3 ms·

I remember seeing a program that claimed this is because soldiers today are trained to kill against their natural instinct. So traditionally only 20% of soldie

I remember seeing a program that claimed this is because soldiers today are trained to kill against their natural instinct. So traditionally only 20% of soldiers could actually kill, which would explain the low casualty rates in older battles pre-ww2. Then after ww2 they figured out how to train soldiers to just react and kill, resulting in 6 in 10 soldiers killing. And those who kill but wouldn't normally are much more susceptible to PTSD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology Wikipedia, so buyer beware. Seems like a controversial subject like that I can't help but think that a single edit like this changes the whole tone of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killology&diff=786142624&oldid=782871604 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killology&diff=78...

jaclaz 7y ago
Somehow it must be considered the difference between draft and volunteers and professional soldiers, however. And also background (both cultural and previous civil occupation) when seeing the matter at the international level. The old assumption (right or wrong) was that populations of hunters and shepherds were more familiar with slaying than more agricultural ones. And of course is an entire different thing to kill an animal (let alone a human being) with a knife or a sword (or similar) and - say - pulling a trigger of a firearm from 300 yards away or dropping a bomb/firing a missile from 10,000.
PorterDuff 7y ago
"I remember seeing a program that claimed this is because soldiers today are trained to kill against their natural instinct. So traditionally only 20% of soldiers could actually kill, which would explain the low casualty rates in older battles pre-ww2." That's a good observation, and not one that I thought of, but it does bring up the question of organized combat in the other 95% of human history. It would surprise me if a Roman got much choice in the matter from his friendly local Centurion.

jaclaz 7y ago

Somehow it must be considered the difference between draft and volunteers and professional soldiers, however. And also background (both cultural and previous civil occupation) when seeing the matter at the international level. The old assumption (right or wrong) was that populations of hunters and shepherds were more familiar with slaying than more agricultural ones. And of course is an entire different thing to kill an animal (let alone a human being) with a knife or a sword (or similar) and - say - pulling a trigger of a firearm from 300 yards away or dropping a bomb/firing a missile from 10,000.

PorterDuff 7y ago

"I remember seeing a program that claimed this is because soldiers today are trained to kill against their natural instinct. So traditionally only 20% of soldiers could actually kill, which would explain the low casualty rates in older battles pre-ww2." That's a good observation, and not one that I thought of, but it does bring up the question of organized combat in the other 95% of human history. It would surprise me if a Roman got much choice in the matter from his friendly local Centurion.