

well, i would probably have a lot more problems with killing a dog puppy than i would have with shooting some terrorist douchebag for example

+TWARDY A criminal is a bit different kind of a target than a soldier that's a legit combatant and someone who's in the same position as you are but only on the other side.

TWARDY You say that, but when it comes to actually shooting some one, most people can't shoot, as said in the video, unless your some psycho,its not a show of weakness, just that you are human. I'm sure the US soldiers going to Europe during WW2 thought the same, "I'm gonna kill all the nazis". most did not.

I don't understand why it is so hard to take a life

You wouldnt because youve never done it. Its the same reaction you have when your trying to do something your scared of. You, unwillingly, dont want to do it and have to make yourself do it. Obviously though killing a human is a much harder response to overcome than doing something your scared of.

That is a very natural way to view it.

It must be quite a situation. One of my uncles told my father that once they had to stop a major offensive and at one point he simply got out of his trench exposing himself while holding a heavy machine gun and shooting from the hip in total disregard of what could happen to him, it was pure desperation.

I a weird fucked up way he is kinda right. I guess his logic was the more I kill the less amount of time everybody else will have to suffer.

Please explain how that logic makes us a sorry species... If someone wants to kill me, kill my men, potentially kill everyone I love, or torture them (certain middle eastern terrorist groups would love nothing more than to do that), I would not feel bad about killing them. I would probably just feel a lot of anger and hate if I got into a gun fight with them, but even if they didn't shoot first, I don't see why it would be wrong of me to shoot to kill them, considering they are there purely to kill me and my men.

Mikkel Jørgensen That is very easy to say when you haven't been in a situation where you have the choice to kill someone.

Completely agree with +Metatron. This was a fantastic topic, Lloyd. Enjoyed every minute! Your discussion on VC winners reminded me of Jeremy Clarkson's documentary, The Victoria Cross - For Valour. Highly recommended if you have not seen it already. His other documentary on The Greatest Raid of All is equally good.

Like he said. Ditto

If you are interested in the topic, check out the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. I suspect that is where he got the information discussed in the video.

Exactly! I clicked on this video out of curiosity and had many things to go and do at the time. But without even noticing, I had already finished the whole 23 minute video! That's how you know you have an engaging and well-written discussion or speaker!

White racism needs to be stopped. Black supremacy is the only solution to stop white privilege.

There's a saying that soldiers at war dream of peace while soldiers at peace dream of war.

Mostly...

It’s those closest to us that have to deal with the problems that such training brings with it. Unfortunately there aren’t enough wives that are strong enough to cope with the fallout, hence I’m eternally grateful for my wife’s understanding and patience. The things she has put up with might find their way into a book that might help the families of veterans in the future, but not quite yet as we have the little issue of my terminal cancer to finish off first.

@@Lord_Ronin_The_Compassionate Sir, I'm sorry for what you had to go through. I can't say anything personal as we are strangers but i hope you find peace.

I wonder what the armourers who filled up planes with 4lb incendiaries night after night thought.

The quiet guy in the platoon: *Loads Sten with murderous intent *

This was by far the best explanation of PTSD due to killing that I have heard.

Yeah possibly the most meaningful minute I spent on youtube

lol. trained killing machine who's been told that killing is wrong after having a nice body count

the answer is never wage war

Funny Farmer good point.

director level: Rope

Depends on how you view the majority of the population. I would see it as a great compliment

not really. some of us are quite pleased to be "wired differently upstairs" - not in a "let's see how many people we can deconstruct" way. just a bit "off the wall". I don't really like people. I FUCKING LOVE animals & would end humanity rather than see my pet get a runny nose - I mean, I can't. but if I could? farewell Homo Sapien. there are about 25 humans I would keep. the rest, i'd neither help nor hinder their survival or extinction. unless they fell into my "Hated" category in which case i'd like to put them in DEEP fekn hole, douse them with Pitch-oil & throw a burning zippo in. Tell me i'm "WDU", i'm as like to thank you.

