Is there a moral justification for killing in war?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:12:18 -0400

I've started and canceled this topic a half a dozen times, it remains heavily on my mind though along with the feeling we should talk about this heavily avoided subject. I wrestle with the right words to use, I'm not a philosopher, I prefer to deal with things that I can apply quantitative, qualifiable, objective measurements to.

So here I am the same person who was appalled at witnessing someone use their vehicle to strike something as insignificant as a deer in an attempt to kill it and moved myself into a position to protect the deer bringing up a discussion about the justification of killing the enemy.

In my personal life I try to avoid hurting others with my words, thoughts, and actions and lean heavily toward protection, but this doesn't change the fact that if facing an enemy I would do whatever is necessary to stop the enemy from his/her intent.

When an enemy immortalizes the murder of captives, kills innocents, and encourages rape and enslavement of women as a recruitment tool, it removes from it's members any cloak of morality and makes it easier for reaching the conclusion that there is a moral justification of killing in battle.

We took an oath both Enlisted and Officers we repeated these words, "I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." We shouldn't ever forget it.

http://soldier-ethicist.blogspot.com/2010/01/moral-justication-for-killing-in-war.html

Thoughts of a Soldier-Ethicist: Moral justification for killing in war

I am a Soldier who believes in the moral standing of my profession, yet knows that we could improve and is committed to serving that cause. I have served in the Army infantry and on the faculty at West Point. Please engage with me in an online conversation about morality and the profession of arms. Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the position of USMA, DA, or DOD. Follow me...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2015 12:19 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:19:45 -0400

Regardless of one's personal feelings about violence, when one joins the Military there is a certain understanding that violence has to be performed in some manner. So, bearing in mind that when sent to war, it is either the enemy popping a new orifice into your skull and going home to his family or you doing said hole creation and going home to yours. Even if one is a REMF FOBBIT, there is always that possibility. And one should always be ready of that possibility. Because I will be damned if I am not going to go home to my family because I think violence is bad.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Sep 4 at 2015 12:20 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:20:58 -0400

I like to think of it as a duty to be performed to save lives. Some day we may never have war again, but until that day comes we and our brothers and sister will perform our duty.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2015 12:24 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:24:54 -0400

Yes. Those who do kill in war still have moral obligations, but regardless of your basis for morality (religion, etc) there is always a caveat (a few rare exceptions) in which war exists. Self defense is also always (usually) an exception to not killing.

That doesn't mean blindly following orders, but rather making a conscious decision (when safety and time allow) to assess the morality of the action.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Sep 4 at 2015 12:27 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:27:20 -0400

Is their a moral reason for killing in war, some of the countries we have gone to war with or quasi war with would be a better term, I would say no. But when we look at Nazi's, torpedoing civilian ships in WWI & II, rape of Nanking, what options do we have?

We could take the Neville Chamberlin approach, appeasement, that didn't work out. We could try the UN approach, that really doesn't work either. Unfortunately the reality is, bullies only respect someone who will go toe to toe with them. If you fail that, look what happens. Yugoslavia civil war is a good case in point. The EU tried to take the lead on this, it failed miserably, the Serbs took EU forces and chained them to targets, thereby limiting their overall effectiveness. Yet the massacres kept going on, debates kept on going on, and not until US intervention did it come to an end. A bully met his match. Sadam Hussein, kept playing games with the UN, and not until his demise did it finally sink in he wasn't going to win.

Likewise, the weakness, or lack of action against Russia, has led to more aggressive nature against former Soviet satellites nations by Putin.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Sep 4 at 2015 12:28 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:28:46 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I can only speak as a rabbi to this issue. There is a common misconception that the "Sixth Commandment" says Thou shall not kill. In fact the Hebrew says Do not MURDER, dramatically different than kill. Further, the Hebrew Bible makes it clear that war is sometimes inevitable. If a country is attacked, then war is obligatory, so you can save your life and those of your family and country.

Sometimes, pre-emptive strikes are in the same category. For instance, in 1967, Israel was under siege by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. They preemptively started and finished the Six Day War, which was, according to Jewish law a defensive war.

The first year in Afghanistan after 9/11 was a similar case. However, we got bogged down in Afghanistan after about the first year, and it was no longer about Al Quaeda at that point. We were battling the Taliban, then, an enemy we created.

