Are fighter Pilots Sociopaths?
I can't see how these Fighter Pilots sleep at night. Knowing that whenever they carpet bomb a city, a countless amount of civilians are killed. It seems like they kill more civilians then the actual perpatrators they were intending to kill. I know when they're screening out pilots, one of the main attributes they focus on, is finding someone who "can" drop a bomb on a target, without thinking twice about the end result. They specificly look for those who have no emotion towards killing someone. Now when they're profiling serial killers, the experts allways mention how serial killers are disconected from feeling any emotion towards killing someone. I know I couldn't be a Fighter Pilot, for the reason that I could never carpet bomb a civilian town.
fuck the man
Oh no! Wars happen! What a horrible, unnatural development in the course of human history! All who participate are sad excuses for people.
You do know that pilots must follow orders. It's how the military works. You are putting the blame of bombing the wrong people on the people doing the act, not the guys making the decision.
The real question here is, "How often does carpet bombing occur?". When somebody is joining the Armed Forces, obviously they understand that, before their tour is over, they have will have taken another human life, whether they could see the whites of their eyes or couldn't see them at all. Regardless, yes, by definition, they are "killers". Just keep in mind that you have those "killers" to thank for the freedoms we have today. That "killer" is the buffer between you and a miserable life. Those "killers" are a necessary factor in the equation of life as we know it, have known it, and, most likely, will forever know it.
Everyone needs to stop jumping to conclusions and address the points I made. Are Fighter Pilots sociopaths. Since they attain some of the same emotional characteristics of serial killers. I know that since the dawn of time man has been at war with himself. Thanks for stating the obvious Einstein. And I vehemently disagree that everytime a pilot kills civilians he's protecting my freedoms. BULLSHIT
So were the Romans protecing Romes freedom by raping and pillaging every continent they came into contact with? Was Germany protecting it's freedoms when they gassed 6 million Jews? I'm sorry but saying a moronic statement like that gets my blood to boil. Defeding ones homeland is different then occupying another country and draining it for it's resources is not called protecing freedom. It's call, rape, rob and murder. The revolutionary war, was a war to gain freedom, a just war. The Iraq war or the bullshit in lebannon is not a just war. So my freedoms would still be intact if we didn't bomb Iraq. Saddam has never killed an American Citizen prior to us invading. So is it only Americans who can protect their freedoms. It seems like anyone else who protects their homeland, from and occupying force, is labeled terrorist?
fuck the man
I will restate my point less sarcastically.
The ability to follow orders has been one of the most important traits in a warrior since there have been warriors. In order to survive on the battlefield, one must be able to kill the enemy without hesitation. A sociopath would be undesirable, having no qualms about killing his own comrades.
Originally Posted by baumgarten
I agree to a certain extent. The B2K killer murdered people for years. But treated his own family with pure love and care. Most serial killers treat their own families the same. That's why they're so hard to catch, becuase they can fit in with normal people. So you can be a sociopath, at the same time love your family/comarde.
fuck the man
This is true, but how does this imply that soldiers are sociopaths? Battle is a survival situation - kill or be killed. A healthy, rational psyche would choose the former in such a case.
Save the whales motherfucker
What about those who give the orders to carpet bomb in the first place. Seems even more cold and heartless to me. Sign a paper and never think twice about how many kids will be caught in the crossfire.
Atleast the pilots conciously push the button, take a lot more of a menacing part in the act. The politicians just speak and people die.
As for screening the pilots... I bet very few of them would like to actually kill people. However, given some training and a clear head, most anyone can direct their attention to something else while they "push the button." I could never drop a bomb on someone if I thought about it.. however if it was an order and I can clear my head, it's easy.
Last edited by Absane; 07-27-06 at 01:40 AM.
Reason: adding a word
It's the era of precision munitions, dude.
Originally Posted by Blackrain
Ain't no more carpet bombing. Not since Vietnam and B-52s full of dumb gravity bombs.
A countless amount of civilians killed is suspiciously just like no countable amount of civilians killed.
That beauty-thing, I guess.
Hey dude....during desert storm hardly any precison munitions were used despite that's the only footage that was shown on television.
Total sorties flown in Gulf War: 109,870 - 109,876
Total strike sorties flown in Gulf War: 42,600
Tonnage of all munitions: 88,500 tons
Tonnage of PGMs: 6,520 tons (7.4 percent of the total)
B52s took off from bases far from the scene to carpet bomb the shit out of Iraq.
