Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trekkin]

It's actually a well-documented phenomenon from the Civil War as well---many, many trees were shot all to pieces on battlefields...but only above head level. Soldiers were intentionally aiming over the enemies' heads instead of actually firing at them. Also noted from the Civil War were the multiple-loaded muskets, some of which were probably loaded like that by accident, but most of which were most likely intentional ploys by soldiers who didn't want to fire but didn't want their officers to see that they weren't loading with the rest of the soldiers (when muskets fire its entirely impossible to see if an individual is firing with the group, but it's possible to see if someone's not reloading, etc.)

Do you have a source for this? I'm curious how they ruled out the possibility that many of the human-height shots went into humans rather than trees.

[Kagus]

I'm interested in how they managed to hit the trees.

[Egan_BW]

I'm interested in how they managed to hit the trees.

Rifling.

[Loud Whispers]

It's actually a well-documented phenomenon from the Civil War as well---many, many trees were shot all to pieces on battlefields...but only above head level. Soldiers were intentionally aiming over the enemies' heads instead of actually firing at them. Also noted from the Civil War were the multiple-loaded muskets, some of which were probably loaded like that by accident, but most of which were most likely intentional ploys by soldiers who didn't want to fire but didn't want their officers to see that they weren't loading with the rest of the soldiers (when muskets fire its entirely impossible to see if an individual is firing with the group, but it's possible to see if someone's not reloading, etc.)

Contrast with the Great War - I remember a journal from one of the Tommies talking about how he knew he was fighting a war against the Germans but felt there was no need to be "barbaric" about the whole matter, so he didn't shoot at the enemy any more than he had to. That is until he witnessed his friends get torn apart by an artillery shell, changed his mind about the matter very quickly. Look at the Arab Spring's degeneration into a Civil War of feuding bandits committing every war crime known to man; the longer any violence takes place the more it escalates and the more readily violent people are, in a positive feedback loop. Same way American conscripts were more ready to kill if they had killed their first Vietcong enemy, in an ACW II electric boogaloo how violent the military would be would largely be dependent upon how violent its opposition would be

[Dunamisdeos]

Yeah see that's what I'm saying, there is a lot of evidence, but it's all basically secondhand data. Now the U.S military has taken effective steps using this data to improve that ratio, for instance the use of silhouettes instead of bulls-eyes for training. That does lend it credence.

But really folks the difference in taking children from mothers for legal immigration reasons (terrible and unjustified as it is) and shooting mothers with their children as they try to cross the border seeking asylum should be apparent.

Understand that my comparison to Kristallnacht isn't in regards to the moral implications, or even the parallel in murdering ethnic groups. Kristallnacht was the turning point for the rest of the civilized world. It marked the point where Germany officially endorsed ideas like the Final Solution. It was the impetus for global opposition to Nazi Germany, and indeed when the calls for war began. We live in a post-WW2 world, and I believe that the response to such an act would be swift and decisive, similar to Trump's response to the chemical attacks in the Middle East on a greater scale.

Gunning down those thousands of unarmed people on the border would be an act not matched by a first-world nation since WW2. The only question is whether America is at a point where such a thing will occur. My answer is no. We don't have a National Guard filled with people ready to begin another Holocaust. But I also would not be surprised if violence occurs. There's too much emotion caught up in this.

[Digital Hellhound]

I recommend Brains & Bullets: how psychology wins wars. It has some structure issues and really loves to toot its own horn, but it’s a fascinating look into the psychology of war and the kind of claims and studies being thrown around about soldiers and killing, stuff like ideas of some soldiers being born killers and others not, why some soldiers freeze in some situations but go gung ho aggressive in others, the various whys and hows of choosing to fight or not to fight, etc. There’s sources from the Franco-Prussian War to Iraq, it’s pretty nifty.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah see that's what I'm saying, there is a lot of evidence, but it's all basically secondhand data. Now the U.S military has taken effective steps using this data to improve that ratio, for instance the use of silhouettes instead of bulls-eyes for training. That does lend it credence.

I've heard all the stuff about soldier's refusal to fire or faking it and the like before.  But yeah, the majority of what I've heard all seems to be based on much older conflicts.  The science of psychological conditioning came a long goddamn way in the last half of the 20th century.  The many, many war crimes of the war on terror, and the astronomically disproportionate ratio of civilians to combatants killed in Iraq does not paint a promising picture to me.  Go watch some of the Iraq Winter Soldier testimonies about how common intentional civilian killing was, and the commonplace tactics used to justify or cover it up.

I do think the U.S. military is wanting to avoid being put in a position where they are ordered to do something nakedly terrible.  But I do not have faith that if they are, even against their wishes, that there will be a widespread refusal. 

Gunning down those thousands of unarmed people on the border would be an act not matched by a first-world nation since WW2. The only question is whether America is at a point where such a thing will occur. My answer is no. We don't have a National Guard filled with people ready to begin another Holocaust. But I also would not be surprised if violence occurs. There's too much emotion caught up in this.

The global response to Isreal doesn't give me much faith on this point, either.

[nenjin]

Yeah but US soldiers fighting in Iraq had to deal with the insurgency embedded in the civilian population. When that goes on long enough soldiers are forced to accept civilian casualties in order to fulfill their mission. And that kind of situation inures them to the suffering of the civilian population. "Better them than us."

