Subscription Center
Apr 23, 2010 02:35 PM | 80
Do some soldiers enjoy killing? If so, why? This question is thrust upon us by the recently released video of U.S. Apache helicopter pilots shooting a Reuters cameraman and his driver in Baghdad in 2007. Mistaking the camera of the Reuters reporter for a weapon, the pilots machine-gunned the reporter and driver and other nearby people.
The most chilling aspect of the video, which was made public by Wikileaks, is the chatter between two pilots, whose names have not been released. As Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times put it, the soldiers "revel in their kill." "Look at those dead bastards," one pilot says. "Nice," the other replies.
The exchange reminds me of a Times story from March 2003, during the U.S. invasion of Baghdad. The reporter quotes Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, a Marine sharpshooter, saying, "We had a great day. We killed a lot of people." Noting that his troop killed an Iraqi woman standing near a militant, Schrumpf adds, "I'm sorry, but the chick was in the way."
Does the apparent satisfaction—call it the Schrumpf effect—that some soldiers take in killing stem primarily from nature or nurture? Nature, claims Richard Wrangham, an anthropologist at Harvard University and an authority on chimpanzees. Wrangham asserts that natural selection embedded in both male humans and chimpanzees—our closest genetic relatives—an innate propensity for "intergroup coalitionary killing" [pdf], in which members of one group attack members of a rival group. Male humans "enjoy the opportunity" to kill others, Wrangham says, especially if they run little risk of being killed themselves.
Several years ago, geneticists at Victoria University in New Zealand linked violent male aggression to a variant of a gene that encodes for the enzyme monoamine oxidase A, which regulates the function of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin. According to the researchers, the so-called "warrior gene" is carried by 56 percent of Maori men, who are renowned for being "fearless warriors," and only 34 percent of Caucasian males.
But studies of World War II veterans suggest that very few men are innately bellicose. The psychiatrists Roy Swank and Walter Marchand found that 98 percent of soldiers who endured 60 days of continuous combat suffered psychiatric symptoms, either temporary or permanent. The two out of 100 soldiers who seemed unscathed by prolonged combat displayed "aggressive psychopathic personalities," the psychiatrists reported. In other words, combat didn't drive these men crazy because they were crazy to begin with.
Surveys of WWII infantrymen carried out by U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall found that only 15 to 20 percent had fired their weapons in combat, even when ordered to do so. Marshall concluded that most soldiers avoid firing at the enemy because they fear killing as well as being killed. "The average and healthy individual," Marshall contended in his postwar book Men Against Fire, "has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility…At the vital point he becomes a conscientious objector."
Critics have challenged Marshall's claims, but the U.S. military took them so seriously that it revamped its training to boost firing rates in subsequent wars, according to Dave Grossman, a former U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and professor of psychology at West Point. In his 1995 book On Killing, Grossman argues that Marshall's results have been corroborated by reports from World War I, the American Civil War, the Napoleonic wars and other conflicts. "The singular lack of enthusiasm for killing one's fellow man has existed throughout military history," Grossman asserts.
The reluctance of ordinary men to kill can be overcome by intensified training, direct commands from officers, long-range weapons and propaganda that glorifies the soldier's cause and dehumanizes the enemy. "With the proper conditioning and the proper circumstances, it appears that almost anyone can and will kill," Grossman writes. Many soldiers who kill enemies in battle are initially exhilarated, Grossman says, but later they often feel profound revulsion and remorse, which may transmute into post-traumatic stress disorder and other ailments. Indeed, Grossman believes that the troubles experienced by many combat veterans are evidence of a "powerful, innate human resistance toward killing one's own species."
In other words, the Schrumpf effect is usually a product less of nature than of nurture—although "nurture" is an odd term for training that turns ordinary young men into enthusiastic killers.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
John Horgan, a former Scientific American staff writer, directs the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology. (Photo courtesy of Skye Horgan.)
Image: iStockphoto/ninjamonkeystudio
Tags:
military,
killing
More Cross-check:
Next: Grassroots spying might make world peace possible
Previous: DMT is in your head, but it may be too weird for the psychedelic renaissance
See what we're tweeting about
beatricebiology Would you like a lovely book of all my best comics? http://t.co/SeCj86s0jT
mmoyr Killer! Unicorns: MT @orbitingfrog: Probably the best slide from an astrophysics talk for a long time http://t.co/WDf7j0LZM8
BoraZ RT @ArielleDRoss: More interesting than 3-D chocolate: "The audacious plan to end hunger with 3-D printed food" http://t.co/jQSxNMDtt5
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
80 Comments
Add Comment"Mistaking the camera of the Reuters reporter for a weapon, the pilots machine-gunned the reporter and driver and other nearby people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's quite clear in the video that at least some of the people the reporters were traveling with were carrying AK-47 assault rifles. It was the initial identification of these weapons that classified the group as hostile.
So if any one member of a group has a weapon they can all be killed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the question is why they enjoyed killing, not to try to justify the example used here.
The answer is dehumanization. Once some group (or 'others') can be classified and demonized they fall to a less than human level. They become objects, like in a video game.
Mr Horgan might consider that there is more about alliteration (Agnewism?) of the use of the term nurture than any fundamental or elemental necessity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing research from S.L.A. Marshall as facts for this article is like using VP Al Gore's research on Global Warming to make ecological policy. Marshall was wholly discredited as making up interviews and his research was debunked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only factual statement in the above article is that the military took his research seriously for decades until it was found out to be mostly spurious.
