I am just finishing reading the book by a Harvard evolutionary psychologist: "The Murder Next Door- Why the Mind is Designed to Kill" and I could see evidence from the soldiers behavior that indeed killing fulfills a deep evolutionary instinct in men, especially young. Evolutionary, there is little difference between the psychology influencing young gang members killing rival gang members and from young soldiers killing enemy soldiers (or combatants)
shareUm...what's your point?
shareThat while war may be hell for civilians, it's a natural drug for soldiers (as noted in Hurt Locker too) So saying that soldiers sacrifice themselves going to war, is like saying mother sacrifice itself taking care of her baby. They can't be true sacrifices if they both are following ones instincts and enjoy it, can they?
Wow. Have you even seen the movie? These soldiers have terrible nightmares and say that the memories of their last comrades will haunt them for the rest of their lives. You think they enjoyed their tour?
Yes, they do get an intense adrenaline rush from firefights, and yes, many soldiers get addicted to that rush but to say that they "enjoy" war to the point that it no longer becomes a sacrifice is asinine.
Yes, I've seen the movie and let me point a small detail: how come the son of a hippie that never was allowed to own a squirt gun, ends up enjoying firing through a machine gun? Nature took over nurture. Didn't it? Boys will be boys... And yes PTSD can be a side effect to being shot at, but hardly anyone gets PTSDs from shooting the "bad guys". In fact did you see joy on soldiers faces when they killed an enemy? While it's true that you kill or get killed in war, it's also true that killing people (I.e. enemies) can be extraordinary fun, not merely a necessity.
shareI agree with your point in that humans (not just soldiers) are biologically inclined to killing. But saying that soldiers enjoy killing to the point that war to soldiers is comparable to mothers and their babies is taking it way too far.
Especially in a war in which friendly fire is almost certain, when differences between civilians and the enemy is almost impossible to distinguish.
Having to kill the enemy may not have been a burden (most veterans I talked to don't regret killing, it's always about the death of their buddies) but war is more than simply killing.
If the war was nothing more than a shooting gallery you'd be correct. But by saying that going to war is not a sacrifice, you discount the risk these men take in seeing their best friends, or themselves get killed or maimed.
Well wars gives people a purpose. Giving birth isn't easy, women may die, but they do it anyway. Fighting wars it ain't easy either, but it beats flipping burgers. When a former punk kid is given power to use the military weapons of the greatest world power, he ought to feel cool about himself. Suddenly he's not somebody to mess with. Suddenly he's an action figure.
shareIt has nothing to do with that and I don't think you are getting the point.
The adrenaline rush comes not from killing others, but from the battle itself. It's called the will to survive. You'd get an adrenaline rush too.
I dare say you are no different, although the high horse from which you are writing your little "psychological study" seems to give you the artificial impression that you are above it all. You are trying to remove yourself from the equation, psychologically putting yourself above soldiers because they kill and you don't. Human nature is a double-edged sword. People who write about the darker inclinations of human nature often forget that they themselves are human, writing in a literary isometric perspective about killing and hurting others as if they are not capable of it themselves.
Killing others is a hard thing even if they are "bad guys." You don't get to take it back, you often second-guess yourself. No matter what you think you know, killing "bad guys" will still stay with a soldier for the rest of his life because taking a life is a psychologically stressful act. When you see people who have killed others and they seem fine with it, why don't you try to look a little deeper? No one save a sociopath or psychopath is fine with killing or hurting others; they simply deal with it because life must go on.
There are also many other jobs in the military other than infantry, something you also seem to forget.
What I get tired of, and what a lot of others get tired of, is the endless analysis of killing and those who have killed, by those who have not done so and as a result feel morally superior. Soldiers don't get to kill, they have to kill. You should just feel glad that there are people out there who do it and that you don't have to. In WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc, young men were thrust into killing and had to make hard choices. What would you do?
Compound your analysis with the fact that it's not even really your research and not your original opinion, and you get someone who is still terribly uninformed about what the men and women of the military do and what they deal with every day. If people didn't volunteer to serve, no one would be there to do your fighting for you. So it's more than just a simple choice to serve in the military, to put that dead horse to rest.
I don’t put myself above it all, just tell the way it is, not the way people want it to be. Men, like other predator animals, are killers by nature, at times I wish I can kill my ass boss, but that would get me life not a medal...
shareWell, that's not the way it is. Studies done and books written which you have read and researched do not make it so simply because you read it and believed it. Experience is knowledge and anyone who tells you differently knows not nearly as much as they let on.
Your boss may be an ass, but he is not a suicide bomber or Islamic Jihadist, and most likely does not deserve to be killed.