It was on the European news, but it must have gotten blacked out in the US. The land of freedom.
I wouldn't know. I was too young to really know or care what was going on. However, I think I am correct to say that the media in the US is trying to make the military look bad. It's the liberal mental disorder. One of the reasons I so want to leave this country. I love the US, but I cannot take the shit anymore.
Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
It seems that they are mostly hiding behind 'reasoning'. You see it on sciforums too.
Originally Posted by Blackrain
'Civilians shouldn't be in a war scene. It's just lazy. They should just walk away.'
'everybody knows children's hospitals are legitimate targets during war'
Rationalizing the unthinkable. One of the most favourite weapons for the fighterpilot is the clusterbomb. No more carpetbombing on a mass scale. Local carpet bombing with precision.
You can't see the casualties so well from the cockpit though. You can't smell the metallic scent of blood spilled, the shit smell of spilled guts and soiled pants. No entrails are splattered all over your cockpit. It's clean. A button is pushed. An evasive manouvre executed. Job over. Time to hit the showers with the other lads. Ot another sortie.
I think they try with ardour to distance themselves from reality. A job that needs to be done. Orders that need to be followed.
Of course it is all bullshit. You are not allowed to follow orders that violate certain rules. I'd imagine they vary for different armies, but in the Dutch army it was not allowed to attack civilians. An order that would lead to an attack on civilians has to be refused. You cannot attack red cross vehicles or personel. An order to do so has to be refused.
But mostly you have mercenary armies nowadays. What do they care?
Your military is just a mercenary army. It doesn't look bad. It's a gigantic pulsing zit on the face of democracy and civilization.
Originally Posted by Absane
Individual soldiers? Their officers? DOD? Politicians? President? Sure, soldiers get into things they shouldn't do... but most of what happens is the decision of someone else. The way I see it, it's the federal government that needs fixing. It's too big and for the most part, inefficient at making meaningful change. I think they should only exist to protect our rights as said in the Consititution and not stretch the wording to benefit a small group of lobbyists that want to score a few more points in the next election and pocket hand full of change. But, the way it is set up now, change is too fucking hard to do without a lot of support by our dumbass society. I think that the FairTax is a good start.
Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
All of them. They all serve the interest of a few select men, under the pretence of serving the nation.
Some might believe to be patriots, but reality and belief are not always the same.
When is the last time the US army was used to defend the USA?
The Mexican war? But then you annexed texas so you can hardly argue anyone invaded you.
You have an offensive army structured around mercenary (political) actions. That's reality. The army is there to enforce the interests of American business. Not the people. Not the nation. An army entirely structured around the capability to deploy overseas and use intimidation to further political goals.
Reality says that your army sucks.
WWII & Pearl Harbor was the last time the US defended the US.
'Course, we had to end that with two nukes to show the Soviets not to tread on us. Goddamn pinko bastards.
Dare I utter the word colonialism?
I don't know if the either the Psychology Police or the Language Police would say these people are sociopaths. But one thing they definitely are not is warriors.
A warrior defends people who cannot defend themselves, whether because of age, strength, health, training, or other equally important duties like providing food and housing.
A warrior counts as an enemy someone who is attacking his nation. This includes government leaders because they command the enemy's warriors. By extension it includes a large number of government employees, of all ages and of both sexes.
But it does not include children. With exceptions for government employees with material involvement in the war effort, it does not include grandparents, nor (up until modern times) women, nor doctors, teachers, shopkeepers, artists... In fact it excludes most people.
Warriors do not kill each other's families. They do not destroy each other's villages.
Unfortunately governments have little use for warriors. They prefer soldiers, who blindly follow orders and kill anyone they're told to kill. Soldiers can be taught that modern warfare is different, that it's unavoidable to hit civilian targets and kill non-combatants, and that sometimes it's even strategically necessary to do it deliberately.
Passionate arguments have been posted right here on SciForums that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was strategically necessary. The people who posted those arguments are our friends! They are clearly not warriors. A warrior would let the battle drag on and accept the casualties, while the best minds of his nation were drafted into a think-tank and ordered to come up with a better idea. They are soldiers at best.
But are they sociopaths?