Having had both family and friends fight in recent conflicts I can state that more than 20% were firing their weapons. There was a interesting article that stated the reasons more soldiers are firing their weapons and are more "engaged" is that the weapons have become faster firing and with little "kick back". Anyone who has fired and M1 rifle from WWII can tell you that it was like a mule kicking you in the shoulder. Sustained fire was painful. With the advent of the M16 and later weapons firing has increased because the soldier wasn't being physically beaten up by his weapon.
Using Napoleonic soldiers as an example for this article is completely laughable. Has anyone seen the accuracy of a rifle from that period? Most casualties came from cannon and from bayonet/saber wounds. I think stabbing someone with a bayonet is a heckuva lot more personal than shooting someone.
Just the title of this article had an agenda.. little after was based on scientific fact but more on opinion and those of a discredited General who saw little or no combat himself.
I couldn't agree more. Also, "guy banter" taking place in combat serves a multitude of purposes, for example shoring up each other emotionally in overwhelming circumstances. Using that dialogue out of context and as a diagnosis of beastiality is like farting alone in a cave.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe assumption stated in the article that chimpanzees are violent by nature can easily be proven wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJane Goodall, the first person who observed chimps waging wars, also reports that this happened only after 15 years of intensive contact with humans. Before that time, they were normal, peaceful primates.
Maybe, the word "dehumanization" is inapprpriate. It should be referred to as "deprimatization".
I agree completely. Also, "guy banter" during combat serves a multitude of purposes, including shoring up each other in overwhelming circumstances. Taking such comments out of the context of war has all the validity of flatulence while alone in a cave. I somehow missed the author's Ph.D. and more importantly, his obvious combat and extensive wartime credentials.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn contrast to the inflammatory title, soldiers do not have fun killing. War is HELL for both sides. Like Vetterun has stated, these guys in the Apache were engaging in "guy bantor". It a mechanism for dealing with the job they do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only real thing that video demonstrated was that war is hell, always has been, and always will be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould not the banter have been the same when the allies fought the Germans in France and when the Germans invaded Poland in WWII, or even when the French invaded Germany in earlier centuries. What was the banter in the hills of Afganistan when the planes hit the WTC Towers?
It also explains why most soldiers never talk a lot to others about their experiences on the battlefield. We just don't understand.
I for one am grateful that I've never been put in the situation of having to shoot, or be shot.
When I first heard a few years ago of that 15% - 20% figure on soldiers who fired their weapons, I too initially attributed it to a reluctance to kill, and thought it quite amazing that people would not kill even under fire themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI later heard a much more logical reason for not firing: the fact that as soon as you open fire you expose your own position. Now that makes more sense.
The video shows innocent people being gunned down by an apache gunship. Full stop. The resolution of the video is poor and "seeing" ak-47s is really wishful thinking. If the video feed from their EO sensor was the highest resolution picture they had of the journalist then I don't blame them for thinking that he was carrying a weapon. What they did lack was a modicum of judgement. Even if the journalist had a weapon there wasn't any immediate danger to the crew, there was no reason for any action on their part. People carry guns in Iraq, some are security contractors some are police, bodyguards etc. This is much worse that the Tarnak Farms incident in Afghanistan, and the sort of blow to the international image of the US, that insurgents revel in. After all the most important battleground in a protracted war is mind share, and in these sorts of incidents we start to lose thee moral high ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is incorrect to infer from this article that soldiers get a kick our of killing. Most people do not enjoy killing even if they are soldiers, but I suspect it's a lot easier to kill from a relatively safe location like in an aircraft where you can look at a person as a target on a video monitor rather than as another human being. Not that other services aren't immune but the majority of retuning servicemen with post war psychological issues are the Army and Marine ground pounders who had friends killed around them and had to fire their weapons as much for self preservation as for anything else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome like to kill. Some cannot. Which one you are will only become evident once you are in that position, not from the comfort of your home computer. Not everything that walks on two feet is human: the chap in the turban coming at you with a breadknife who wants to slice your head off. What will be his contribution to the advance of civilisation? He compels you to recognise that sometimes it is necessary to thin the herd; your instinct to survive kicks in. From a few hundred feet in the air it may be hard to tell a large camera from a hand held rocket launcher. The fog of war. Fear. Confusion. Anger. Watching one's comrades killed. For all my 62 years of self awareness I have no idea how I would react. I have saved a few lives in my career; I own guns and enjoy shooting. I can imagine revulsion. I can imagine enjoying it. Athena was the goddess of war...the goddess of art. The ancients understood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a 20 year vet( U.S. Army Master Sargent) with one heck of a lot of combat time, I can say that way more then 20% fire their weapons when the time comes to do so. I have never meet anyone who enjoyed killing, and would not care to.I've heard all the talk during and after a fire fight and the euphoria that some consider joy at killing is just a gut reaction to still being alive yourself. With out the up talk we would all go insane from the horrors we see and have to commit to survive on the battle field. War is political insanity to start with, so why degrade the people who merely follow the orders of YOUR elected officials? Every single person in this country is just as culpable as the soldier on the line defending what you call your way of life. The soldier did not just decide to go some where and start shooting, he was told too. And anyone who believes we want to be in harms way needs a reality check! Combat is not fun, its terrifying . It leaves memory's no one wants. So please if you must rail against the craziness of war direct it at the people responsible ,YOU!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrowing up white in Detroit in the 1970's I had to physically fight...hard. It made me different or was I already different?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisViolent communities produce humans having these tendencies. Yet even in the most difficult and necessary circumstances not everyone possessess the capacity to conjure up violence.
