Could you pull the trigger?

[Nikolas]

Shitar: I just told you about my training and the idea behind MPs when in war! It is tottally true and that's a fact (at least for greece).

BTW I'm a zombie compared to Helm (age wise) and also greek!

Anyway when in war, unfortunately, someone has to be in charge. And I'm sorry to say but I don't think that in older times the generalls were on the front line. They always stay behind (expet Mel Gibson!) But imagine Braveheart being killed in the first war. No revolution, no strategy, no movie  :'(

And yes I would shoot back if being shot at. And this is again in war time. Otherwise I would definately flee. I wouldn't have the guts to shoot someone, while being in such a stress.

And like Rharpe said, I would prepare the spy to kill him, probably, but then again in war times morals fall short. Always.

[2ma2]

Quite frankly, due to my nationality, I can not see how I could kill a man by any reason to prove my will and dedication. I have not the slightest amount of patriotism other than an obscene giggling pride of anything wellknown to be originated from Sweden.

While in combat, I would strife for survival. I'd kill, maim and gut whatever I had in order to achieve this.

To blast someone away and if I did not I would be considered a traitor and executed - sure, I'd kill him without even thinking the least on his family, nor less my guilt in it.

However, if I would be able to survive while refusing, I'd refuse.

My moral and ethical beliefs tend to be of nihilism or Laveyistic beliefs, thus the above statement is not in regard of the prisoner itself, but only of my own feelings of commiting murder. I couldn't care less of him unless I knew him and held him dear, and even then, his feelings and misery would never be considered - but rather my own for losing a dear friend.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Crikey. What a question.

Though it's impossible to know what a person would do in any given situation, I'd say I couldn't. Moreover, I'd say I wouldn't even be caught in that situation.

Lemme illustrate a bit:

Up until last year or so, military service in Portugal was compulsory. I was getting ready to declare myself "objector de consciência" so I wouldn't have to go - I didn't really know what that was, but I understood that it kinda meant I would not go near a gun or weaponry and stuff like that (effectively permanently barring my way from such jobs as a jailer, security man, policeman, possibly gun seller). Not that I cared. But at the last minute, so to speak, it stopped being compulsory.

So what did they do in order to make sure that people kept going to the army? Well, apart from - apparently - making conditions a helluvalot better, they created the "National Defense Day" (as in, "national defense", not "national day"). In which every 18yr boy/man goes to some of the... how do they call it, the place where they're all at... anyway, they go there and get given a tour of the facilities, and what military life entails, and the - surprisingly numerous - advantages they can give in education (I don't remember them, but I was impressed at the time).

Among it all they showed a lot of flics. I couldn't believe it. Images of soldiers fighting were supposed to encourage us to join the army?

They also gave us a tour of some of the things they had there - some of the jeeps, and the bigger cars, and whatnot. I don't really remember those, because I kept getting dizzy.

I love horror flicks, and if done well I love war flicks. I occasionally play violent games. But I couldn't stand to be there so close to machines and vehicles made for only one purpose - taking a life. Hell, taking as many lives as possible. When they started the simulation for us to see what happens in the cockpit when the flyer of... of some plane has to shoot another one down, I had to go out of the room. I was subequently excused from the rest of the weapons/vehicles tour.

While they were all in there, I had nothing to do but to look around. A civilian, and a young one at that, in such a place kinda sticks out, especially when he's not with the "tour group", as it were. So a couple of people gravitated towards me, as it were - I had a chat with one of the... kinda-in-charge people, who were in charge of the tour, who had asked me if I was allright when I went out of the simulator room. I told him I couldn't stand all those "artifacts of death" (though I wasn't all that poetic then ). I told him that I knew he probably saw things differently. I asked him how he saw it so that maybe I could understand it. He basically said that "when it's time to defend our country, the enemy stops being a person and starts being the enemy. That's necessary for defense, and we do everything to defend out country."