Only in England

Amen, man. "Flush out your headgear, New Guy."

@@pfalky2k zippocat zippocat zippocat

Except, ya know, stormtroopers hit every target they're meant to in the films unless otherwise told by their commanders.

You see the targets that stormtroopers can't hit are protected by this thing called 'plot' armour

Francesco Salem They hit Leia and R2-D2, though.

True

Set blasters to stun!

People like you are awesome :). I don’t speak polish as I am American (Although I do know quite a few Americans who do, as they are ethnically Polish), but I love that you took your time to do that.

it's a very good translation thuogh Janusz! Janusz!

You're awesome for doing that! It made it in the video.

​@@castlehill6717 kielbasa and bigos!

You mad lad 👏🏽

Casey Jack what an interesting story. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I wonder how many grandpa stories are actually real.

Kristina Petrov I don’t know what you are trying to imply but my story is 100% truth. he’s my idol and I wouldn’t make up lies just to get a couple of likes on RU-vid.

Casey Jack I think he's trying to say that he wonders how many stories from grandfathers are embellished. I don't think it was a personal insult to your grandfather, but it is an acknowledgement that human memory is fickle and oftentimes those kinds of stories are mistold later on?

Cliche Guevara yeah

Every actual police shooting ive ever seen has been a ridiculous mag dump as fast as possible.

US LEO "training" is typically poor and many enthusiasts are far better shots. Our educational requirements are lax too with a few exceptions. Note that many EU police carry SMGs yet don't have near the use of force problems the US does. America has more vanity than professionalism and it shows.

@@obfuscated3090 Going on tangent, but not changing to the metric system just to be different is peak vanity.

Why shouldn't the law enforcement officers also be subject to the lack of desire to kill? This test broadly agrees with that musket test Lindy mentioned.

@@obfuscated3090 or maybe it's because in most European countries we have nowhere near as much problems with gang crime etc where there are deadly encounters with suspects. Police officers in the us operate in a much more dangerous environment than here in Germany I'm pretty sure most of our German police officers would do worse in deadly encounters than American police officers while I think they are better at everything else that is police related because most training is talking etc and not so much to fight but I think that is the big weakness of our police if they'd ever be in a deadly encounter

Got a story?

Yeah just commenting to be notified in case you do have a story, haha

Well, modern soldier are minded to kill way more then before.

I think that the reason behind this is the fanaticism. Their leaders demonise the enemy, because if they don't see them (and you) as humans, most of their concerns will vanish about killing. And of corse they have a mindset that the Paradise will awaits for them if they kill many enemy. Another reason may be that they know that if they don't fight, they will be punished by their leaders and/or God, or maybe they know that that absolute reign of terror what they operate, will be gone, and they just don't want to accept that.

Can't you guys just put yourselves in the mind of others and figure it out for yourselves? I certainly think that a group of men would shoot to kill for their country families or religions. Has been recorded a couple of times in history you know...

I've skipped this video several times because it was too long. But Im glad I did watch.

Volkier Neigh i think your on to something there. as i understand it the resistance groups in france and greece and whatnot were pretty hardcore

You can link this to some of the points in the video. Attackers/Invaders are aggressive and threatening and therefore easier to kill. People defending a home are stationary and you don't want to fight them.

I don't know if Resistance is very effective in killing germans, but I heard that without the informations dealed by the REsistance, Normandy's landing were been very harder, and perhaps impossible. I think Resistance is pretty effective in spy and intelligence ^^

in the revolutionary war it was said that british soldiers often were confused since they were basically fighting their own like a civil war which made them lose morale, as well as fighting for a king rather than an ideal

Israel

Same, but it made me sad learning how people are trained to kill.

Rob Lecheler yeah me too ;(

I was going to say exactly the same thing.

Truly we really have improve our kill counts you can thank quick shooter games for that.

