Killing 'em Softly

I notice that you refer "On Killing." Even though I've only listened to a radio interview Grossman gave and read excerpts and critiques of the book [1], it's a great work and I've been trying to get my hands on it and "Men Against Fire" by S.L.A. Marshall [2] for a long time. You're right, it *is* useful for gaining insight.
Another good web article you may want to look at is at Suck.com http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/10/30/1.html Particularly the links within the article, which *is* an opinion piece, to give fair warning.

Besides being useful for looking at how the KNT work, it brought a few oddball issues to mind. One is that fighting (organized) is essentially a social affair. Fighters succeed as a group and they fail as a group. And as a group, when things go wrong, things can be bizarre and catastrophic -- if a few men in a unit break and run, unless the unit commander can act really fast, chances are everyone in the unit will break and run even if every individual is brave and well-trained. While it doesn't excuse Galactor goons, it does go some way towards explaining just how entire units can fall apart in disarray when the KNT appears. And with Katse at least actively discouraging goons from helping one another [3] (and hence hindering the formation of cohesive fighting units that can work together under pressure), the situation is even worse.

Still thinking within a group, it is extremely difficult to successfully integrate an outsider into an already-formed group, even if there's no personal problems. Which does suggest to me that it wouldn't have mattered how nice a person Don was [4] -- he was practically guaranteed to fail. And had the real Getz not been killed by the impostor, he'd have had a very tough time indeed...

The other thing was finally getting some insight into the sonic boomerang (note well that Mark's the only person with a non-lethal weapon). I've puzzled about it not because of its designation as a non-lethal weapon but because it's no soft-hearted toy: if it is used and performs *exactly* as billed, you are guaranteed that a certain proportion of victims will die and that the rest will suffer. They must know that within the series and the more I watch, the less convinced I am that they actually give a rat's patootie about the welfare of goons and for that matter why just Mark?

I can think of practical reasons for using such a weapon (but that's another post), but in considering the group psychology of fighting, I think I found a somewhat better answer. Even with the best modern preparation, a good tenth of men *still* fail to fire in combat. The closer the range, the worse this problem is. There's a very strong tendency for individuals to hesitate when they know for sure that their action *will* kill someone [5].

Military strategy solves this problem in two ways. First, the rotation of men from the front line, partly to replace those lost, partly to prevent those currently at the front line from suffering irreparable psychological damage due to being exposed to active combat for too long. Even if an army has a significant proportion of men who cannot fire under combat conditions, it can still prevail with good strategy, good weapons and a steady influx of fresh men. The second is distance: the more remote the enemy, the more likely a combatant is to fire and it�s a significant driving force behind the modern focus on missiles and other long-range weapons. [It may seem that this hesitation to kill may be a modern problem. However, I'm anecdotally informed that the Greeks had men at the back of a phalanx whose job was to kill any uninjured man coming from the front line who refused to re-enter the fray after a suitable rest period... yet another solution to the problem.]

Science Ninjas have several problems: first, they have no one to replace them -� and they�re on active duty for far longer than any reasonable soldier would be expected to serve. Second, they are expected to kill people at much closer range than practically any modern soldiers can expect to. Third, they do a lot more of it than any individual soldier can be expected to account for. They have their distancing weapons too, but it doesn't eliminate the problem. Their conviction of the absolute rightness of their mission goes a long way, but it too doesn't go the whole way. [6]

One of the ethical objections made about non-lethal weapons is that it removes the tendency to hesitate, even when the user knows that it could cause extreme suffering or worse (because after all, it's not like they were trying to kill the victim, right?). [7], [8] So, PR aside, the sonic boomerang may have to do with someone realizing that Mark might hesitate or have difficulty putting it behind him afterwards -� which would be very bad for his long-term usefulness. [9] And given the fact that a replacement isn't exactly easy to find, there will be a lot of pressure to find a way around this hang up. The important thing isn't the guarantee of a Spectran soldier�s safety (G-Force tends to be very happy when they're sure that every single soldier is dead -� they go so far as to cheer on occasion), it is the removal of certainty that his individual action *has* in fact caused the death of that particular soldier and for that, intense sound (which has never truly made it into the arsenal of non-lethal weaponry because it is just too destructive) is perfect. It�s contrary to the usual reason for NLWs but this is a special case.

I started out by noting that the social pressure of fighting in a group is stronger than the individual's abilities or mind-set and to return to that, I'm just going to note that incidentally, Mark is in the position where the pressure to perform is at its very strongest -� that of commander. And that he has a second who can pick the ball up if he drops it and goes running off into the dark and will give him hell for it. Positively, group expectations keep him going. Negatively, those same expectations make it most likely that he'll crack.

I'd say the kid deserves a break.

________
Notes:

[1] Grossman, Lt. Col. Dave, "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society," Little, Brown and Company. [1996] Good book review: http://orion.luc.edu/~jwillia/grossman.html

[2] S.L.A. Marshall, "Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in Future War." William Morrow and Company. New York. [1961]

[3] For example, in episode 54 "Farewell Red Impulse," Katse shoots through the rope keeping a goon who has slipped from his place on the fuselage of the X-3 missile from falling, causing the man to plunge to his death, saying that all that is important is getting the work done, not wasting time on one another.

[4] Donald Wade, Battle of the Planets take on Mikhail (episode 98 in Gatchaman, "Grape-Bomber Monstermech"), BotP title "G-Force Defector." He�d been in the G-Force team at one point, but was effectively forced out by his team-members' inability to accept him.

[5] Cpt. Kilner provides this account of a very well-trained group of American soldiers in the Gulf War (1991) who found themselves unable to return fire in this website article of his: "Military Leaders� Obligation to Justify Killing in War" http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE00/Kilner00.html Exemplary reading for many other reasons too.

[6] See [5] above.

[7] A good overview of Non-Lethal Weapons, their scope and their problems may be found here: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/nlw/

[8] A consideration of the ethical and practical applications of Non-lethal weapons exists here: http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE97/Gordon97.htm

[9] In his book, Marshall makes the point that this hesitation has nothing to do with an individual�s lack of courage or preparation and is something that tends to strike 'at the moment of truth.'