Well Taliban for all its faults wasn't greedy and corrupt, unlike American backed Afgani official. They were religious fanatics, but they were not there to attack America, had US not supported corrupt Middle East regimes and/or back up Israeli settlements. While, Taliban stoned women, they also supported orphanages. So, you can paint those bearded Taliban men as either saints or sadists. Depending from whose point of view you look....
shareI have a suggestion, CinematicExplorer. Put your book down and go see things for yourself.
You actually claim that we wouldn't have been attacked if we didn't support "corrupt" Middle East regimes and Israel? The same way we wouldn't have been attacked by Japan if we hadn't placed embargos on their oil to stim their genocide of the Chinese people.
The Taliban was worse than any corrupt government. Their rule was comparable to living in Soviet Russia, where committing minor offenses could result in punishment as severe as death.
But obviously I'm talking to a liberal "scholar", and you obviously know everything, so why am I even wasting my time.
War in Afganistan is more comparable with Vietnam than WWII.
shareYou had an interesting point until you mentioned "men" instead of man. People are aggressive, notice that I said people. There are a great deal of dangerous and corrupt female leaders in history. Queen Elizabeth the 1st said something to the effect of "Send wolves to govern Ireland because they have left me nothing but ashes." Also I have spoken to soldiers and a common theme in their responses seems to be that they were thankful that they never had to endure a serious firefight. You sound like a misandrist.
shareFirst of all I don’t hate myself (I.e. men), in fact I think my male gender got the short end of the stick in this day and age, with women having more opportunities and choices (I.e. decide whether they want to be a housewife or executive)
But I like to acknowledge the elephant in the room and state the obvious: men are natural killers; women are natural nurturers
The fact that there are male nurses, and female snipers, doesn't disprove the cold fact that males kill ten times more fq than females !
You are still somewhat operating under a binary misconception that male=killer female=caring. Also correlation is not causation just because more males kill than females does not mean that males are anymore predisposed to killing than females. Personally I believe violent tendencies have more to do with culturation than with genetics.
shareSo why males of just about any mammal specie, kill much more fq than females of that species. As far as I know male chimps don't kill because they played with guns rather dolls as kids. Or are we such an exception from the rest of the mammals when it comes to murderous tendency ? I think not!
shareAs you mentioned mammals it is worth noting that both female and male chimps go to war over territory as do wolves. Also I have dated women who are far more aggressive than I am. I think that you are over generalizing when you say that young men are natural killers.
shareThat you dated a testosterone poisoned woman is an anecdote. That men kill ten times more than woman is a statistical fact.
shareAs stated before correlation is not causation. Also please do not slander women that I have dated.Furthermore throughout human history males are called upon to fight wars. This could be due to the fact that females can give birth and to a certain extent are more valuable to sustaining a population than males. You seem to be making a moral judgement, one which is not necessarily correct. As masculinity is a very flexible concept from culture to culture. I believe you have issues with misandry.
sharewith all due respect to your ivy league author...it's a ridiculous point he's attempting to make....the young fight wars, b/c they are the only ones who can....not too many 60 year olds can carry 60lbs in their sacks and have the physical abilities to do ANY of the skills/abilities required in modern combat...they are the generals, armchair generals who play chess with the young...and that is how it has been since the beginning of time
now, if the OP's point was simply the young can be more easily trained to killl...uh yeah, i'm sure that tesotosterone levels mighy have a small part to play in that no?
putz.
it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it
Uh, I think your wrong.
Hurt Locker wasn't a documentary. You should probably read more about the experiences of real soldiers. Combat can be an adrenaline rush which appeals to adrenaline junkies, but the average soldier doesn't savor killing people, just those whom threaten the lives of innocents and his comrades.
You've never been in combat let alone gone to war. It effects people in a variety of ways. Personally, as someone who has 'been there done that', I can say I do not want to go back however if I had to I will. Many other Soldiers feel the same.
~Thanato
[deleted]
Well being a good father & provider, means sacrificing a lot of time, while toiling at unfullfilling jobs, perhaps multiple jobs, separated from friends & family during daytime, even on weekends, while crashing tired at night. Day after day after day.....
Especially, with the state of the current economy, a man, especially a family man, has few choices: toil as a warehouse-worker or truck driver for 60 hours a week, or else with a college degree maybe an assistant manager at a retail store, working hours at end sweating over toilet paper, diapers & other "manly" stuff. Or join the Army/Navy, be a Man not a "mouse" !
Would you rather work long hours in unfullfillng jobs for little pay, in quite desperation, or play the War game. Yeah it requires a lot of sacrifice, but it also connects with your inner "warrior", boosts your self esteem in your eyes and the eyes of the other!
While you can get fired on during the war, Army/Navy will not fire you (unless of course you are openly gay, and even then probably not), and many men would rather choose the prospect of worrying each day being fired on, than that of worrying being fired/laid off anytime from the job joining millions of desperate unemployed...Many men would rather die, than having to face their wife & kid, saying that they lost their job, and unlikely to find a new one anytime soon.