To be honest, if you are a soldier, its your job to kill to protect your comrades and your countrymen.

While there is a difference people recruited are often manipulated into it by various techniques.

Made zero difference. The training aspect is what was needed. The major difference between ww2 and Vietnam training was the military killed green pop men that would fall. Vs a circle target on paper

I don't know if I buy all the logic posited, but I did the same as far as watching. I thought it was some very engaging food for thought. Not having had any personal experience with such a situation, I don't feel confident at all what category I would fall into.

It isn't more common, we just don't sweep it under the rug as much. Many, many, many veterans of WW1 and the US Civil War had PTSD.

"Shell shock" "Combat fatigue" "Yellow belly". All pretty much PTSD.

It may be simultaneously more common than it used to be AND also less frequently swept under the rug because it's slightly better understood or at least more researched.

The last point to me isn't so much about PTSD as that you have instilled a conditioned reflex into a man to shoot to kill a threat. Then he now has to live with an internal conflict that has left him unstable. When that instability manifests "going postal" as they say they still retain that conditioned reflex to shoot to kill, kill without making the reasoned decision to kill or not to kill. And as my own addition. In the United States at least many ex military find jobs in police departments, or such departments also train with such conditioning where that conditioned reflex can trigger and lead to shootings such as Philando Castile.

It's true that any number of soldiers from any number of wars, conflicts, "police actions," etc. suffer(ed) from PTSD; however, there IS a correlative link between rates/severity of suffering and actually, personally, DIRECTLY killing other human beings. That's not to suggest that the causes of PTSD aren't many and complex; modern warfare is MUCH different in type, scale, and continuity of direct combat involvement from any other type of warfare in human history. However, because modern training methods are geared toward making more soldiers actually, personally, DIRECTLY kill other people, modern soldiers DO experience PTSD at higher rates and to greater degrees.Yes, some of that is because of higher rates of reporting, but ONLY some of it. The best source I'm aware of that explains this in all its complexity is Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman's "On Killing."

Martin Van Luyn i kinda doubt that it was so hard to kill someone in the past. How do you explain our history with swords bows and spears. You looked an enemy in his eyes while fighting them. But its hard to shoot someone shooting at you? The study is btw being refuted by many other scientists. Altough i love to think we were made evil. But its in our brain to kill enemies or atleast wound em severly if necessary. Look at chimps absolutely destroying their enemies. We are no better then chimps. Weve been killing each other since the beginning of time.

107598 I 100% agree with this guy

You forget the threatend part, two guys with swords have at it, they are booth in very personal mortal danger by someone in front of them, very personal. With guns there is no in the face danger, you point an stick and boom, and there are bullets wizzing by who are quite dangerous, but they are not connected to an personal threat. There is distance involved, it is not another guy behind an sword aiming for your head. With the technology and precision guns today have one would expect bodies piling up everywhere today in wars but compared to ammo used up... not so much happens (even accounting for supressive fire) An friend of mine was soldier in jugoslavia war and they did the "shoot in the general direction to drive them off" thing, they where not very keen on doing actual killing (and the opposition not either). Next to all of the body count was generated by very few people on the many sides this war had. In ww1 and ww2 most of the body count was generated by artillery, and that is "shoot shells at f34g11" and offcourse "yessir!", and why? I think for an big part because you shot stuff at an angle and in a certain direction, but nothing much personal you see? (some described that they avoided visiting places they shelled after having seen such a place the first time) Normal people are simple not wired to kill outright for killing sake, it is true every human has the potential to kill, but that applies only for strong emotional reasons, personal hate (or the to protect loved ones example) The big majority of murders are personal reasons between people knowing each other, very few are about someone killing strangers and we consider them.. abnormal, while in cases where people killing people they know closer are not approved in general but not considerd that strongly "abnormal", people often think up reasons that "excuse" why there was murder, rather more so than with "why did this guy run around shooting random people? He had to be nuts! While with "personal" murder it is often in interview "I can not understand what happen, Joe was such a NICE guy", there is even in media less of an "he had to be nuts" implications, people are sad it happend, but the fomaing at the mouth part is not that much stressed. I went rather paramedics than army because i really cannot imagine killing someone i have no personal beef with, and who probably is not really into it either (very few people are)

