> If they are being ordered to carry out a first strike, they have no idea of whether or not that first strike is reasonable, or not. And it's not their job to

> If they are being ordered to carry out a first strike, they have no idea of whether or not that first strike is reasonable, or not. And it's not their job to second-guess. Though it is their job to refuse to carry out the order if it is unlawful (under both US and international law), which a first-strike may well be (as any first-strike is quite probably an act of genocide). The obligation not to follow unlawful orders (like killing civilians) while also their entire job being firing a weapon meant to kill indiscriminately is… interesting. I won't disagree that anyone who is likely to consider questions of indiscriminate murder of civilians and other such things prohibited under law will likely be structurally excluded from being put in such a position by the military.