There are warriors among every culture. The voluntary military service has concentrated these people in combat positions. But just as my mind's eye still sees twelve guys chasing me, so will these fellows remember.
A person does what they have to do. War is necessary.
Thank God there are warriors among us. I pray for their future.
If you really want to see people who seem to enjoy violent and unrepenting harm towards others just look at the street gangs in this country. There are parts of the town I live in that make my combat experience child's play compared to what our police have to deal with. These gangs kill or wound more american's every day then our troops ever match. We have more war right here in america than all the conflicts combined. Again I stress that We are responsible as we do nothing about it. Start choosing good responsible people to guide out county instead of the bought and paid for politicians that keep getting allowed in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe efficient ones are the ones that handle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh humans.. simultaneously putting human life on a pedestal above all else, while engaging in mass exterminations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most amusing part is if you don't want to do someone else's dirty work, you're called a coward.
That is certainly possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenetic or not, it could be reckoned as an expected or even desirable outcome of yet another kind of purposive subconscious indoctrination during training, the training to kill.
Thank you, I enjoyed the article! But what makes national leaders (in democratic countries and elsewhere) willing to launch operations that can lead to tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths? Do these leaders suffer from psychological disorders afterwards (or before) the wars they are responsible for? How can such warlike leaders be identified in advance by electorates? How are they nurtured by the parties they represent and lead? Who funds their elections campaigns and post-war careers? There is a lot of room for scientific studies (and science writings) here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is what they are trained for. To kill a dehumanized people or race, be merry and get medals for the murder. US (West in general) army is far more brute and inhuman than Al-Qaeda in dealing with their percieved enemies. This viedo is not even tip of an iceberg of what these criminal gangs are doing to people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. Well these criminals will come back to their homeland with all mental sickness and take pleasure in killing US citizens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was an infantryman serving with the US Army in Vietnam. I ,also, hold a B.S. in Biochemistry. Many of my ancestors were in the military not only in the USA (Sons of the American Revolution) but in the UK (Magna Charta Barons) and even all of the way back to my ancestor, the Renowned Charlemagne. I adapted well to my roll as an infantryman in Vietnam. I believe that my genetic background played a significant roll in this successful adaptation as the article suggests. Through out history, society has recognized the roll that genetics plays in forming successful military and civil leaders. The basis of self respect is self control. The basis of courage is self respect not cruelty. Given the aforementioned logical statements, courage in war is the antithesis of what the chopper pilots demonstrated and what Lieutenant Calley demonstrated during the War in Vietnam .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is rather, that self control and self respect which manifests itself in the highest form of human behavior which preserves the state, protects it's citizens, and protects their property.
This war is wrong on many levels and the deaths of these people shown on the film clip are unfortunate; however, the point of the article was why soldiers get a "kick" out of killing. This is an outrage in itself as there was no indication that these people "enjoyed" killing those people. You hear the same "insensitive" banter with medical personal who are confronted with situations no one should have to endure. It's a release. Now if you want to talk about the Nazi's - let's do that but this is not that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishmmmm, sounds like criminal gangs running around in trucks and suicide vests killing civilians. Just sayin'....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWar is indeed hell and examination of author Horgan's bio discloses absolutely NO personal knowledge on his part abot what he writing about. My advice to Horgan is to enlist, experience what he is studying and THEN to apply his intellect to explaining it. Until then his writing is intellectual banter -- as usual, all about something about which he knows absolutely nothing, beyond what he has read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdbtinc...soo agree...nothing like a "cause" to break down common sense or "morals"....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds like a few of those 35% were compelled to read and comment on this article, given it's catchy title-with-an-agenda. Sad to hear so many defend the obvious glee displayed by the Apache pilots at the killing....then the running over of bodies with hummers.... and then the lack of remorse at shooting children. I was sick watching the video and disgusted to hear the 'guy-banter'. Maybe you need that gene that some men carry to see it as a necessary part of war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiving in San Diego, I know quite a few Marines, some of them Scout Snipers, and have heard them talk about their experiences in Iraq. Most greatly enjoy getting a kill. Its a badge of honor and the reason they're there. Given that there's drafted infantry in this 7-year-long war, I'd say there's some desire to get an opportunity to kill, at least in the combat MOSs (which they choose when enlisting). What happens after they do kill a fellow human being is another story. I'm sure even the most eager solider would feel conflicting emotions. But the point of this Guest Blog (no PhD required to blog, right?) is to examine if soldiers, in general, enjoy it.
In all fairness, I don't believe ALL men or ALL soldiers enjoy killing. But to defend the behavior of the Apache pilots in the video discussed is reaching. Admit it. They love their job.
To the person who said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So if any one member of a group has a weapon they can all be killed?
Also, the question is why they enjoyed killing, not to try to justify the example used here.
The answer is dehumanization. Once some group (or 'others') can be classified and demonized they fall to a less than human level. They become objects, like in a video game.