The Iraq war is a very different category. Iraq really posed no threat whatsoever to the US or Israel when we attacked in 2003. The reasons for the war were based on bad intel, and ultimately it became about "nation building" - another term for Imperialism. There is never a moral justification for this type of war - except in the minds of the leaders who call for the war.

The sad thing is that we aren't really much better off these days in terms of intel fusion. We have the DHS which creates a huge bureaucratic mess and adds no value, and the TSA, who make it very hard for legitimate passengers, and couldn't find a bomb if it was overt and ticking...

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Sep 4 at 2015 12:30 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:30:59 -0400

In a war time situation: it kill or be killed.
I have never intentionally tried to hit a deer with my car, it pisses me off when I see people try to kill animals with their vehicles.
I am the one who usually stops to put the animal out of its misery when they are hit by cars. Don't get me wrong, I am an avid hunter, my wife and I try to get 8 deer to help us make it through the rest of the year with the cost of meat being so high. Basically, if it flies it dies; and if it runs its done.
But I have never left an animal suffer: 1 shot 1 kill is one of my credos.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Sep 4 at 2015 12:31 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:31:25 -0400

Where to start with this one...I guess I'll start it here...as I said before war is raw, it is dirty and it is unapologetic. There is no black and white hindsight to war. War is full of grey areas that when question after the fact do not make sense but during the action is the only way to go. Is there a moral justification to killing in war? Well of course, it's the moral justification in protecting your brothers and sisters-in-arms. The justification comes from that oath mentioned. And it comes from knowing that the other side is trying to do the same to you.

Response by SGT David T. made Sep 4 at 2015 12:32 PM

SGT David T. — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:32:20 -0400

Jus in bello (justice in war) is hotly debated in some philosophy circles. This is a hard thing to reconcile since we are all taught from day 1 that killing people is wrong. However, killing in itself isn't wrong the reason for the killing makes it morally commendable, morally neutral or morally blameworthy. Assume for a moment that command has identified a group as hostile and they wear uniforms so they are easy to identify but they are unarmed. It would not be morally blameworthy to kill those individuals. I would argue that the action was morally neutral (assuming the reasons for the war were just). Now if we change the scenario and put the same group in civilian clothes, shooting them unarmed would be morally blameworthy because there is no reason to believe that they are hostile and they were killed just because. Change it again and put an AK47 in their hands shooting at your troops. I would argue that killing them is morally commendable because you were defending them. Slight changes in the scenario can have major moral implications.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Sep 4 at 2015 12:32 PM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:32:45 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member, when I was in the Navy, I was a Sonar Operator. My job was to prosecute submarines. I had an understanding that if we were called upon to complete that task, we would be sending three to five hundred men to their death. It is not something that should never be taken lightly. We were lucky compared to ground soldiers. We never had to see the face of our enemy. It was just a reading on a sensor, followed by release of weapons. I do hope that there will be a time when a strong military is a deterrent force rather than a practical force. Unfortunately, that day is not going to come. The only difference between us and the ancient Vikings, Huns, Romans, Mongols, Greeks, etc... is that we have more efficient means of killing each other now than we did in ancient times. Our nation has never existed in an extended state of peace. Until we as a species evolve to put humanity above politics, religion, wealth, power, and territory we will continue to have wars.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Sep 4 at 2015 12:34 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:34:52 -0400

Early goose season. 5 a day limit and 10 possession.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Sep 4 at 2015 12:36 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:36:45 -0400

"I ain't a killer, but don't push me"...lyrics from 2Pac's "Hail Mary" I think this describes most Soldiers. Definitely me. I don't want to bring harm or pain to anyone, but if you push me into a corner where it becomes a "you or me" situation or you or any of my Soldiers lives, you are going to loose and loose hard. To me as a Soldier I know there is a chance that I might have to take a life, and I accept that. What I cannot accept as a leader or a Soldier is the wanton desire to kill or injure unprovoked. We are a profession of arms, not a "profession" of murders. But I think as a Soldier and leader I want to save lives. I can spread my sphere of influence through people who are living and eager to hear what I have to say than have to deal with the anger and angst of a dead person's relatives. I've hurt folks through my words and deeds, but in each of those cases, they were rationed stringently and with great care. I really don't know many men who haven't fought in their times. But to ask for morality in killing? Not sure if there is a moral reason to kill compared to a moral reason not to. It's personal depending on the person. He also mentions enemy combatants which changes the whole thing again. These are people who would do harm to you and yours. At that point again, I don't WANT to kill or maim, but to save my Soldiers, I'd do it and live with my decision with no problems. I am my Soldiers and my Soldiers are me; I cannot survive with a hurt part of me for long.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Sep 4 at 2015 12:39 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:39:51 -0400

