(Hope this fits somewhere, I believe it has an impact on the way we must view ourselves and our abilities. I will return to this later.)
Just watched a Channel Four documentary shown over here. Got to say it was pretty interesting watching. It focussed on some research done after the Second World War by a General Marshall of the US Army. He interviewed thousands (programme was not specific) of soldiers returning from Europe and found that only 20% of soldiers fire. Only 2% shot with the deliberate intention of killing.
2%. The Air Force was shocked by this and did it's own research. They found that 50% of their 'kills' were the work of a similar percentage of their pilots. Other research into soldiers on the front line found that around a quarter urinate or defecate in the moments of extreme stress.
That last point was where the programme took up it's investigation. The stress of combat. The reporter took part in an airsoft night combat game run by former British soldiers and found that he personally suffered pretty excessive strain. Other tests he did on himself repeated this. He talked to a former US Army Ranger, now a professor at Utah (if I recall) and to a former British para who fought in one of the nastiest battles in the Falklands campaign. They both agreed on one particular thing, best exemplified by this quote from the para - 'It requires forceful thought to kill another.'
The psychologists interviewed agreed that in those moments of stress the hindbrain, the older part of the brain, takes over from the forebrain. People report 'brain freezing' and 'tunnel vision', the strange conclusion the ones they spoke to came to was that it is not part of our natural behaviour to kill our own species. I admit, at this point I was raising an eyebrow.
So what about all the firing in the chaos of battle? The former Army Ranger regards it as posturing, threat displays etc. When animals square up a lot of it is show to establish dominance. My dog gets involved in the odd scrap with other aggressive dogs, neither animal gets killed (at least not until I intervene) Gorillas rarely fight. Chimps occasionally kill other chimps that stray on to their territory, and they are often seen as incredibly violent animals by primate researchers. The programme discussed the role of bright uniforms in Napoleonic armies, again posturing threat displays (hence the tall hats and the big bayonets) according to the programme.
It got interesting when they looked at some research the Prussian army did. They got soldiers to fire at targets, achieving a hit rate of 70+%. However in the closer ranges of battle they found that a volley, which could theoretically kill 500 enemy, killed just three. Three.
At Gettysburg, the programme claims, of the 1,000's of weapons collected at the end of the battle many were loaded. One was loaded 23 times all in one barrel. The soldier concerned was capable of reloading and aiming like his comrades and as required, but he was unwilling or unable to fire.
So what about artillery, tank crews who apparently were less concerned. Distance is the answer according to the programme. The blindfold is for the executioner, not the 'victim'. A man screaming for help in front of you is much harder to shoot than another metal box 400yds away or a square of ground you can't even see.
So, the 2% willing to do what all men say they could do if required. Half of them are sociopaths according to research. People for whom the act means nothing, it requires the same level of emotional response as eating breakfast. The other half are men capable of emotions but also capable of violence. That means that in 1945 1% of the US Army, according to Gen. Marshall's research and to the conclusions of this programme, were men prepared to kill and non-sociopathic behaviours.
Worrying eh? So where does that leave us? We may say that if we had to we could, but could we really? Even if our very lives or the lives of our children depended on it - could we kill? And what about those that are threatening our lives - are they in that 1% of killing capable sociopaths?
The other implication that I thought of is this - maybe Feinstein has something of a point when she says 'assault rifles are spray and pray' - maybe the 'mousegun' cartridges were introduced so that the 98% of soldiers who panic and may pull the trigger may just be useful. I bet you all hate me for saying that Feinstein may have a point (course doesn't mean I support her or think that 'assault rifles' should be banned).
Thanks for reading what I bet is nonsense on my part.
Just watched a Channel Four documentary shown over here. Got to say it was pretty interesting watching. It focussed on some research done after the Second World War by a General Marshall of the US Army. He interviewed thousands (programme was not specific) of soldiers returning from Europe and found that only 20% of soldiers fire. Only 2% shot with the deliberate intention of killing.
2%. The Air Force was shocked by this and did it's own research. They found that 50% of their 'kills' were the work of a similar percentage of their pilots. Other research into soldiers on the front line found that around a quarter urinate or defecate in the moments of extreme stress.
That last point was where the programme took up it's investigation. The stress of combat. The reporter took part in an airsoft night combat game run by former British soldiers and found that he personally suffered pretty excessive strain. Other tests he did on himself repeated this. He talked to a former US Army Ranger, now a professor at Utah (if I recall) and to a former British para who fought in one of the nastiest battles in the Falklands campaign. They both agreed on one particular thing, best exemplified by this quote from the para - 'It requires forceful thought to kill another.'
The psychologists interviewed agreed that in those moments of stress the hindbrain, the older part of the brain, takes over from the forebrain. People report 'brain freezing' and 'tunnel vision', the strange conclusion the ones they spoke to came to was that it is not part of our natural behaviour to kill our own species. I admit, at this point I was raising an eyebrow.
So what about all the firing in the chaos of battle? The former Army Ranger regards it as posturing, threat displays etc. When animals square up a lot of it is show to establish dominance. My dog gets involved in the odd scrap with other aggressive dogs, neither animal gets killed (at least not until I intervene) Gorillas rarely fight. Chimps occasionally kill other chimps that stray on to their territory, and they are often seen as incredibly violent animals by primate researchers. The programme discussed the role of bright uniforms in Napoleonic armies, again posturing threat displays (hence the tall hats and the big bayonets) according to the programme.
It got interesting when they looked at some research the Prussian army did. They got soldiers to fire at targets, achieving a hit rate of 70+%. However in the closer ranges of battle they found that a volley, which could theoretically kill 500 enemy, killed just three. Three.
At Gettysburg, the programme claims, of the 1,000's of weapons collected at the end of the battle many were loaded. One was loaded 23 times all in one barrel. The soldier concerned was capable of reloading and aiming like his comrades and as required, but he was unwilling or unable to fire.
So what about artillery, tank crews who apparently were less concerned. Distance is the answer according to the programme. The blindfold is for the executioner, not the 'victim'. A man screaming for help in front of you is much harder to shoot than another metal box 400yds away or a square of ground you can't even see.
So, the 2% willing to do what all men say they could do if required. Half of them are sociopaths according to research. People for whom the act means nothing, it requires the same level of emotional response as eating breakfast. The other half are men capable of emotions but also capable of violence. That means that in 1945 1% of the US Army, according to Gen. Marshall's research and to the conclusions of this programme, were men prepared to kill and non-sociopathic behaviours.
Worrying eh? So where does that leave us? We may say that if we had to we could, but could we really? Even if our very lives or the lives of our children depended on it - could we kill? And what about those that are threatening our lives - are they in that 1% of killing capable sociopaths?
The other implication that I thought of is this - maybe Feinstein has something of a point when she says 'assault rifles are spray and pray' - maybe the 'mousegun' cartridges were introduced so that the 98% of soldiers who panic and may pull the trigger may just be useful. I bet you all hate me for saying that Feinstein may have a point (course doesn't mean I support her or think that 'assault rifles' should be banned).
Thanks for reading what I bet is nonsense on my part.
(you guys know who you are) 
I guess I didn't because I was actually looking for "On Killing." Strange old world, isn't it?
