NationStates Jolt Archive

Far too often, we see on NS countries arming their civilians and then expecting them to simply romp about killing highly trained soldiers invading the homeland. I am, quite frankly, sick of seeing this form of blatant godmoding.

"Godmoding?" you may ask, "How is that godmoding?" Simple. Adjusting psychological realities and changing them to be more beneficial to you. In order to prove that no, your entire civilian population will not fight back against the Samtonians/Belemese/Automagfreekians (Well, maybe the last one) I present to you an essay entitled The Psychology of Killing by William S. Frisbee Jr., from his website at http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm

I hope you'll find it useful. True, it applies more to soldiers then civilians, but just cross apply it and imagine the man crouching with the gun has had no training or front-line combat experience at all before.

The Psychology of Killing
The psychology and realities behind it
By William S. Frisbee Jr.

Hollywood is great at making war seem so simple and strait forward. It makes the watcher believe that people kill each other because they are told, because it is kill or be killed, the enemy is hated or whatever. Hollywood tries to make us believe that all soldiers fire at each other, desperately attempting to hit and kill each other. While there is some truth in the matter, it is mostly wrong.

An excellent book to read on this subject is "On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Dave Grossman. I highly recommend you read this book as it goes into great detail on the subject, much more than can be covered here.

When most people talk about killing, they are like virgins talking about sex. You can talk about it all day, you can fully understand the mechanics involved but when the time comes there is so much more involved than the person thought.

When bullets start flying emotions start running high and that can have a powerful effect on how a person sees things. Five hundred combatants can see five hundred different things. In war every fighter see's things differently. The movies like to make people think that the world is black and white, not different shades of gray.

A look at history might help illustrate what I am talking about. In World War Two, it is a fact that only 15-20 percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one. While this rate may have increased in desperate situations, in most combat situations soldiers were reluctant to kill each other. The Civil War was not dramatically different or any previous wars.

In WW2 only one percent of the pilots accounted for thirty to forty percent of enemy fighters shot down in the air. Some pilots didn't shoot down a single enemy plane.

In Korea, the rate of soldiers unwilling to fire on the enemy decreased and fifty five percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. In Vietnam, this rate increased to about ninety five percent but this doesn't mean they were trying to hit the target. In fact it usually took around fifty-two thousand bullets to score one kill in regular infantry units! It may be interesting to not that when Special Forces kills are recorded and monitored this often includes kills scored by calling in artillery or close air support. In this way SF type units could score very high kill ratios like fifty to a hundred for every SF trooper killed. This is not to say these elite troops didn't score a large number of bullet type kills. It is interesting to note that most kills in war are from artillery or other mass destruction type weapons.

If one studies history and is able to cut through the hype, one will find that man is often unwilling to kill his fellow man and the fighter finds it very traumatic when he has to do so. On the battlefield the stress of being killed and injured is not always the main fear.

Fight, Flight, Posture or Submit

In the animal kingdom, most animals do not kill others of their species with very, very few exceptions. Humans are like animals in this regard, we don't want to kill each other and sometimes we behave like animals, especially in combat.

When animals confront each other they begin by posturing. They both attempt to intimidate the opponent into believing it is inferior and in danger. At this point they may fight, or one may submit or flee, and when they do fight it is very rarely to the death. When one submits it exposes some vulnerability to the enemy, like its throat.

Humans are not much different. Firearms are an excellent method of posturing, they are loud and dangerous, and the bullets zipping by overhead can be terrifying to the enemy. They provide a primal release when fired and can give the shooter a feeling of power. Posturing is very evident in combat tactics. War cries are a form of posturing. A battle cry cannot kill, but it provides a primal release and can intimidate the enemy. Bullets slamming into the ground or wall near a trooper can be frightening and when they are put there by some screaming 'maniac' it is much more terrifying.

This may be why so many rounds were fired in Vietnam without any real hits. (52,000 shots to score 1 hit? Our troops weren't that bad at shooting!). US troops were in many cases superior at posturing. However, when it comes down to it, when the crunch comes, many people, regardless of how tough they sound in the barracks, find it hard to kill their fellow man and prefer to posture when possible.

Fire superiority means one side has postured successfully and has intimidated the enemy. In the Civil War there are cases where yelling matches have been held and the loser has retreated, simply because they were intimidated by the other side's battle cries. (This happened in the woods where they couldn't see each other but superior units retreated from inferior units because of effective posturing on the other side.)

The military does not recognize this as posturing, per se, they call it intimidating the enemy.

This does not mean all soldiers are trying to scare the enemy rather than kill him. A few may actively try to kill the enemy and this is where a great many of the casualties come from. Like the one percent of fighter pilots that killed forty percent of the total enemy killed.

Fighting is another option and then both sides will make an effort to kill each other. One side may submit, but for humans on the field of battle this is the most dangerous option because prisoners are often killed in the heat of battle, and not always on purpose! Fleeing becomes the best option and even this is very dangerous.

