Only 15-20% of soldiers fire at the enemy...

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

...the thing is, I can't sympathize with someone who is willing to kill other people in order to protect the notion of a country.

In the past, that may be the case, killing with no satisfactory reason (gaining more ground just for the sake of gaining is not one). But, right now, I don't think people would want to kill a group of people before receiving any harm from them. (of course, there will always be exceptions, but anyways we are talking in general)

My country doesn't represent me. Why should I feel some kind of attachment to someone who wants to kill other people in order to protect something that doesn't mean a thing?

As long as you are a part of your country, then, unfortunately for you, it does represent you. After you throw away any kind of connection to your country (ID, passport) and including many things that has made you the way you are today, then, you can start talking about what you just said. Though, I highly doubt you will fully succeed in that...

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by hyperlion

Many people thinks that their country represent them, if foreigner ask a person "who are you?" they would probably answer them not with their name but their nationality.

"We are Borg"? Seriously, I have never met anybody who wouldn't identify himself with his name first under normal circumstances. There are exceptions of course but for reasons of practicality, not patriotism. ("Who are you?" - "We're the French team.")

Originally Posted by hyperlion

there are people who love their country. They love their country for it's history and culture it is not just a piece of land.

But it's not pieces of land who wage wars, nor histories, nor cultures. People do. Countries are quiet entities, they won't tell you what you should do. People will. And one should never allow other people's ethics (assuming they have something like that in the first place) to override one's own especially if they have no better arguments than flag-waving.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Hmm....the thread has taken an unusual turn. Since the discussion seems to have momentarily drifted into patriotism, here's another quote that provides food for thought:

"Patriotism may indeed by the last refuge of a scoundrel, but it also the tyrant's first resort. People afraid of outsiders are easily manipulated.....in times of war or crisis, power is easily stolen from the many by the few on the promise of security."

My personal opinion however, is that this is a cynical way of looking at patriotism. Like it or not, you are a product of your environment as much as your genes. What you call "country" is a part of your environment. You can no more deny your nationality than you can deny your identity.

As a commissioned officer, I acknowledge the very real possibility that should the button be pressed, most of my men (we're mostly reservists here) would probably not turn up for battle. If they were smart, they'd have fled the country long ago, along with their family and loved ones. So I've often asked myself the very same question, "Should I stay and fight, or do the smart thing and save my own life?"

Short of experiencing war first-hand (and I hope I'd never have to), there's no way to know how I'd really answer. As things stand however, I know this to be my answer: "I'll stay, and fight for those who can't run away."

Because someone has to, right? If I can't do this, I can't expect someone else to do so in my place.

To bring this back on topic, here's another insightful quote, from the same website that 4Tran has linked us to:

"Another factor that can have a big effect on whether or not a person fires is the presence of authority. If an officer is standing next to a person and orders that person to fire, then that person is much more likely to do so. A Sergeant ordering his squad to fire will increase the fire rate."

It occurs to me that if that is what it really comes down to, I'd rather be the one who does the ordering, rather than someone else whom I'm not sure is in any better shape to judge a situation than I am. At least I know I'd be trying my best to keep a level head, and my conscience, at the same time. Of course, I'm writing this in the safety of a cosy armchair. Who knows how things will turn out in real combat? I'm pretty certain that I'd be solidly inside the group of soldiers who would only shoot at enemies 10-15% of the time.

[WanderingKnight]

The feeling of patriotism is very hard to describe, it might be true that if you think about it probably is worthless, however patriotism is sometime what brings people together as one.

The problem I have is that it brings people together as one against another unity of people, or at least in order to mark a difference, to draw a line and say 'This is my place, that's yours'. In my opinion, it's a way of separating people, not of uniting them.

But, right now, I don't think people would want to kill a group of people before receiving any harm from them. (of course, there will always be exceptions, but anyways we are talking in general)

What kind of direct harm have the soldiers received from their enemy? A war is the result of a political decision. In the middle ages, the king decided he wanted a particular piece of land and he drafted all his feudal lords into battle, even if they hadn't had a direct, personal aggravation from the enemy. Nowadays, the government decides whether to start a war or not, and most of times raw recruits don't have much of a say in the decision, but they must go and fight (read: kill people) anyways.

As long as you are a part of your country, then, unfortunately for you, it does represent you. After you throw away any kind of connection to your country (ID, passport) and including many things that has made you the way you are today, then, you can start talking about what you just said. Though, I highly doubt you will fully succeed in that...

What I meant to say is: why should I feel attached to that? Forcing me to do so would be an effective limitation of my individual liberties (in fact, it is an effective limitation of my individual liberties).

"Patriotism may indeed by the last refuge of a scoundrel, but it also the tyrant's first resort. People afraid of outsiders are easily manipulated.....in times of war or crisis, power is easily stolen from the many by the few on the promise of security."

This probably gets quite close to what I think. Living in South America, I'm quite used to political leaders who "herd" the population by touching common themes related to patriotism.

My personal opinion however, is that this is a cynical way of looking at patriotism. Like it or not, you are a product of your environment as much as your genes. What you call "country" is a part of your environment. You can no more deny your nationality than you can deny your identity.

