[lazide]

Having been close friends to some killers (legally sanctioned by the gov’t at the time), the other issue is killing is, frankly, really easy. Way easier than anyone in polite society is going to be comfortable with really knowing, frankly.

Emotional and social consequences from killing are not so easy though, usually, but the actual act itself is pretty straightforward, especially with a little training and some forethought/prep.

It tends to change one’s view of society and other people quite a bit. Which makes re-integrating with society and/or integrating childhood conditioning hard. Hence the flight to delusions or drugs for many.

But often the hardest part for many people to understand is how easy it can be for many to just shrug their shoulders and go ‘ok’ and continue on with their lives with not only no guilt, but feeling good about it. Because sometimes people needed killin’.

[close04]

Aren’t soldiers just that? Governments sanctioned killers? The only “guideline” is that the victim must be the “enemy”. Just that the definition of “enemy” is vague and arbitrary, enough that it can mean anything needed at any time.

Being government sanctioned it makes sense that it would attract people who find it easier (even enjoyable for some) to kill and live with it afterwards, or at least it makes it easy by providing the moral cover that it was necessary and moral. They were enemies after all.

These people are far more likely to continue to find killing easy during and after the fact as ling as they’re given even the vaguest sense of moral cover.

[lazide]

The vast majority of soldiers will never plausibly be in a position to kill anyone, even in self defense.

And even in the worst wars, very few front line soldiers ever actually killed anyone - even infantry.

[cutemonster]

Makes sense, with the Pareto principle in mind.

("roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes", https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle)

[lazide]

If you believe [https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-ratio-of-combat-soldiers-t...], it varies from 7% to 14% of active military personnel that would be in ‘combat arms’, with everyone else being behind the lines in support roles. At least in the US. That lines up with my understanding anyway.

It’s actually a much lower percentage though. As most combat arms folks will be stuck guarding something and never see action, be in an indirect fire type role (artillery, sitting in a bomber or in a connex piloting a surveillance drone), or even if actually infantry have a super boring tour patrolling some pointless BS in the middle of nowwhere.

It also depends on where you draw the line at ‘killing’ of course. Does being a loader in an artillery battery count? A forward observer? A pilot who fires a cruise missle? A dude pushing the button to fire a cruise missle on a ship? An officer ordering an air strike?

About the only folks who are ‘killers’ in the way most folks would recognize the term though are infantry (of various forms, including mech. inf.), and perhaps some pilots if they have really good optics.

Soldiers follow orders. If they’re good ones anyway. Most have been trained to be able to be killers, and are often armed as such, just in case some folks need killing (per the chain of command and appropriate ROE).

But it rarely comes up, and anyone going into most MOS’s in the military hoping to do that is likely to be sorely disappointed.

Even those high speed low drag types.

[cutemonster]

Interesting to read.

> 7% to 14% of active military personnel

These are the people I had in mind - that the Pareto principle applies to them

[potato3732842]

>Aren’t soldiers just that? Governments sanctioned killers?

Don't forget cops. Their job is literally to be willing to kill you over compliance.