At which point I realized the problem was in me. I keep expecting people to realize how stupid wars are and to stop having them. Har-har, joke's on me.

So maybe I'd pull the trigger - maybe I wouldn't. If my life was at stake, maybe, yeah. But more importantly, I'd try to avoid any such situation at all costs.

One more thing - even though I'm totally against these things, in the world we live in it's necessary. And someone has to do it. And I know that their job is necessary, but I still want the whole thing to go away - I don't even want to think about it, even though they're ready to defend us when the time comes. How hypocritical is that?

EDIT - <whistle> Never wrote a post this big.

[TheYak]

Remarkably well-put, Rui (and the place would be likely "Base," though in the US we have some with the quaint name of "Camp"). 

I have to swim along with the school and say that I wouldn't be able to/want to if I could possibly refuse, but don't necessarily know what I'd do if 1)under duress and 2)my life or that of my friends/family was at stake. 

The justification of the death of the spy is illogical.  If you're in a position to serve as executioner, then he's likely already been caught.  If not, then you're equally in a position to catch him.  This prevents him causing more death or destruction.  His death, at this point, would only be a vengeance killing - something I can sympathize with but cannot support. 

I've served in the military and asked myself questions in this realm for several years.  Every time we went for rifle training I realized what I was training *for*, and found it more and more abhorrent.  I joined to support family, and kept my fingers crossed the whole time that there wouldn't be a conflict while I was in.  Thankfully, there wasn't as I got out in December of 2001 (escaped by the skin of my teeth).  Good experience, life-changing, hoping I've never got opportunity to do it again. 

[Babar]

Quite frankly, due to my nationality, I can not see how I could kill a man by any reason to prove my will and dedication. I have not the slightest amount of patriotism other than an obscene giggling pride of anything wellknown to be originated from Sweden.

While in combat, I would strife for survival. I'd kill, maim and gut whatever I had in order to achieve this.

Wasn't there some Great General King of Sweden who was an incredible strategist, but stupidly (heroicly?) lead his army in a charge and got himself killed?

I am reasonabely thankful that I don't live in a Hollywood movie where I have to execute someone incapacitated to show my bravery(??) and willingness. I probably wouldn't kill him, but then again, I probably wouldn't be in that position anyway. My killing someone would probably involve them attempting to destroy me, or my family, or something very close to me, and certainly not when the guy is already captured and rendered harmless.

[DGMacphee]

It's easy to kill a spy...



SEE!!

[InCreator]

Depends on spy.
Unarmed spies are waaay more dangerous than let's say, a platoon of heavily armed soliders. I don't mean James Bond crap here, but the damage spy may cause with stolen information. How many soliders and civilians his knowledge could lead into a meat machine.

People do insane things. 12 years ago it was Soviet age here. Every man had to serve 2 years in Soviet Army. Estonian boys didn't have much chance to survive there, since the army had all types of nations, including some really insane and hostile people and cultures, plus - untrained people were thrown straight into Afganistan war... Many of people I know tell stories about the service and well, you can't find any of similar even in the most brutal movie. Like waking up in the morning because liutenant breaks a chair in your face or not sleeping at all for 4 months just because it's unsafe.
Many cut off their toes or fingers, or caused even more serious injuries to themselves to escape the service...

But the topic thread, well...
It's impossible to answer such question by sitting infront of computer and browsing internet forums.
The situation where you have to decide on such thing is waaaay different.

I don't think that killing someone else could be that hard.
If it's the situation, you do whatever you have to do. I think I could live with that. Much harder - what I think I could never be able to do is what my nephew is trained to do - being a fighter pilot, whenever shot down, he must execute himself immediately... Now that's something that needs willpower and dedication.

[Darth Mandarb]

Interesting discussion ... I don't believe it's the policy of most countries now-a-days to execute spies.  They'd probably just lock 'em in a prison cell with a big-screen TV and 3 squares a day.  (damn political correctness is destroying the world!!)