I know that, and I agree... But why should we enforce such conditioning? The only thing it's doing is taking away true freedom from people, and aiding irrational thought. Naming a country and marking its limits is just giving the conditioning a formal existence and enforcing it, whereas, in order to have true freedom, you need to have as little conditioning as possible.

On the same light, being born poor and having no access to education (thus leading to less room for improvement and a vicious circle) is also an environmental result (ie: family). But is it really fair? Should we leave it like that?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

"Another factor that can have a big effect on whether or not a person fires is the presence of authority. If an officer is standing next to a person and orders that person to fire, then that person is much more likely to do so. A Sergeant ordering his squad to fire will increase the fire rate."

There are likely a number of reasons for this, but I couldn't help being reminded of that nefarious experiment in the 70's or 80's. It went like this:

The setup was such that the volunteers (experimental subjects) were placed in a room, and given a button. They were told that whenever they pressed the button, a person in the other room would be given a shock. In reality, the other person was just an actor who would say "ouch!" or cry out in pain. The experiment was said to be a matter of seeing how well pain reinforced learning - the other person would be asked a question, and if it were wrong, the subject would shock him (if I remember right). Each time a question was answered incorrectly, the voltage would be increased.

In fact, the experiment was to see how easily people's morals and ethics could be overridden by authority. I believe people wanted to explain how the Nazi soldiers were able to commit the acts that they did during the Holocaust, but I could be mistaken. Either way, the voltage would be boosted to levels where the actor would complain of chest pains, and in the end, remain completely silent - as if he had died or passed out. A sparse minority of the subjects rebelled against the scientists (the authority figures) and refused to press the button beyond a certain point. The majority expressed discomfort with the idea of shocking any further, but at the urging of the scientists, they did it anyway.

The experiment has since been banned, as it caused psychological trauma in the subjects. It was seen as so harmful that a similar experiment that would have involved a computer making sounds of pain instead of a human actor was not allowed to be performed.
-------
How does it relate to this discussion? In war, it's unlikely that people are afraid of hurting someone else (although I'm sure that does factor in, even if a little). The presence of an authority likely boosts morale and makes it easier to override individual fears. I find it interesting either way that people can so easily be manipulated by an authority/leader figure.

[WanderingKnight]

In fact, the experiment was to see how easily people's morals and ethics could be overridden by authority. I believe people wanted to explain how the Nazi soldiers were able to commit the acts that they did during the Holocaust, but I could be mistaken. Either way, the voltage would be boosted to levels where the actor would complain of chest pains, and in the end, remain completely silent - as if he had died or passed out. A sparse minority of the subjects rebelled against the scientists (the authority figures) and refused to press the button beyond a certain point. The majority expressed discomfort with the idea of shocking any further, but at the urging of the scientists, they did it anyway.

An old 80's movie provided a portrait of the experiment. The name of the film escapes me now, but we were shown the scene in Psychology class, in high school. Two men were invited and told they were going to test the human memory. One of them was put in the zapping chair and the other one in command of the controls. The former was told a number of words, and he had to repeat them in the order they had been given. For each mistake, the man at the controls (the real study subject) zapped the impostor, adding more voltage with each mistake. Of course, as Ledgem said, there was no real voltage and the man at the chair was just an actor.

Another interesting conclusion was that the subject refused to go on with the experiment if the authorities showed any sign of doubt or internal conflict. As an example, in the movie I was talking about, two scientists start arguing whether to proceed or not with the zapping (in clear view of the subject), and the subject himself started to doubt and didn't want to go on with it. However, the more sadistic the subject was, the more chances for him to argue that the experiment had to proceed, even if he was told that it was to be halted.

[ZeusIrae]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

The thing is, I don't understand this so-called "patriotism". Though in some way I do, the thing is, I can't sympathize with someone who is willing to kill other people in order to protect the notion of a country. In my opinion, no country is more important than a single person's life. What I dislike is not their willingness to put themselves in jeopardy, but the willingness to put other people in jeopardy in order to protect the notion of something that doesn't represent anything at all (if it were up to me, invisible boundaries, like countries, wouldn't exist... but I guess that's off topic). My country doesn't represent me. Why should I feel some kind of attachment to someone who wants to kill other people in order to protect something that doesn't mean a thing?

Maybe when when the tanks start to roll on your street,you will have a different opinion.

I don't want to sound aggressive,what I mean here is that it's easy to say that when you're sitting comfortably on your chair with no "serious" war on the horizon.But the reality is different.In the 30s,the Oxford Student Union passed a resolution saying that they wouldn't fight .A few years later they fought and many of them died.

Sometimes loosing war doesn't mean just loosing a few islands in the middle of the south Atlantic.It can mean loosing your way of life,your language and your freedoms or privileges.It can mean loosing absolutely everything.

As the french,the poles,the yougoslav,the greeks and dozens of other people who lived dreadful years of german occupation.Ask the poles who after 5 years of one of the most ruthless military occupation had to live 50 years under soviet rule just because the red army "liberated" them first.
Ask the chinese who lived under japanese occupation.