@SPC Nate Lamphier
Try a 1" clear twister tail with flecks in it. White also works on crappie.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Sep 4 at 2015 12:43 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:43:31 -0400

I think this is part of the reason for PTSD, depression and anxiety that a lot of SMs have when they 'come home'. As SGT Ben Keen stated, war is raw and unapologetic. Sometimes, folks don't have the time to process all that they experienced at the moment. Sometimes, bad things happen more quickly than can be processed, so they are forced to bury it until it can be dealt with and occasionally, some find it easier to keep it buried.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2015 12:58 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:58:01 -0400

I have chosen to be a soldier. Knowing full well what that entails. I chose this knowing what the pay scale was and what the requirements were, this is my choice. In war I use that term loosely as we haven’t been in a declared war in so long… In war, soldiers have a mission. Taking another’s life is not pleasant under any circumstance, but is part of what I signed up for. Kill or be killed… as GEN George Patton said; “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Sep 4 at 2015 1:23 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:23:25 -0400

I have absolutely no problem with this one. Almost every religion and philosophy includes an injunction against murder, not killing, murder. The logical corollary of this injunction is that every one of us has a moral imperative to prevent murder, not punish it, prevent it. If one is threatened and fails to defend themselves, they are as guilty of murder as the aggressor, especially if they have the means and opportunity of preventing it.

This is why it is important that those who send us to war do not do so as aggressors but rather for defense. Now, there are those who argue that every war subsequent to WWII has been a war of aggression by the United States. That is not germane to this discussion. I am responding here only to the original question.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Sep 4 at 2015 1:27 PM

SSgt Terry P. — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:27:20 -0400

Very interesting material,but still doesn't help (me) justify killing,even knowing that i have and would do so again if the need arose. The only justification i have ever had was protecting myself and my companions.

Response by SGT Mark Stevens made Sep 4 at 2015 1:32 PM

SGT Mark Stevens — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:32:07 -0400

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell

This man understood the need for violence in society. Once you are a soldier you will always stand apart from society, one foot drenched in blood and violence the other next to the raw dirt turned up by the plow of peace and prosperity. We walk among everyone but they can tell we are different, even when we show a gentle kinder side.
It's like they know at some base level, this person can set aside their morals to make the hard decisions. But, even when you put them back you are never quite the same and they can tell.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Sep 4 at 2015 1:41 PM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:41:26 -0400

The English king James version of the bible and to commandments say " Thou shall not kill"
The original version says "Thou shall not murder". It still applies in peace and war.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Sep 4 at 2015 1:50 PM

LTC John Shaw — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:50:30 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I joined the Army because I believe in the idea of America. I hope I can always believe in the leadership we elect to make the best possible decisions on when to apply the military to a specific situation.
As an Officer our/my leadership bear(s) the responsibility to ensure before we commit to action the violence necessary is justified.
I have not lost sleep over combatants, I do lose sleep over the non-combatants and civilians whom we are charged to protect that got/get killed by actions and more troubling our omission to act.
When someone wants to eliminate you, that is an easy call, justified each time.
As we are charged to protect others in a OA, this becomes the huge grey area.
For me, post WWII we have become the world police and everyone wants to lay the action or inaction at the feet of the US military and US leadership.
We must decide OUR interests and it is not the ENTIRE world.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2015 2:31 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:31:49 -0400

There was a thread similar to this one last year where a soldier was having the mental battle of coming to terms w/ his religious beliefs & being asked to take a life in combat.

Myself, I have had to come to the fact that evil exists in this world. Not the grey area where evil is determined by the wording of a law. No, true, black, smoldering evil. The enslavement of an entire people. The slaughter of same.

