4 ms·
Sorry, but military abuse is literally what led to atrocities committed by the German and Japanese armies. Or atrocities committed by child soldiers: - The low
by leokennis 6y ago
Sorry, but military abuse is literally what led to atrocities committed by the German and Japanese armies. Or atrocities committed by child soldiers:
- The lowest ranks have no power, get little sleep, little comforts and get bullied
- The people who withstand this for long enough, get a promotion and het a little more power and are incentivized to use this power to now bully their new subordinates
- This way, they become “part of the system” as well, so they are less likely to change that system
- Repeat ad infinitum through all the ranks
So what you’re building here is a pyramid scheme of bullies, who are all guilty enough to have no moral standing to stop the bullying and who at the same time are all bullied enough to want to make promotions so they might be bullied less.
Results: hush hush culture, blind obedience, no checks and balances on excessive behavior, larger percentage of people who “make it” will have psychopathic tendencies.
Give these people guns, bayonets and power and within no time they’re stabbing Jews for fun in Auschwitz.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoYou point out some very real consequences, but that does not negate the possible advantages. Weighing the net effect really depends on your organizational objectives. For example, I know people who are damaged from growing up in incredibly hard abusive environments. They Have shot people and still occasionally beat people bloody due to anger issues. If I had to choose someone to be in a life or death combat situation alongside, I would easily choose them over my less "damaged" friends. In a similar vein, the Japanese were also known to be remarkably ferocious and obedidiant fighters and it is unclear if Japan would have done better in WWII if they had a less abusive military. It is entirely possible that the optimal mental state of a soldier is not the same as a healthy and productive member of society.
- leokennis 6y agoSure, there might be advantages like you describe. But then you’re describing damaging people for life, only to extract 5-10 years of possibly more effective military service out of them. If that is truly a decision you want to take as a country/military, it says a lot about the kind of society you’re part of.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoIt certainly does say something about the society. Currently and historically there are many societies willing to damage or kill their citizens to further greater goals, such as defending themselves from being conquered or conquering others.
- jimbokun 6y agoGetting two cities vaporized followed by unconditional surrender and your enemy rewriting your entire governing structure does not seem like a successful military outcome.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoI never said it was
- leokennis 6y agoWhile you indeed never said that, it is true that the Japanese military brought out a special kind of longing for harsh revenge in the US army, likely caused by their brutal military tactics.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoThis is true. I have never heard that revenge had an impact on the decision making for nuclear bombing, so I missed the connection you were making
- leokennis 6y agoThe bombing was not revenge per se, but the Japanese never surrendered even when outnumbered 20 to 1. Even worse, the last Japanese standing would probably blow himself up with a grenade to take out a few Americans with him. In this light, the Japanese basically “forced” the US to literally go with the Nuclear option: using such outrageous force on an already weakened enemy, just to get them to surrender.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoAnother thought I had... There are plenty of cases where brutal militaries who dehumanized people have worked out great for the parent countries. Early Americans abused and abused and exterminated native Americans and is now a super power. Mao's armies used similar tactics to take China and is also a super power. Britain build a global empire of oppression and abuse. Although their empire is gone, they still reap the benefits of their colonial oppression and atrocities today.
- leokennis 6y agoCertainly. And the Native Americans / Chinese citizens / Indians still bear the scars of it. Not something to be proud of or advocate. But, this is besides the original point I think. Creating an organization where “not getting abused” is some Hunger Games type zero sum game will never yield long term positive results and will certainly grind up and destroy the lives of most people participating in it. To know that and think that is ok and “worth it” requires a level of psychopathy that most psychologists would find concerning if they’d diagnose it in a patient.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Early Americans abused and abused and exterminated native Americans Early?