You are right, of course. I doubt 5% would be willing to shoot civilians (even armed civilians) unless they were under attack or there was looting and destruction of property. And, those 5% would quickly fall in line with the other 95%.Quote from Lucrum:
My son is a 2nd LT in the Army reserve, I have a nephew in the regular Army (both in Afghanistan) and a brother-in-law who is a combat medic in the army (two tours in Iraq).
I think I can confidently say non of them would fire on friends or family during any kind of popular revolt/uprising.
Obviously some would be willing to, but I'm of the opinion most would at least be sympathetic. Many of course would defect.
Quote from Ricter:
Getting troops to fire on the own countrymen is, as Magna indicated, not that hard to do. The main thing is to delegitimize those who are to be shot, first. You label them "commies", "hippies", "scumbags", etc., and make the labels stick. This makes them "other", and then it's "ok" to shoot them.
Quote from Ricter:
Getting troops to fire on the own countrymen is, as Magna indicated, not that hard to do. The main thing is to delegitimize those who are to be shot, first. You label them "commies", "hippies", "scumbags", etc., and make the labels stick. This makes them "other", and then it's "ok" to shoot them.
As Max indicates with his reference to the Milgram experiment (many others have followed, that's what grad students do) it is part of the human psyche to be susceptible to this. You think our troops are "different"? Well, it's likely many other dissenting groups around the world, today, are quite surprised by the behavior of their "own" troops.Quote from DAS Trader:
I agree that dehumanizing the "enemy" is the most effective way to get someone to willingly murder another human being. This has probably been true in every single conflict throughout the history of man.
What I disagree with is the "ease" you seem to ascribe to getting American serviceman and woman to murder their fellow citizens, people who look like them and sound like them. It is much easier to dehumanize a people that are demonstrably different (i.e.: physical characteristics, language, religion) but this would not be true if the army was ever turned on American citizens.
I cannot speak for all, a majority, or even a large portion of those who are active duty....but the soldiers, sailors, and Marines (don't know any active duty airmen) I know have universally expressed disgust and contempt for things like the NDAA and what it portends. Without any prompting from me they have stated emphatically they will not follow any unlawful orders, and they consider orders to shoot unarmed Americans unlawful, as would I.
Quote from DAS Trader:
and they consider orders to shoot unarmed Americans unlawful, as would I.
Quote from Lucrum:
I agree, rendering most arguments from the lefties complete BS that being armed to fend off tyranny is useless.
Quote from Ricter:
As Max indicates with his reference to the Milgram experiment (many others have followed, that's what grad students do) it is part of the human psyche to be susceptible to this. You think our troops are "different"? Well, most likely many other dissenting groups around the world, today, are quite shocked about the behavior of their "own" troops.
Quote from Ricter:
I can imagine an argument for the likelihood of US troops firing on US citizens being higher here because our citizens are so well armed. It's starts with a scuffle, maybe some fists are thrown. Then someone, temper lost, throws a brick. Now, the citizens are "armed", dangerous. To be safe, they have to be herded and quarantined. That's gonna make some of the more level-headed mad, and now they're gonna resist. And so on.
Anyway, back to labeling "others", you have to pull on just the right heartstrings of your troops, a version of "know your audience". Have a look back on this very forum at the reactions to the OWS movement. Delegitimization running rampant. Imagine large numbers of citizens, or more importantly, influential citizens, demanding that troops "control" these other citizens, the socialists, the parasites, the tit-suckers, the crybabies, the lazy, the unwashed, the hypocritical!
Quote from Ricter:
I can imagine an argument for the likelihood of US troops firing on US citizens being higher here because our citizens are so well armed. It's starts with a scuffle, maybe some fists are thrown. Then someone, temper lost, throws a brick. Now, the citizens are "armed", dangerous. To be safe, they have to be herded and quarantined. That's gonna make some of the more level-headed mad, and now they're gonna resist. And so on.
Anyway, back to labeling "others", you have to pull on just the right heartstrings of your troops, a version of "know your audience". Have a look back on this very forum at the reactions to the OWS movement. Delegitimization running rampant. Imagine large numbers of citizens, or more importantly, influential citizens, demanding that troops "control" these other citizens, the socialists, the parasites, the tit-suckers, the crybabies, the lazy, the unwashed, the hypocritical!