However, should that policy differ and I was ordered to kill a spy well ...  For me, personally, it'd depend on the nature of the war.

Was I in a foriegn country we had invaded for the wrong reasons and we shouldn't be there in the first place I would, most likely, refuse to kill a spy.

However ...

Were it an invasion of the USA, and my fellow Americans were being killed, and I was ordered to kill a spy I'd be more likely to pull the trigger.  I would get every piece of information from him I could before doing so AND make sure the other side wouldn't be willing to trade this spies life for one of our own they may be holding ...

But then again ... if this 'enemy' had killed anybody I know/love/whatever I'd make them suffer BADLY before pulling the trigger.

[Andail]

Depends on the motive. For the sake of banners or nations, I would never kill anybody.
If my life depended on it, or let's say the lives of my friends and family, I would in self defence go to any length. While being a pacifist on an ideological basis, I'm confident that I would have the willpower and capacity to stay calm and focus in the heat of the moment.

[shitar]

make sure the other side wouldn't be willing to trade this spies life for one of our own they may be holding ...

So you would send a spy back with all the knowledge he has plus he knows where your encampment is, for another soldier?

[Afflict]

Is it James Bond? Pretty please! Give me the gun, hell hand me two! 

I have learnt three things the hard way;

Firstly      : In a game of chess some pawns will fall, for the greater good of course.
Secondly : Some pawns will fall.... so strategicly sacrifice them.

Simple you know the rules, you either take or be taken.

Third, you dont toy with your prey. Hell if any of the evil geniuses ever played chess James Bond would be DEAD!

[fred]

Shitar - I guess you're asking this question because you're considering using the situation in a game, and I think that's a vey good idea, because it is a difficult question and something people should be confronted with.

Way too many games have no real dilemmas, nothing at stake - they simply boost the player's ego by giving him abundances of powerups and super-powers, and that is just too lazy a position for the computer game media to be in.

Computer games can pose interesting questions like the one you suggest, and I seriously think they need to do it in order to live up to their potential. It is a well-known fact that winning in a computer game enhances the well-being of the player by releasing certain chemicals in the brain - so basically they're like drugs - I think they should be more like other cultural phenomae: something to reflect on and to challenge the players without making them forget the real world entirely. And by posing interesting questions/dilemmas I think they can achieve that.

Btw. that's why adventure gaming will never die - it has content!

[Nikolas]

(damn political correctness is destroying the world!!)

Yes! I agree with you dear Darth! But when I say it nobody cares! :'(

Was I in a foriegn country we had invaded for the wrong reasons and we shouldn't be there in the first place I would, most likely, refuse to kill a spy.

This comes from an American guy. It is a new dimension to the thing. This is the first person I hear saying that he might have doubts when fighting for his country. To the rest of us, probably, at least this applies to me, a was is always to defend our country and not to invade another (although we did invade a neighboor country which led to disaster back in the 20s). It never crossed my mind to differentiate between a war done in my country or in another country.

This shows probably that Americans (at least thinking ones, which Darth and most American members have proven to be) have doubts about the whole political system of the States when it comes to war. Darth will answer that. This is just a 5 minute analysis, which, is backed up by nothing but a thought of mine. Anyone who disagrees say it now. Just a thought.

When I write these things, I'm always scared that someone will jump at me (which has never been done until now), so I try to make it sound as good as possible...

[2ma2]

Wasn't there some Great General King of Sweden who was an incredible strategist, but stupidly (heroicly?) lead his army in a charge and got himself killed?

There has been a few kings copping it at the battlefields. Either you think of Gustav Adolf (of some number) who bit the dust in the 30 year war, or Karl XII who got shot in the head. In Norway! What a way to die..

Personally, I do sympathise with leading your troops. Sure, it may be a waste of strategic masterminds if they get 100 pounds of led in the gut, but war is not very resonable in the first place.