Anyone (in this case more than one) who carries a weapon in a non-military vehicle and who is not in a uniform in Iraq or Afganistan is either a terrorist or extraordinarily stupid. Terrorists try to merge in with civilians and depend on our morality to give them the chance to shoot us before we can defend ourselves. You assume that they are moral but jihadists, according to the Koran, do not have to abide by normal moral code. That's why so many innocent, unarmed Arabs citizens have been murdered (by our standarda) by those homicide bombers.
This is WAR. Our soldiers are trained to make the enemy give their lives for their country but not to kill anyone. There are always isolated instances of problems but this is far from Ruwanda.
It sounds a hell of alot like a group of self righteous hypocrite's who don't kill,for what ever reason.Who then end up starting wars here or abroad,because of their delusional view of the world ,and then depend on others who are put in harms way to do their killing for them.Then pass judgement on the them for having done so,It's kinda like someone who's eating a hamburger,and then saying the butcher enjoyed killing the cow?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of these mentally sick criminal souldiers will turn in to McVeigh and carry the war to America. That will teach a lesson to war mongering ignorant Americans that how costly a war for Israel can be. The days are nor off. We already see daily shootings and murders by these vets and their family members. This will intensify.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat this blog post was quickly politicized by war-hungry types was unsurprising. At the same time such responses reinforce one of the elements raised by the Imbalance-of-Power Hypothesis these Hawks were so quick to dismiss; that the hawks were already sizing up the vulnerability of, and assessing the imbalances of power vis-a-vis the blog post author (judging him an opponent, a member of an out-group). This jumped rapidly to criticizing the "unfairness" of the authors examples of the pilots and the typical claims of so-called "guy banter," the lack of "science" employed by the blog post's author, and then rushed ahead to use the SSSM to explain away what the IOP Hypothesis in contrast explains so very well. An honest read of the linked PDF file of Richard Wrangham's paper on the IOP Hypothesis, shows how the author has logically and critically connected the examples used to the explanations given, derived by applying the IOP hypothesis to those examples.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's very clear here that the two preconditions for the IOP to be in operation were met by the United States in both military examples cited. The US Imperial drive to dominate a neighbor was fully in play for an extended period of time. A lot was made of Marshall's work being abandoned, (yet no accompanying supportive citations). And yet, Wrangham talks generally about those prior military examples and how IOPH absolutely explains them. Further Wrangham maintains that, "Military organizations can be
expected to deceive themselves and their followers using any available materials." Mere assertions or disclaimers of hawks are hardly authoritative.
Finally anyone who's ever been on the receiving end of powerful thugs' impunistic acts of violence and witnessed their corresponding "guy banter" knows that it's not enough to assign benefit of the doubt to the soldiers in the cited examples. Not enough evidence exists to excuse two soldiers's behavior (are they warriors, really? Blind obedients are hardly warriors, typically) and to ignore a competing narrative, the one the author himself presents: that some soldiers enjoy killing, and, that the IOP hypothesis explains this rather well. If that offends the delicate skin of the hawks, oh well. The powerful bear the burden of responsibility. Always.
Wrangham, citing J. Keegan, states that war "War reaches into 'the most secret places of the human heart, places where self dissolves rational purpose, where pride reigns, where emotion is paramount, where instinct is king.' Until this is sorted out, science doesn't know for sure.
The accuracy of the claim is important. To say that the soldiers enjoyed killing and cite the "murder" of innocent Reuters journalists to support the claim requires that the supporting "fact" is.... factual. The group of terrorists the journalists were with had AK-47s and at least 1 RPG. If you don't want to get shot at, don't embed with terrorists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, there was a man with an AK-47...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnot a reason to slaughter everyone.
No matter how the West may chose to view this tragic incident, it will be used as a major recruitment video for al Qaeda.
While the killing of these people cannot be justified, the 'banter' is common among high stress professions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA paramedic might joke while you are unconscious and dying: "Should we stay and play or bag and drag". Simply a means to deal with stress.
If you watch the video, you'll see that the "RPG" could easily have been a camera peeking around the corner of a building.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt wasn't possible to tell from the video, although the pilots certainly interpreted it as an RPG.
The point everyone is missing .....To be a soldier most people need to have their CIVILIAN ethos broken down to be replaced with NEW social conditioning that ALLOWS the killing of human beings. By every civilian standard, soldiers are insane to be capable of such a morally reprehensable task. They have to be to functional and healthy in the environment that we require of them. To then apply civilian standards of conduct to soldiers, is inherently flawed. We, as a nation, require them to kill. How can you then blame them, for doing their job in a seemingly casual way?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat these men can still function under such extreme pressures is a tribute to their courage, training and commitment to go in harm's way, for all of us.
Stop blaming these men and women for following their training. All of the intense coverage of this war, and yet we have a very few incidents. Compare that to an enemy that TARGETS civilians, and tell me who has the moral high ground.
The point everyone is missing .....To be a soldier most people need to have their CIVILIAN ethos broken down to be replaced with NEW social conditioning that ALLOWS the killing of human beings. By every civilian standard, soldiers are insane to be capable of such a morally reprehensable task. They have to be to functional and healthy in the environment that we require of them. To then apply civilian standards of conduct to soldiers, is inherently flawed. We, as a nation, require them to kill. How can you then blame them, for doing their job in a seemingly casual way?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat these men can still function under such extreme pressures is a tribute to their courage, training and commitment to go in harm's way, for all of us.