107598 Also don't forget, there are two pretty significant(plenty of others too) differences. The pre-modern societies were brought up significantly more communalistic than modern ones. Individualism increases the value we put on human life, making it harder to take that life from another human being. The other, more impactful difference, is that the pre-modern warrior was not drafted out of massive population centers as in the modern day(and even Victorian-era onwards). This means that the average pre-modern soldier was either A. More willing to fight and die(like say, a knight) or B. Levy fodder anyways. Also, this video by Shadiversity might interest you on comparing modern day views on violence and warfare to those of the past. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ut1-IgyfVU8.html

The majority if not every single gulf war veteran would disagree with this sentiment.

agree

Yeah, that's what the military call a flawed system. They want any recruit to be able to kill anybody anywhere. And if they can't get a human willing to do it, a robot will do.

@Ryan Kruse the winter war began before the Soviets got involved. And don't forget that the Soviets were who declared war on Finland.

@Ryan Kruse we allied with germans after the winter war not during it. Im not offended by your joke just clearing facts

@Ryan Kruse sure sure of course, Trading with eachother is bad init? loads of countrys did it and after Germany burned down Lappi the trading system ended and finland quit trading and made germany seen as hostile force. Why are you crying over finland when sweden gave the germans access to northen finlnad using the train system and the fact that they gave germany free metal so they could create weapons? Fucking finland fought for their country, pussy sweden didn't do shit and in my eyes supported the killing of over 10 million people

lol liberals

anime sucks The pilots have nothing to lose but their chains.

anime sucks underrated comments

amazing hahaha

The pilots have nothing to lose but their planes.

@Homa Simpson e5

@Homa Simpson Nc3

@Homa Simpson Bc5

@Homa Simpson Bxb4

@Homa Simpson Ba5 this is the evans gambit accepted line

george lightheart you'll shoot yer eye out

I shot a pigeon when i was 10 with 1 pump from my bb gun without even aiming... i shit you not the bb went into the pigeons eye socket and killed it instantly. I was mortifiedXD i couldn't even play world of warcraft for a couple weeks because i didn't want to kill anything in the game

your first kill is always hardest, you shouldn't shy away from killing animals if you are willing to accept hunting is part of human culture. It's one thing to be empathetic to living creature and another to be so over sensitive that you can not shoot a bird for food. But that's just my opinion :)

JaGuaR but i didnt need to eat it. It was just for sport. I just dont like shooting that way.

george lightheart I have no problem shooting a bird. I did once and thought nothing of it

I have never heard of that, but would probably kill my officer if i found out that i was given blanks. (i would see it as a attempt to murder me)

@@HrRezpatex Firing squads are the guys that shoot in executions, not in actual combat

@@GaenaralHONK aha, ok thanks for the answer :)

I have read that yes, this is the reason why.

@@HrRezpatex Were you asking a question?

I mean the Empire is based off Germany in WWII lol

Executing civilians up close put quite a psychological strain on the germans carrying it out. That's why they moved to less visible methods. They started with special gas vans. But these were hated by the crew because the victims didn't die quickly and their banging and screaming could be heard.

He still was a human after all

No, he personally asked for the videos of hangings from the bomb plot to kill him

May have misread himler as Hitler but oh well

Himmler was also seen as a traitor at the end of the war by Adolf H. Most people think he was gruesome but he himself didnt want it to go like it did

Wish that game got more attention

played it but i don't remeber this quote. maybe it was Brothers in Arms 2

never expected even 20 likes on this comment. Thanks guys!

"those your'e raised with. And those you raise hell with"

Stupid lol