If those that hold good up do not act, then this evil will permeate. Sometimes a righteous person is forced to eliminate evil. Sometimes the elimination of evil can include the taking of an evil life.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 4 at 2015 2:51 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:51:08 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member, difficult question, and one I struggled with a long time ago. Killing is a taboo that is deeply ingrained in us from early childhood, but in war it is the job we do.

In the beginning, breaking that taboo was a major mental hurtle to get over, and once killing became necessary it seemed silly to worry about just how one went about the job. The question of just how they were killed paled in significance to the fact that they WERE killed. Dead is dead. However, morality itself is determined by the "how".

Lt. Calley was a young officer thrust into a battle in a region that had been declared a "Free Fire Zone", meaning that there were only enemy there (Viet Cong irregulars and their families) and all could be killed on sight. He had taken a large group of prisoners and was being pressed by Capt. Medina to keep up with his place in the sweep of the area; he told Capt. Medina that he had these prisoners and was told to "take care of them". He said that he would set out guards over them, and was told that this was not the order - he was to "take care of them" - so he and his men mowed them down and rejoined the sweep of the area. Many more were killed during the sweep.

When Lt. Calley was later called to Washington he thought he was up for a medal, and instead was prosecuted and convicted of war crimes.

When we bombed targets many were also killed, but we were not charged with war crimes. This was difficult for me to understand at the time.

Then a fire base was overrun and a NVA charged into a GI with an M-79 grenade launcher and was shot in the gut. The NVA went down with the grenade buried in his spine, but the range was too close for the grenade to have spin armed, so he wasn't cut in half by the blast - although that would have been the intended and completely satisfactory result. After the firebase was retaken and the choppers were carrying away the wounded, this NVA was flown out, risking the chopper and crew because of the live round in his spine. Then at the MASH unit, doctors surrounded him with sandbags as they operated to remove the live grenade.

That was a puzzle to me; one moment we would be happy to see this man blown in half and the next moment we risked American lives and equipment saving his life. It did not make any sense to me.

But upon reflection, the morality becomes clear; the immorality is not in the killing of the individual enemy, but in killing unresisting prisoners that are no longer a danger to us. How and when and why they are killed is far more important than THAT they were killed.

Other questions still puzzle me. In the battle of the Najaf Cemetery a Mahdi Army soldier was badly wounded with his chest cavity and abdomen opened up and was in great pain. An Army officer (a Captain if memory serves) had come upon him; there was no medical aid possible and the man could not survive and was in great pain and begging to be put out of his misery. The Captain obliged, and dispatched him with his sidearm. Unfortunately, a drone flying over the area filmed the event, and the Captain was charged with murder. A very difficult moral question for me even today, over a decade later. I see it as a mercy killing, and can see myself in that Captain's place making the same decision he made.

Even in war it is important that we pay close attention to the morality of our actions - otherwise we would be no different than ISIS. But I believe that these difficult questions need to be addressed extensively in training before relatively inexperienced and unprepared soldiers are confronted with these situations on the battlefield and have to make snap decisions.

These things need to be thought out beforehand so that in the heat of the moment our training will take over and we will make the right decisions.

Response by SPC David S. made Sep 4 at 2015 2:52 PM

SPC David S. — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:52:22 -0400

I can certainly understand your hesitation with the question. I feel this question in its basic form is really if violence is ever moral. Violence is really just the manifestation of intolerance towards an individual or group. It seems we condone violence easier where there is intolerance. The level of intolerance seems to indicate the level of violence directed at the individual or group. The intolerance seems based on the variance of the morals, values, and norms. So why do we use violence - path of least resistance in bringing about ideological change. It seems to some degree that a variance in morals is the root cause of violence - bad guy thinks its morally OK to rob bank LEO thinks otherwise and shoots bad guy when he starts shooting trying to get away. The variance in the morals caused the violence.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Sep 4 at 2015 2:54 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:54:45 -0400

"Just War Theory" (jus bellum iustum) is an area of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers, and military leaders. It is easy to comprehend the moral justification for killing was necessary to stop Hitler, for example. WWII is a great example of a "Just War" because earlier appeasement had led to genocide, and we know the genocide would have continued to its end, but for allied success. We on RP have studied war and experienced war...and we are generally more inclined to avoid getting the US involved in a war as a result. That's one reason we need congressmen and senators and presidents who have served.