Stop blaming these men and women for following their training. All of the intense coverage of this war, and yet we have a very few incidents. Compare that to an enemy that TARGETS civilians, and tell me who has the moral high ground.
Sorry for the double post. I didn't do it to spam my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe title of this article is very offensive to those who have served to defend our country and their families. Though the article itself specifies a study in which only 2 out of 100 soldiers were mentally unscathed by killing in war, the title offers a broad generalization that reinforces the political leanings of Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, I looked at that video. I heard chopper pilots engaging unknown individuals that looked armed. I heard them chattering while still in a hostile situation. I don't hear them congratulating each other over "murder," but over seeing what look like hostiles (Twice, including when the van showed up - unknown vehicle that could be carrying who knows what inside and could well be a threat- yeah, I'd say "nice" in seeing what looks like a threat made *no longer a threat.*)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "commentary" on the first video shows a lack of research in the desire to sensationalize (a Bradley is not a Tank, for instance, and the Iraqi kids were not taken to a local hospital out of spite, but likely out of political requirements.) It, and this "article," are, frankly, poorly veiled attempts at demonizing a decision - incorrect in hindsight, which is of course ALWAYS 20/20 - made in combat. The combatants there don't wear uniforms. If it were a video of, say, US soldiers in WWII gunning down German civilians "for fun" while an obviously uniformed hostile force is known and identifiable, that's one thing. This is just pure BS.
Herd and suvival instinct combined. I haven't seen the video but it's quite possible that what they enjoy is eliminating the threat and staying alive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI haven't seen the video but it's quite possible that what they enjoy is removing the threat and staying alive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll due respect to Keith3196: where is the evidence to support your claims? At least the general (who you describe as discredited, but without crediting your accusation) had the guts to document his sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing that this article convinced me was that John Horgan has never served in the military, and that he has no idea what war is like for the people who fight it. He sits in his loft and watches CNN and the horror that goes on and makes his decisions like a good little corporate monkey. And like all good little corporate monkeys, he likes to lash out at the "real world" because he doesn't, or rather can't understand it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly, this is a touchy subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me remind the reader that the research merely demonstrates that killing is most thrilling when the risk to the killer is minimal.
In combat situations on the ground where you can see the bloody results, the relief of survival is soon supplanted by feelings of horror and remorse. These memories are the source of maladjustment to peacetime society, being a changed man to loved ones such as wives and children, and PTSD.
You need not kill anyone to be deeply disturbed by such memories. Personnel in medical units and logistical support often see piles and streams of dead and horribly mutilated bodies. For many, this is enough.
The lesson from this is to beware of militaristic leaders who are all glory and short on reason. These men are psychopaths. A better society will see to it that they are the first to be put in harm's way for the warfare that they so earnestly desire... or hang them.
i listened to the audio of this. they didnt seem to be enjoying killing... they were enjoying a job well done. they are trained soldiers in a volunteer army. americans literally choose to join the military. no draft. when you spend countless hours training in something, even if it is war, it becomes impersonal. talk to some of the older veterans in some of the real wars from the past. sometimes theres a hate for the "enemy" but often its just a job that a man did when he had to. killing is terrible even for our warriors. unfortunately we feel it is a necessity and we start the cycle again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishow would she have known whether chimps waged war before human contact since then she in fact wouldnt have been in contact?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Wrangham asserts that natural selection embedded in both male humans and chimpanzeesour closest genetic relatives."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually our closest genetic relative is the Bonobo not the chimpanzee. And Bonobo's don't hunt and kill together, they are peace loving animals. Chimpanzees are the most studied, of the great apes, there is a difference.
That blows that theory out of the water.
Maybe the problem stems from mom, or maybe some people are just crazy.
"Whatever happened to just plain crazy!" - Chris Rock
The military is a good place for misfits to go to do their crimes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe military is a good place for social misfits to go and do their crimes. Killing can't be done for pleasure unless you are on the other side of the planet working for the war machine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of Jane Goodall's research needs to be dismissed,and considered worthless,because of her endless interaction with the chimps she was studying.Her or for that matter any other group who still think the data isn't tainted. Just shows how bad science can be,The data gathered should be used as a how not to do research handbook,so that future researchers don't make the same multitude of mistakes.If the chimps were peaceful before Goodall's group came around ,they were clearly violent after she and her group left.Hopefully she or any one else like her are allowed to be near the chimps or other animals.One can only hope that time will close the wounds,and heal the terrible scars,but sending in new research teams will only tear open wounds,and cause more harm than good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe chilling conversation between the apache crew is when the realise they have injured two children "well they should not bring kids into a war zone"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not a war zone it is some bodies home, and yes two guys are carrying ak47's but so do lots of iraq's like the police, security guards TPN security staff and none have uniforms.
And the rules of engauge forbid just shooting people becuase they are armed, and you wonder why we fail to win hearts and minds.