That'd be different than the military shooting at immigrants wandering through the deserts.

The whole situation is predicated on the idea that immigrants will just rush the border crossings and try to overwhelm the personnel there. And that they'll use rocks and guns while they're at it.

I don't see that situation actually happening. Immigrants aren't going to rush a fortified strong point with armed guards just for the fuck of it. They're going to try to go around, and when they're blocked there, I really doubt their last viable option is going to be to attack CBP or the National Guard or anyone else.

[Lord Shonus]

It's actually a well-documented phenomenon from the Civil War as well---many, many trees were shot all to pieces on battlefields...but only above head level. Soldiers were intentionally aiming over the enemies' heads instead of actually firing at them. Also noted from the Civil War were the multiple-loaded muskets, some of which were probably loaded like that by accident, but most of which were most likely intentional ploys by soldiers who didn't want to fire but didn't want their officers to see that they weren't loading with the rest of the soldiers (when muskets fire its entirely impossible to see if an individual is firing with the group, but it's possible to see if someone's not reloading, etc.)

Do you have a source for this? I'm curious how they ruled out the possibility that many of the human-height shots went into humans rather than trees.

There is a well documented issue where ACW troops would fire their rifles too high and miss - because they were used to smoothbores (in civilian or previous military experience) as opposed to the brand-new rifle muskets. Smoothbores had a more pronounced ballistic drop than the new rifles, and the training practices of the time didn't emphasize proper aim enough to fix the difference firmly in the minds of the troops. Those shots over the head were not a refusal to kill, they were attempts to kill that failed because of inexperience with the weapon.

The study that started the whole notion is a classic example of confirmation bias and data falsification. SLA Marshall developed his theories without evidence, went looking for evidence to support them, and then made up evidence when he couldn't find enough of the genuine sort. In his very first deployment as a combat observer, where he landed with US Marines at Makin Atoll, he witnessed that, far from not wanting to fire, the Marines were blazing away at any possible threat, most of which were imaginary. His notes from this engagement state flat out that, because this contradicts his theory of low firing rates, he will be ignoring it.

Even if this was not the case, there are other problems
I think that this article summarizes it best.

All that Marshall’s data does, assuming it exists and is accurate, is establish that in any given action, most soldiers would not use their weapons. But without follow-up interviews with the same rifle companies in which individual soldiers’ behaviour in subsequent combat was mapped against the behaviour noted during the initial interview, Marshall had no way of knowing if the ratio of fire was accounted for by the same soldiers not firing every time, or if it was a steady group average with different riflemen firing in each instance. Because detailed follow-up interviews were unlikely (Marshall’s
historical reporting responsibilities took him where the main action was, and he rarely spent more than a few days with a company), Marshall’s “resistance to killing” theory is not self-evident from his data.

The inherent inability of human beings to kill posited by Marshall becomes only one of several plausible scenarios that can be read into this data. A partial list might take into consideration the following without exhausting the possibilities: soldiers did not fire because they were afraid; because they were passively resisting; because they were suffering from combat stress reactions, so-called “battle exhaustion”; because they did not want to provoke enemy retaliation; because of a “live and let live” mentality; because the tactical situation or the terrain did not call for or allow effective small arms fire;
because they had been trained to exercise strict fre discipline; because they had been ordered not to fire.

Other possibilities exist.

[Hanslanda]

... Yeah no, soldiers will absolutely shoot you deliberately in combat. Let's just hope the ones on the border are aware that the immigrants are unarmed defenseless civilians who present no threat.

Like if everyone does their jobs they'll just get deported and murdered by their own government/drug lords. Trump will brag about another half-assed shitfest of a win and things will roll on. We can only hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

[Loud Whispers]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/migrant-caravan-kidnap-mexico-trump-midterm-elections-oaxaca-organised-crime-a8619731.html
Cartels in Mexico City kidnapping migrants for ransom
I question this business plan

[Hanslanda]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/migrant-caravan-kidnap-mexico-trump-midterm-elections-oaxaca-organised-crime-a8619731.html
Cartels in Mexico City kidnapping migrants for ransom
I question this business plan

Hey a few years ago they were stealing trucks of limes and all I could figure was either, "Cartel block party" or "horrific torture with lime juice and the sun". They don't make sense, they sell drugs.

[Kagus]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/migrant-caravan-kidnap-mexico-trump-midterm-elections-oaxaca-organised-crime-a8619731.html
Cartels in Mexico City kidnapping migrants for ransom
I question this business plan

Hey a few years ago they were stealing trucks of limes and all I could figure was either, "Cartel block party" or "horrific torture with lime juice and the sun". They don't make sense, they sell drugs.

It's cocaine, not cocain'te.

Or coshoulde.

[wierd]

But with a little marketing, it COULD be Cokeaide!

Maybe that is what they wanted the limes for? Testing for a truly addictive lime soda?

[Loud Whispers]

Hey a few years ago they were stealing trucks of limes and all I could figure was either, "Cartel block party" or "horrific torture with lime juice and the sun". They don't make sense, they sell drugs.

Maybe cartel units have their own version of interservice rivalry where if they don't prove they're relevant somehow by doing "work," they get the axe in the next quarterly cartel review