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Sep 4 at 2015 3:38 PM

Cpl James Waycasie — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:38:44 -0400

Ma'am, First off people who claim to be "Objectors" Because the Bible says thou shalt not kill is taking a verse out of context. When we took an oath to defend our nation, we are obligated to fulfill that oath. The Bible says:
Tit 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
Now when God said thou shalt not kill, he was talking about an individual out of anger or revenge or while committing a crime killing someone intentionally out of malice. The punishment for murder was death. Now if you accidently killed a man, God set up refuge cities for you to flee to stay in and be safe:
Num 35:6 And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer, that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities.
Num 35:7 So all the cities which ye shall give to the Levites shall be forty and eight cities: them shall ye give with their suburbs.
Num 35:8 And the cities which ye shall give shall be of the possession of the children of Israel: from them that have many ye shall give many; but from them that have few ye shall give few: every one shall give of his cities unto the Levites according to his inheritance which he inheriteth.
Num 35:9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Num 35:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan;
Num 35:11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.
Num 35:12 And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.
Num 35:13 And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge.
Num 35:14 Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge.
Num 35:15 These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither.
Num 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Num 35:17 And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Num 35:18 Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Num 35:19 The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.
Num 35:20 But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die;
Num 35:21 Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.
Num 35:22 But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
Num 35:23 Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:
Num 35:24 Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments:
Num 35:25 And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.
Num 35:26 But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;
Num 35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:
Num 35:28 Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.
Num 35:29 So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
Num 35:30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
Num 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.
Num 35:32 And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.
Num 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
Num 35:34 Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.
So since we are to obey our leaders and since we take an oath to defend, we are allowed to kill during war or duty. If the war itself is wrong, the leaders will give an account for that. We can't kill out of anger for our own satisfaction. This is how I see it, Ma'am

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Sep 4 at 2015 4:28 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:28:11 -0400

My justifications for killing in war, 1. the enemy has to be armed, 2. I prefer that he or she has shot at me or any one else. I will shoot to kill and only the enemy and if there are not combatants near, I will aim and shoot only the enemy. It is Karma.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Sep 4 at 2015 5:49 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 17:49:31 -0400

I don't wake up in the morning wanting to kill someone today. I also am not a hunter because I have no need to do so for food and I like animals. However most animals are an improvement over most people. The sad fact is that the world is full of sorry people who will kill me or us given the chance. Some have tried. In the case of a person who tries to kill me or someone that I care about or who tries to destroy our country I have no problem at all with killing them. As hard hearted as it sounds lots of people just need killing.

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Sep 6 at 2015 4:13 PM

CSM Carl Cunningham — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 16:13:03 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member , I am not sure if you have read the book "On Killing" or not. If you have not, you should. There are not as many as you would think that actually have killed someone in combat. And some never truly know if they did if there is mass confusion in a battle. Either way, politics and morals go out the window after that first explosion or shot fired happens. You are in that moment totally ensuring one thing....that you and the people around you survive. If killing someone happens while you are trying to survive, then so be it. That is all that matters.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Sep 11 at 2015 6:37 PM

1SG Patrick Sims — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:37:04 -0400

Concerning the morality of killing in combat, I was in Vietnam for 915 days and would like to comment on this subject. In Vietnam Soldiers and Marines could jump into a hole or throw themselves on the ground to avoid being shot. I was in the Navy River Patrol. We were on 35 foot green fiberglass riverboats on a brown muddy river. We had no hole to hide in, or ground to throw ourselves on. Our only chance was to stick to our guns and hope we had more ammunition than the the North Vietnamese we were fighting. I fought to protect my friends. There wasn't any thought to country, the flag or any such thing---to tell you the truth back then my mental health wasn't very good, and I doubt if I caned about anything. I guess you have to ask yourself, can you justify standing by and watching your friends shot to pieces, just so you can say you didn't kill and did the moral thing. If you can't being yourself to defend your friends--- you may want to think of a career change.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Sep 11 at 2015 8:12 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:12:48 -0400

In combat I have to assume that it inevitiably comes down to kill or be killed! You can contemplate the morality of your actions after you survive (if you do).