Let's use science for peace and not for war. Trying to explain human behavior on war is futil. It is very sad to look people asking such a thing as if men enjoy killing other people. It is even unethic and inhuman. What if the killed is one of your relatives? Would that be something enjoyable? I think humans have a superior mind over animals. Behave as such and use brain power for a better and more peaceful world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd another thing to add is that the cameras that were being held also looked like unloaded RPGs with the flat face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it always the soldiers, why not the "civilians" such as those depicted in "Black Hawk Down", or the Taliban whose murderous exploits we read of daily, or any where in Africa where blood lust runs rampant! The common denominator is that they, soldier and civilian, are humans! And when led by religious nuts or crazed governments, they both are capable of atrocities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiff
Political expedience overtakes all reason and a lot of good research. Probably Marshall's findings were "debunked", as "vetterun" alleges here, because it was time for the u.s. to get back to some good healthy slaughtering of brown folks somewhere. So, back to brainwashing recruits. I believe there is definitely a deep inborn reluctance to kill one of one's own species, and that except for real self-defense or protection of loved ones, only inhuman conditioning (or previous psychological problems) will overcome this and turn men into willing killers. To say that faster, more efficient small arms with less recoil allow more lethal firing is almost to say that cowardice causes more killing. And this so-called "banter" that is a way of dealing with the "hard job" of pulverizing people from the air - it's sick and it's also cowardice. It's all heading toward drones and robots - the ultimate cowardly war-making of a high-tech and amoral society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"War is hell" because fools join up and willingly contribute to hell. Probably 95% of the time it's for nothing. All of the loss is theirs and those they manage to take out, and all the gain goes to a bunch of porkers grunting around a conference table in NY or DC.
Get a life, tools.
To "beenthere" Beenwhere?? You know darn well that if enough people don't volunteer they will reinstate the draft. Our government depends on the military to keep its self in power. Without to boogeyman to scare people they could not justify having a large military, then all the money they make from kickbacks from the co's. who make all the expensive equipment would stop buying them. There fore they could not afford to run for office( and the free ride that comes with it ). They will never accept that! Please don't kick the troops who are only following orders, blame those responsible THE FOOLS WHO ELECT THESE MONEY HUNGRY-POWER GREEDY POLITICIANS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRadar, most people who join the ranks of the uniformed mercenaries of this country are naive and imbued with some hazy, poorly informed concept of "patriotism". That plus the game-arcade thrill of zapping "targets" at high speed allows them to become tools in corporate-driven so-called "wars", which are actually invasions and occupations to gain control over resources. So, I agree with all you say about the bought politicians' resistance to stopping these senseless campaigns. However, when you add up the horrendous life-ruining cost to so many of these GI hirelings - terrible physical injuries, chronic PTSD with associated substance abuse, broken families and suicide/homicide rates - you have to wonder why young people continue to get in line for this crap. Saw it all in a vivid nasty dream called Vietnam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who repeat and repeat and repeat obvious mistakes are "fools" in any dictionary.
Beenthere
Beenthere; I also agree with what you are saying,75-96 I got sent to many places I'd rather not have been. Finialy had enough and got out. The job market is the deciding factor for most of these kids (or rather lack of.) Private sector jobs my go away but gov. jobs never do. Have you noticed how many of these kids coming home are are now police officers? I know several and the way they treat fellow citizens scares me ( we are the new enemy.) A secure job, food, shelter, some spending money,clothing, free medical,this is incentive enough for most of these kids. Our gov. has taught them from birth that they have no other value. ( schools closing everywhere,large areas of our cities that are completely gang run, jails full to over crowding,ect.) All I know is this country has changed so much in my 55 years that I no longer recognize it any more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCops also have a dark humor about their work. I imagine anyone confronted with horror on a daily basis has to have a similar coping mechanism. My brother was a soldier, who committed suicide as a result of PTSD after returning from war. He was a very sensitive guy, although if you heard him 'joking' with his friends, you probably wouldn't have thought so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi believe in something i named " the pirate syndrome" when i first went into iraq i was all about the people and helping and just doing what i was told. but that shit gets in your head and when you always have to have " the game face on" it becomes you. to skip the long story , basically i went in passive and and left iraq aggresive and godless , i even had to learn to love my son again when i returned. it is war and when your there you to are war. so um , yes its hard to explain but we do enjoy it in a f**ked up way. i would also like to say that it is also like a dog that tast blood , we want it again....but only the haji meat lol j/k. i sound crazy but i assure you i am not im just honest. btw i leave on a tour to afgan in three weeks , time to put on my game face....INFANTRY LEAD THE WAY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi believe in something i named " the pirate syndrome" when i first went into iraq i was all about the people and helping and just doing what i was told. but that shit gets in your head and when you always have to have " the game face on" it becomes you. to skip the long story , basically i went in passive and and left iraq aggresive and godless , i even had to learn to love my son again when i returned. it is war and when your there you to are war. so um , yes its hard to explain but we do enjoy it in a f**ked up way. i would also like to say that it is also like a dog that tast blood , we want it again....but only the haji meat lol j/k. i sound crazy but i assure you i am not im just honest. btw i leave on a tour to afgan in three weeks , time to put on my game face....INFANTRY LEAD THE WAY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSnipers can kill out to 2500 yards - while killing at even 100 yards "depersonalizes" the experience. Similarly, the helo gunners in the article were some distance and far above their targets. So it's no surprise that they would treat this kind of killing as if it were a computer game.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFire fights on the ground at shorter ranges are an entirely different situation, provoking an inevitably much stronger and "realistic" state of mind in the participants. Seeing comrades shot just adds to the fright and caution.
