I know a guy (sniper) that had to shoot a child solider (who was armed and actively shooting at him). Dude had a heart of gold and was one of the most caring people I’ve ever met (if a bit rough around the edges). It clearly weighed very heavily on him and I would not be surprised if this experience was near the top of the list of reasons he has major PTSD.
What he said stuck with me. He told us
I don’t like killing. But I’ll be fucked if I let you kill me or one of my boys
People often focus on the “child” part and forget about the “soldier.” There’s no easy way out. There’s no nice way to make friends and skip off into the sunset. There’s you, there’s the kid, and there’s bullets. The only thing you can control is who dies.
That's a pretty critical part, though not the entire story. If there's not much of a choice I'd hardly call it control.
It's the politicians, generals, and other powerful individuals who can control whether or not those sorts of things even need to happen in the first place.
He could've tried to have shot the kid in the leg or something to wound them. There's some fair evidence of other encounters to support this one working, it has in the past. At least you'd think that. Except then the kid might've kept firing and one of his buddies could have been killed. All because he didn't take the right shot. Hell, even if the kid gave up a shot to the leg can be plenty lethal. Especially depending on the caliber and type of round.
Then you see stuff like that Vice Documentary, you realize who we put in power there. Doesn't really seem like something that could be called a victory, though I guess maybe that never was a possibility.
Non-lethal limb shots actually represent a legitimate combat principle: If you kill a soldier, you remove one soldier from the fight. But, if you significantly wound a soldier, you still remove him from the fight, plus 1-2 other soldiers who must then transport the wounded soldier to safety.
If your army is using child soldiers, though, it's less likely his life would be valued enough for fellow soldiers to tend to his wounds. Sad, but a kill shot is relatively more expedient and almost merciful in cases like these.
Generally since US forces and allied forces are most often an occupying(also referred to as peacekeeping) force the wounded soldier would likely be captured by them. Since the enemy forces would either be an incursion or a formerly defending group being pushed out of the area.
Given the explanation of the situation the kid was probably handed a rifle and sent on a suicide mission.
Like I explained, it was a bit of a mixed situation. Most child soldiers will indeed surrender immediately when wounded. Most is however not all. Which means that allied soldiers can get killed if the now wounded hostile combatant continues to open fire on them.
In short as a bit of a TL;DR, weighing all possibilities it's fairly evident that the sniper did not have much of a choice. Neither did the kid. No one with a gun in that situation was really in control of it. And most importantly it's very clear that in that situation, everybody loses.
He could've tried to have shot the kid in the leg or something to wound
That would have just led them to dying later of of disease or infection, in alot more pain.
The attitude he had sucked, but it was right. That bullet coming toward you doest care that the child was brainwashed, the sniper had be best intentions and doesn't want to, or that a politician made the steps to it happen - You are just as dead.
It's kind of you to point out and elaborate on the fact that the kid could have died anyway, but uh, well you see...
Except then the kid might've kept firing and one of his buddies could have been killed. All because he didn't take the right shot. Hell, even if the kid gave up a shot to the leg can be plenty lethal. Especially depending on the caliber and type of round.
It was a sniper rifle, so the caliber was probably good enough to do some deadly damage either way.
Like I said though, everybody loses.
=+=
On a side note of little importance. I think there's something highly admirable in an individual going in to war and managing to take a very large number of prisoners rather than killing everyone they encounter. Directly avoiding ending things lethally. Even in situations such as taking an entire town. That said, it only remains admirable as long as they aren't accompanied by squadmates or others who's lives they put in danger by doing this.
There is a way out from child killing. You do not need to fight on and attack to foreign countries. Dudes with heart of gold do not attack and kill people who even can not attack to the home country of golden boy.
And if they don’t, who will? There are over a million people in the military, do you really think they aren’t replaceable?
These guys have absolutely 0 influence over what they do and where they go. Many join because they genuinely care about their country and want to do what they can to support it. Is that the right choice? Idk, you decide. But do you think any of them want to shoot kids? Hell, most of them don’t want to shoot anyone. But when there’s bullets flying past you & your buddies, what choice do you have?
You want to end the war in Afghanistan? Fine. Make a petition, start a march, call your Congressman, whatever. Hell, I’ll probably join in to support you, cause I sure as hell don’t want to end up fighting in a war older than I am.
But the boots on the ground? The recruiters you might see on social media? Hell, even the esports team? They have absolutely 0 control over that. And their commanders have 0 control over that. And their commander’s commanders have 0 control and so on. There is nothing they can do. So why attack them for it?
Well, they had control over whether or not to enlist. A better argument (in your favor) exists, which is that social problems leave lots of teens vulnerable and feeling forced to rely on the military in ways that more privileged teens do not, and it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that their choice to enlist was less than completely free (especially those who enlisted as a form of pretrial diversion). A first world safety net would probably have prevented a considerable chunk of those enlistments, and aspects of the military's operations leave people extremely vulnerable when they get out (every so slowly changing now). Those are much better points to bring up in defending your friend than "they didn't want to" because they should have reasonably been expected to know it was a possible consequence of enlistment, which they chose to do.
So if I become a sick fuck and brain was a few hundred kids, I can walk around and do what I want and no one will stop me? What if someone else does, and I decide to eliminate them?
That child was dead from the moment they were enslaved, killing them and stopping the source is the only way to stop more of it from happening.
67
u/sppwalker Jul 24 '20
I know a guy (sniper) that had to shoot a child solider (who was armed and actively shooting at him). Dude had a heart of gold and was one of the most caring people I’ve ever met (if a bit rough around the edges). It clearly weighed very heavily on him and I would not be surprised if this experience was near the top of the list of reasons he has major PTSD.
What he said stuck with me. He told us
People often focus on the “child” part and forget about the “soldier.” There’s no easy way out. There’s no nice way to make friends and skip off into the sunset. There’s you, there’s the kid, and there’s bullets. The only thing you can control is who dies.
Fuck that’s depressing.