Sometimes you may be ordered to do something horrific in times of war. The trouble is you may have to spend the rest of your life with the terrible act on your conscience. Here is a true case. Imagine it happened to you:
You are a British soldier in Burma during the second world war, marching through the jungle towards the Japanese enemy. Your patrol captures 3 Burmese villagers and a 10 yr old boy who are almost certainly spying for the Japanese. IF you let them go, they will report your position to the enemy and the lives of all your comrades will be in danger. The officer decides the Burmese must be shot and he select YOU to be one of the firing squad. What do you do?
Choices:
a) Refuse and ask if someone else can do the shooting
b) Agree to shoot the men but plead to let the boy live
c) Obey. Shoot the three men and the boy.
**The soldier in the actual story chose c. (true case)
Which of the above would YOU pick? (also state the reason why)
2006-10-01 18:13:25 · 39 answers · asked by No-one 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
And for those of you that chose A, think about it, if you refuse to follow a direct order, the officers could have you shot.
2006-10-01 18:23:24 · update #1
Well when going into any type of governmental position you have to be ready for all things. Esp. in the army, etc. so with this knowledge you are taught to kill therefore filling nothing is wrong with what your doing because your protecting your nation. I personally wouldn't go into the armed forces for the simple fact that I'd never want to have to make this type of decision, but if faced with it I'd probably have to back down and let someone else do the dirty work, I know its not the bravest thing, but I cant imagine living the rest of my life with this on your conscience.
2006-10-01 18:18:26 · answer #1 · answered by Ash 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would have no choice but to choose option c. It would play on my emotions forever, but it was for the greater good of my comrades and the mission. Military people will tell you that your squad members mean more than family to you in many cases. The soldier probably thought "If I don't shoot this boy, then my squad mates may be killed. I'd rather have the death of the boy on my conscience"
Gruesome, I know. But I wouldn't hesitate for long either.
Besides, the Officer would have it hang heavily on his conscience too. Effectively, he pulled the trigger as well.
Option A would jeapordise the mission, possibly killing your team, option b would also jeopardise the team, even having him come with you, cooking etc as someone said. You're advancing into enemy territory! What makes you think that he's not going to shout out the first chance he gets?
Oh, and to the guy who said D: Tie him up and take him back to HQ. Abort your mission? putting even more of the allied forces at risk? No way. C is the only feasible option.
2006-10-01 21:08:51 · answer #2 · answered by genghis41f 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The order can be refused if it is an unlawful order. The moment the officer orders you to perform an immoral or unlawful action, the order carries no weight. Therefore, in this situation, the best course of action is an option you've not given.
D: Bind and gag them so they can not escape nor reveal your position. Return them to your base camp where the stress of the battlefield won't affect your judgement and a better grasp of the situation can be given. Simply, refuse to shoot on the grounds that the order is unlawful. These are enemy prisoners of war at best, or at worst spies. Even spies are only executeable after a trial, not in the field. The officer should know better than to kill an unarmed, non-threatening individual.
The only way you would have to kill them is if their very existence is a threat to the mission (such as a special ops or remote mission where you are unable to take prisoners due to limited supplies).
Soldiers are trained to kill with discipline, not recklessly slaughter individuals.
2006-10-01 18:38:05 · answer #3 · answered by azrael505 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would choose C because it is the RIGHT thing to do. I know I would live the rest of my life with horrific memories, but in this case, there is only 1 choice. You are in war. The goal here isn't to be nice to your enemies (they aren't going to be nice back). But it is the understanding that when you kill, you are doing so in order to hopefully win the war. Now, first I would only be in this war if I believed the war fought for what I believed. It's a shame I cannot convince these other people otherwise. But when it comes down to the decision and I have to choose. I would choose C.
2006-10-01 18:33:32 · answer #4 · answered by curtis l 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I notice you say the villagers are "almost'" certainly spying for the Japanese. Also you don't tell us if the adults are men or women. Why must they be murdered? Why not take them prisoners? These are civilians not soldiers. What about the Geneva convention? I would choose 'A', refuse. But I certainly wouldn't ask for someone else to do it. Also I would report the officer at the first opportunity.
2006-10-01 18:51:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would probably choose option B, shoot the men but let the boy live. I wouldn't let him go right away, however. I would take him with us for a little while until he might have been disoriented as to where he was and then release him. The hope would that he wouldn't know where we took him and therefore could not report our location. Also that he might recognize his close call and be able to decide not to be an active participant in war. As far-fetched as it might be, the little boy deserves a chance which is something the older men already had.
2006-10-01 18:23:13 · answer #6 · answered by tennisnerd11 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Having never been in this situation I don't know what I would do. If I pick A they die, B they still die, C, they die. So really either way they are going to die, either by my hand or my fellow service member. From talking to people in the military who have been in combat, you don't have much time to think. And when you do it is about getting home to those you love, protecting those who you serve with, and saving yourself.
For Malinda: There are females serving in the military, in Iraq, in combat zones/hot zones. If they were on a convoy and the were being attacked, the females are going to have to shoot just like the males. Don't think being a female that they get away with not having to do the dirty work.
2006-10-09 06:07:45 · answer #7 · answered by fin 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have to take your responsibilities.
In war time you have to survive together with your fellow soldiers.
I go for c). Any normal person will get a trauma of it. So would I.
Option a) shifts the problem to another person.
Option b) is cruel, because the boy always will have terrible memories.
The very best is no war at all. That is why we have the UN.
Unfortunately business in arms is too lucrative and may people search for power and control over other peoples.
.
Our earth is still far from being a paradise.
Th
2006-10-01 18:31:43 · answer #8 · answered by Thermo 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
C. However wrong it sounds there is a difference between doing wrong and being wrong. It's not right but that's how life works. This is an example of that.
2006-10-01 19:52:37 · answer #9 · answered by kylebakesb 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
c, that's the only answer to choose, when you join the military, you do what you're told and don't ask questions, if I had a commander tell me to kill, then, I think that the only choice would be to do it, you don't beg for somebody elses life, I may ask if there's any way the boy could live, but if they said no, that's it, you have to shoot.
2006-10-01 18:25:19 · answer #10 · answered by Tammy C 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