One on one killing is an even more traumatic situation. This kind of experience is one almost guaranteed to produce PSD.
I think the core point is valid though: we have evolved in similar ways to chimps and have "war in our blood." How else to explain the nearly continuous warfare among humans for all of known history?
But I don't think the conclusion qualifies as a break through discovery: we've known for a long time that training and equipment are keys to surviving and winning warfare.
Don't forget that 2007 was a very bloody year for American troops, many of whom were killed by insurgents just like those (or perhaps even by some those) who the Reuters photographers were embedded with. Its also likely that these pilots may have known or been friends with some of those killed and even if not, they most certainly saw comrades coming back to base in body bags after being killed by a roadside bomb or RPG ambush. Now after weeks or possibly months of enduring such attacks they finally have a chance to take out some of those people who have been causing such destruction to their comrades. Who would not revel in such a killing of an enemy who typically announces his presence only with an explosive blast and who then drops their arms and reverts to the persona of "just another innocent civilian".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this author had done a bit more historical research he would have found that whenever wars are fought by ambush rather than pitched battle (as most insurgencies are), rather than seeing the other side as human beings who by happen stance are fighting oneself, combatants see the other side as assassins who plant an IED and then stroll away or come out of nowhere in a helicopter blasting up an area and then swooping out of sight. And thus any chance to inflict harm on the enemy becomes a time of revenge for friends rather than a time of madness to be endured.
Don't forget that 2007 was a very bloody year for American troops, many of whom were killed by insurgents just like those (or perhaps even by some those) who the Reuters photographers were embedded with. Its also likely that these pilots may have known or been friends with some of those killed and even if not, they most certainly saw comrades coming back to base in body bags after being killed by a roadside bomb or RPG ambush. Now after weeks or possibly months of enduring such attacks they finally have a chance to take out some of those people who have been causing such destruction to their comrades. Who would not revel in such a killing of an enemy who typically announces his presence only with an explosive blast and who then drops their arms and reverts to the persona of "just another innocent civilian".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this author had done a bit more historical research he would have found that whenever wars are fought by ambush rather than pitched battle (as most insurgencies are), rather than seeing the other side as human beings who by happen stance are fighting oneself, combatants see the other side as assassins who plant an IED and then stroll away or come out of nowhere in a helicopter blasting up an area and then swooping out of sight. And thus any chance to inflict harm on the enemy becomes a time of revenge for friends rather than a time of madness to be endured.
On a side note, William Hallahan in is damning publication on the Army Ordnance Corps took SLA Marshall's results and found that while individuals armed with semi-automatic rifles may have "rarely fired" those armed with machine guns did so readily. When the Vietnam war came and Grossman found that 90% of GI's would fire their weapons in combat he attributed it to "increased conditioning" and that the high rate of machine gun fire from WWII came from the fact that these were crew served weapons (similar to an attack helicopter actually) and this gave users a psychological "edge". Hallahan on the other hand argued that troops armed with automatic weapons (like the WWII machine guns and Vietnam era infantry rifles) that they could spray at enemies were more likely to engage than those armed with semi-automatics that they needed to aim more precisely for each shot. Of course now that SLA Marshall's research has come into question http://www.warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm perhaps both interpretations are tainted, but it is at least food for thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what about the arab guerrillas who shoot hostages execution style and laboriously cut the heads off their helpless, screaming captives? I would venture to guess that these guys are psychopaths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes - I used "guerillas" because that's what they are: like the mao-mao in Kenya during the '50s and the viet cong during the 60's. This "terrorist" term came about in order to make the already horrific groups like Al Qaeda seem more horrific.
Personally, I'm more nauseated and angry than I am terrified. So lets ease off on the 'terrorist' yapping, it makes America look like a nation of wimps.
Uh! What about 'gal banter'? Our not allowed to be in combat women, have been!@ Any studies of them? Not to mention the women who fought during the East Coast landings, and the Westward Expansion, here in the good old U. S> of A.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUh! What about 'gal banter'? What about our 'not allowed to participate in combat' women who have never-the-less engaged there-in? And the frontier women who engaged in combat against outlaws, foreign forces, and Amerindians, during the great Westward Expansion from the East to the West Coast? Huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf a man ran at me with a knife, and I had a gun in my hand, I am pretty sure I would shoot him. But I am not sure I would shoot to kill, And I don't think I would find the situation pleasant afterwards. Indeed I am pretty sure I would get nightmares after for a long time. My father killed germans during WW2, but he never talked about it at all. If he had enjoyed it this would surely not have been the case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of the described behaviours can be seen among twins in early childhood. (why twins tend to be somewhat more socially retarded is beyond the scope of discussion here). In one case, a dominant twin is consistently sensitive and repentive after having looted his quiet mate, who seems to be indifferent and takes it all in stride. While one twin tends to explores more external stimuli, the other seems to engage in banter and tactics to reestablish parity for attention from adults. Much can be learned about the consequences of actions before they happen by examining behaviours among ourselves and accepting our vulnerability to making mistakes and encouraging discussion that is not intentionally offensive. I felt particularly stimulated by this article as it is less detached from reality than many other science stories may be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisecosteve: while I understand the connection you're making, I think the article's focus is on men in the military.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also think the article fails to a degree. It surprised me that this is still a question: considering that this question has been addressed repeatedly over hundreds of years.