History is tragic.If one day the world is united,you don't want to be on the loosing side.

[WanderingKnight]

Maybe when when the tanks start to roll on your street,you will have a different opinion.

Ah! But why did the tanks start rolling on my street? Because another country invaded it, perhaps? Because, making use of an artificial separation, and as a consequence of one, a certain group of people felt the 'patriotic' need to kill another group of people?

You're questioning my approach from the wrong side. I said I didn't understand the need for countries to exist, since it was just a way of forming an artificial difference... and these lead to the very thing you're putting an example of.

Sometimes loosing war doesn't mean just loosing a few islands in the middle of the south Atlantic.It can mean loosing your way of life,your language and your freedoms or privileges.It can mean loosing absolutely everything.

Are you talking about the Falklands? (I assume so because my location is being displayed). At any rate, those islands represent a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said leaders used patriotism in order to herd the masses, and to cause unnecessary bloodshed. The Falklands' War was probably the most pointless war in history. It was the final, desperate move of a cruel military government which wished to improve its public image by recurring to the irrationality of people... which is nothing other than patriotism itself. The "national sentiment" generated by the strong opposition against the "others" (England) managed to temporarily reconcile the raging masses, who were about to overthrow the military regime, with the government.

Obviously, their whole plan backfired on their own face when they saw England inflict such a crushing defeat upon our troops. Of course, I'm saddened by the deaths of so many young men, but sometimes I revere their deaths, not because they "fought for our country", but because they made us the only South American country to actually take the military governments to court after democracy was restored.

[Slice of Life]

Many contributions here are completely theoretical.

@TinyRedLeaf, I see no strategical benefit in attacking a city state like Singapore and engage into urban warfare and occupation. Even if a major power wants to control the strait they can put their base pretty much everywhere, even on the other side of the globe if necessary. And with all due respect, should Singapore ever be attacked, be it by the US, China, or India the war will be lost before you can even leave the house to see who turns up at the front. Not that they would ask you to come, probably your government would act responsible enough to rather accept "an offer that cannot be refused" instead of opting for futile bloodshed.

@others, to get to the facts instead of indulging oneself in heroic epics of manly bravery it would be a good idea if eveybody just answered a few questions for themselves, concerning warfare in the last 50 years and especially today where war seems to become more and more sexy again. For example
1. Whose tanks were and are rolling through whose streets?
2. Which military conflicts were actually wars in the narrow sense of the word instead of military actions against the own civillian population or that of a different country that had been occupied long before and/or by other means than open warfare?
3. In "real" wars, how long did the organized defense of the losing side last? Was there ever a chance of winning?
4. Did the opponents fight in their own interest? Or in the strategic interest of other powers, or even under their direct miltary lead? Who did provide the weapons?
5. Who were the "good guys" if there were any? Was international right respected, especially the Geneva convention, were there no other reasons to fight instead of legitimate ones? Were no war crimes committed, no false pretenses given? Are the "good guys" of yesterday also the "good guys" of today or did the judgement change with changing interests?

You'll probably see that the battle field is no good environment to grow heroes.

[TinyRedLeaf]

I think to explain in detail would incite a flame war and quite possibly derail this thread. We're supposed to be discussing the curious statistic of why, on average, only 10-15% of soldiers actually shoot at their enemies during a fire-fight.

I see no strategical benefit in attacking a city state like Singapore and engage into urban warfare and occupation.

This much I'll say: we're not expecting to be invaded by a superpower or even a regional power. Our potential enemies are closer to home. Possible conflicts need not necessarily arise from strategic objectives. Individuals and states have gone to war for far pettier reasons, and the future is not likely to be far different.

To fail to arm for peace is tantamount to inviting disaster to your doorstep. Realpolitik Lesson No. 1: "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

And you do need power for any credible diplomacy to work. That's the sad reality, I'm afraid.

...of indulging oneself in heroic epics of manly bravery it would be a good idea if eveybody just answered a few questions for themselves...

I'd be disappointed if anyone thought I was "indulging in heroics". That was most certainly not my intention. I don't wish for war, and most certainly have no wish to face situations where I'm forced to kill or be killed. But if push does come to shove, I'd definitely be shoving back. With all my might. Because it wouldn't just be about me anymore -- like it or not, others would be depending on me.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I'd be disappointed if anyone thought I was "indulging in heroics". That was most certainly not my intention.

Nor was it my impression. Note the two "@" in my post.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by Zaris

This is a fantastic article. I enjoyed reading this thoroughly.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/grea.../grossman.html

In the WWII pacific theater, it was determined that of the soldiers that actually engaged the enemy, only 25% actually fired back, and that after three engagements regardless of how long or short, a platoon or squad was pretty much combat ineffective.

An interesting thing I read from another book is that only a small percent of the troops. Maybe less than 25% would be the ones who charged the enemy position to clear it. The rest of the troops would literally be cannon folder, where their job would be to distract the enemy from those who actually charge.
As expected, those who charge would be the ones killed off early (since they take the most risk) and the ones left would be the ineffective troops. So this would explain why after a few engagements, the squad would become ineffective: the ones who do the work would have been killed off.