Thread: Do soldiers ethics differ to that of civilians?

I had a very different issue when I was in the Navy. As a Missile Technician on a ballistic missile sub during the Cold War I was faced with the question of whether or not I could "push the button". We were governed by the UCMJ only. there were no Rules of Engangement regarding our missiles. If we were to receive Emergency War Orders, we would launch all sixteen of our missiles at major strategic targets. Those targets were not necessarily military targets. During Battle Stations Missile drills, we would go through the countdowns and say to ourselves, "One away, goodbye Moscow, goodbye New York. Sixteen away, goodbye Vladivostok, Goodbye Chicago..." We were fully aware that at the end of it, there wouuld be no homes for anyone to return to. However, we had orders to continue launching missiles, even if we were torpedoed and were sinking to our deaths. We were not to save ourselves.

I think the question is not whether soldiers have ethics. Ethics are immaterial. Good soldiers, sailors, marines, etc are subject to the orders given them. They have an obligation to follow all lawful orders. It is clearly the governments that place those troops in harm's way that are depraved and without ethics.

I've actually thought about this before, from a Christian standpoint and the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill." Always made me wonder as a kid whether or not God made an exception for soldiers. I never came to a conclusion, but as a realist, I've always thought that what has to be done has to be done.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, here is the Uniform Code of Military Justice - UCMJ

Originally Posted by pjrage

I've actually thought about this before, from a Christian standpoint and the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill." Always made me wonder as a kid whether or not God made an exception for soldiers. I never came to a conclusion, but as a realist, I've always thought that what has to be done has to be done.

The same God that said, "Thou shalt not kill" also gave some pretty marching orders later on concerning the current inhabitants of the promised land, as well as instructions to the children of Israel to defend themselves against their enemies.

Originally Posted by the wanderer

The same God that said, "Thou shalt not kill" also gave some pretty marching orders later on concerning the current inhabitants of the promised land, as well as instructions to the children of Israel to defend themselves against their enemies.

Just acting like he can do whatever he wants?! Who does he think he is, anyway?

kidding aside, I think ultimately it is my choice what ethics I follow. In every situation I face I have some level of freedom to make a decision regarding my own actions. Who I choose to take orders from introduces more factors but it does not take away my ability to make my own decisions

I believe that every time someone makes a decision - whether he be a civilian or a soldier - he is exhibiting his ethics

Originally Posted by the wanderer

The same God that said, "Thou shalt not kill" also gave some pretty marching orders later on concerning the current inhabitants of the promised land, as well as instructions to the children of Israel to defend themselves against their enemies.

"Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands."

Originally Posted by jockeys

"Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands."

and God his hundreds of thousands?

Oops. Maybe that is off topic. Well, unless one's ethics are based on God

The problem is you are trying to rationalize war and compare it to civilian life and you can't. In most classic war's the Government goes through a policy of preparing its population for war. if you look at WWll the various Governments sought to make the enemy out to be less than human, to be hated with a passion so if you spoke to many vets of wars such as those they had a very clear understanding they were going overseas to do one thing and one thing only and that was to kill the enemy.

Yes you don't have to follow an illegal order however during a combat situation its sometimes hard for a low ranking soldier to be able to make that judgment because often times he doesn't have all the facts. Disobey the order legal or not and the chances are you will be in very big trouble unless the situation winds up in the media and then of course you will be a hero. You can come up with theoretical situations where its clear what's legal and illegal but at the moment that's another story.In a way no different than a Police Officer under incredible stress making a split second decision to use deadly force and then a panel of experts takes weeks and months sitting in their offices pouring over all the facts deciding if he made the right decision.

Originally Posted by recon

Even the bare bones is a double edged sword.

We are Taught to obey without question yet we must always question. If a soldier is ordered to kill he kills, if he feels threatened he kills. But still he must question. If a soldier is ordered to kill a civilian after the target has been identified as civilian and he obeys the order and takes life, he is then guilty of murder.

The Geneva convention AND the Uniform Code of Military Justice Permit soldiers to refuse to obey unlawful orders. But you have to know the law, the rules of engagement, the conduct of engagemant, and proper escalation of force to make that call. Then your thought process must take place in fractions of a second to make the right call. War is hardly black and white.

A good soldier will hold himself to a higher ethical code, proper basic traning ensures that it will be instilled. That said, there are still accidents that happen, and there are still criminals in the Army. Sometimes collateral damage CANNOT be avoided. We hold ourselves to the higher code because we have to live the rest of our lives with our choices. And it is not easy to do so.

This is a subject that is very touchy, but I really would like to help you gain a better understanding of it.

-SPC. Recon U.S. Army Cavalry Scout/Sniper
Combat veteran O.I.F. 06-08 Mosul, Tal afar Iraq

Good post!

I'm lucky that I never had to go to war.
I just had a 9 month basic training (it's duty here, but you can also do an alterantive service).

We watched an istructional film, where 2 soldiers in Bosnia got attacked by a sniper.
The sniper kills one of them, but gets caught by the still living other soldier. The soldier then sees that the sniper ist a 12 year old boy.
He does not know what to do, because he dosn't want to shoot a child, but otherwise the boy has killed his comrad and eventually kills some others.

To be in that situation is very hard, and I guess you can see the problem with making decisions reagarding to shoot or not within seconds.

Furthermore I think everybody should be very reserved in calling soldiers murders.
Unfortunately there are black sheeps, breaking intentionally rules of warfare.
But the most soldiers are doing the best they can.

In Germany calling a a soldier murder is possibly a criminal act (libel).

I don’t think soldiers have other moral standards. But being in action, in combat, situations happen that are often hard to understand to somebody who wasn’t in that concrete situation.

Originally Posted by Antares

Good post!
I'm lucky that I never had to go to war.
I just had a 9 month basic training (it's duty here, but you can also do an alterantive service).

Is it my imagination or does mandated service like many EU countries (including my ancestral home: Switzerland) have a way of bending public opinion in favor of the soldiers. They aren't set apart as some other class to be feared or revered (or called murderer), they're seen as regular folks because they are regular folks.

Then again, the joke is that service in Switzerland is compulsory simply so it gives men something to talk about at parties.