I think the omitted part relates to the situational aspect of homicide(s). It's not as simple as asking whether killing is due to "nature or nurture." Obviously - there's always been that ~ 2% who're psychopathic. I think the majority of males have the latent capacity to kill. I think this is an evolved capacity and the reason it's latent is because our species is not dependent on having "soldier ants" who're always ready to kill for the home group. Training brings that latency to the fore, proper training refines that capacity so that it doesn't get completely out of control.
No one doubts that our capacity to kill others is "problematical." But the way to avoid the need for conditioned killers is to eliminate the kind of national leader who is motivated to take a nation to war. Such "leaders" are not that much different than the hypothetical guy with a knife you mention: they are willing to initiate deadly force in order to get what they want.
We are entering the part of the cycle of history where people try to "civilize" warefare by ritualizing it and giving it a narrow focus. This will continue until a military leader remembers that the purpose of war is to win. To win one side must eliminate the other side's ability to wage war. This may be psychological or physical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us not forget that the United States of America were founded by terrorists that did not conform to the "rules of war" as they were then understood. The founding fathers fought to win, not to be civilized and honorable.
The term terrorist is a silly term. Just like "enemy combatant" it was invented to circumvent existing international law. According to the Geneva Convention there are 2 kinds of active enemy personnel; military and spies. Military wear uniforms and are organized. Spies do not wear uniforms and are typically executed.
Anyone that enters a war zone and expects to avoid violence is a fool at best. Shooting them improves the gene pool. If I know someone has a weapon and is trying to kill me and there are people around them that know they have the weapon, then they are all legitimate targets unless they are leaving or trying to disarm the enemy. Don't hang out with killers unless you want to be identified as a killer.
Ever hear of Dresden? If the city is burned to the ground it won't produce more soldiers or weapons any time soon. This is valid war doctrine.
Genocide is an abomination but it also works. When was the last time the Purupuru caused anyone trouble? When are they likely to in the future? Never - they were exterminated.
I've been shot at more than once. I have never shot at another person nor do I ever want to. If a soldier, police officer, home owner or parent has to use violence to fulfil their obligations then I expect them to do so. Anything else is a failure of their responsibility.
I feel the article title was chosen to be sensational rather than accurate. Perhaps a new magazine title of "Marketing Science to Americans"?
You need to familiarize yourself with the facts of the event. Soldiers in the area were under fire, and some of the men the reporters were consorting with were carrying weapons likely to be used against US troops (RPGs, not just AK47s).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat being said, the premise of the article, that soldiers get off on killing, is complete nonsense. The auther tried hard to justify his personal opinions, and failed miserably.
What does one expect. When these men go into armed services. Basically they take the civilian and making them into professional killers. They even train them with the useage of video games . So the reality of real life and the Altered life becomes blurred. I remember reading years ago a Commander in the Armed forces said something to the effect. Give me 10 sociopath instead of 50 men and I will win the Battle. He said that if a commander has to worry wether their men will fight or break down, then they were not able to put their 1000 percent into doing their jobs. He's right. If you are going to train these men and women into killing machines then you should not be shocked when they take great,pride in the death of another human as this IS their job. Historians call it the ART of War, or referrer to the planning of war, as The Theatre. You cannot have it both ways. When one goes to war, then they learn to alter their way of rational thinking, in order to survive and to do the job they are paid to do. .As Sherman and many other officers have said War is Hell. There is no such thing as a "Civil" war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso what,every human being is not a saint or a devil but both,,thats how we are,is in our genes since the homosapiens and the neanderthals crossed paths,,,who won?homosapiens the more aggressive species ,so thousands of years laters here we are same genes only now we have m-16s
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for that understanding of the position the GI is placed in when in combat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo not second guess and do not blame the GI that has been placed in harms way supposedly to protect home and family.
Placed there by supposedly educated leaders when diplomacy has failed or the economic well being of said leaders is threatened.
Another post commented that the reason in WW 2 only %20 in combat fired the M1 Garand rifle was fear of recoil.
I will disagree with that THEORY.
I spent years as a Military Instructor with the M1 and its predecessor the WW 1 era M1903 Springfield.
"Flinching" was as much a reaction to sound as recoil, It was rarely an issue even in training and in the majority of cases with proper coaching a "flincher" could be qualified to the level of Marksman if not qualified as an Expert Rifleman.
The fear of exposeing your self and your Squad to return fire has more (although unsubstantiated) valiadity.
"Also, the question is why they enjoyed killing, not to try to justify the example used here."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDiscomfort comes in many guises. I would not be so quick to assume they "enjoyed" killing. They could very well have been uncomfortable enough that they needed the re-assurance peer approval gives and their "enjoyment" was a plea for approval.
If the act didn't cause them to become agitated, then we would have some "stone cold killers".
"Jane Goodall, the first person who observed chimps waging wars, also reports that this happened only after 15 years of intensive contact with humans. Before that time, they were normal, peaceful primates."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just wrong factually and anyone in the field will tell you so. They waged war when the band became so large it split into two groups who then competed for resources. Goodall reported this herself.
I was given a 30-06 deer rifle at 11 and I got over the sound and kick after firing it a couple dozen times, as did all my friends. Not scientific, but there you are,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this