Distance from the other human directly affects how easy it is to kill him. Bomber pilots don't have trouble laying waste to kilometers of land and killing hundreds or thousands because they don't see or hear the dead or dying. For infantry units, this takes on a different aspect, they see the fear in the other person's eyes, the sweat on his brow, the pain in his face, the blood spurting from the wound, the desperate cries for help or mercy. The enemy becomes very real and vivid, the enemy becomes someone with hopes, dreams, fears, a mother, a father, maybe a wife, just like the shooter. In a way the shooter can see the enemy as little different than himself and killing that enemy soldier is like killing oneself. This is why infantrymen are more traumatized by war than any other field.

Wars are about humans fighting each other, it is horror and chaos, fear and trauma. This is why the shooting rate among troops is lower than most people would think. People will be willing to face death and dismemberment more willingly if they didn't have to kill anyone. Medics for instance are notorious for risking life and limb to save someone while a regular trooper may stand by doing nothing but fire impotently at the enemy.

When a soldier flees he becomes a back. Again, humans are like animals. If you run from a dog it will chase you down and bite you, maybe kill you. Humans are like that, to run from a human high on adrenaline is an open invitation to be chased and killed. This is why the most dramatic casualties occur during a retreat. Troops no longer look into the eyes of a terrified foe like himself, he sees a back, prey that is fleeing from him and is much more willing and able to shoot him in the back. A fleeing soldier is no longer somebody, he is something, he is prey for the soldier behind him.

Killing a soldier that is submitting is a very frequent occurrence because the killer may be high on adrenaline, is in a highly emotional state and may not realize his foe is surrendering. Then there are the psychopaths that are quite willing to shoot down surrendering troops and these individuals are in every military.

To Kill or not to Kill

This is a very hard decision for a soldier to make and a great many factors can influence the soldiers ability to kill his fellow man. Before combat soldiers may talk a lot and seem like a blood thirsty, fear inspiring bunch. Veterans are likely to be more subdued unless they are 'psyching themselves up'.

It should be noted that although a soldier may shoot, he may not try to kill. He may be ordered to fire but it is very hard to determine if he is trying to hit as can be noted by the 52,000 rounds fired for one hit ration in Vietnam. People were willing to fire but not always willing to hit the target. This can also be evident in earlier times when muskets were used when soldiers would get in a line, shoulder to shoulder, shoot each other and not hit anything. Even then some would not shoot.

Most sane humans, if given the choice, will not kill their fellow man and are extremely reluctant to do so, despite what holly wood would like you to believe. When they are forced to do so, many can experience a great deal of psychological trauma.

Superior training currently used by military organizations helps make the decision for the individual. This is a form of brainwashing but it is frequently necessary. In WW2 people learned to fire on a firing range at paper targets. When they got to the battle field they may have been excellent shots but they realized they were shooting at another person, someone named Hans or Frederick, or whatever. Today, more realistic targets are used in more realistic environments. Killing a 'target' becomes more automatic, more instinctive so when push comes to shove the trooper may be scared and unthinking, but his body knows what to do and does it, sometimes before the soldier can rationalize what he is doing. This makes the act of killing more traumatic for the killer and may be why a higher percentage of Vietnam vets suffer after the war. They had training which made them kill despite their desire not to.

Emotional and physical distance can also allow a person to kill his foe. Emotional distance can be classified as mechanical, social, cultural and emotional distance. Physical distance has to do with the distance. It is much more difficult to kill someone when you can feel his breath and see the fear in his eyes as you ram home a knife. It is very traumatic at such close range. At long range, like an artilleryman firing at the target that is over a couple hills, he does not see the enemy and can more easily deny the enemy's humanity.

Emotional distance allows a person to kill at closer ranges and allows him to justify it more easily. Cultural distance is defined as viewing the enemy as an inferior life form. The enemy is dehumanized and considered inferior. Like the Nazi's classified Jews and blacks as inferior and subhuman, putting them outside the human species and thus little more than an animal to be killed.

Moral distance is classifying the enemy as morally wrong. US troops fighting the Nazi's or Japanese had moral distance to help them kill. The Nazi's were butchers, cruel and vicious. The Nazi's were guilty and had to be punished by those who were right and just.

Social Distance is a form of classifying others as lesser beings. For instance, in the medieval ages of Knights and men-at-arms, the Knights, the nobility were the primary killers. A soldier could look across the line at another soldier just like him, terrified and unwilling to kill. A Knight would look down at the serf/soldiers as lesser beings who simply could not compare to himself and their loss was not important because they were not as great as he was.

Mechanical distance is viewing the enemy through some device like a scope or on a screen. It allows the killer to dehumanize the target. Ships shoot at and destroy ships, and although they are killing other people, they don't see it that way. Naval crews are more unlikely to suffer the psychological trauma of war for this reason. This is not to say they may not suffer however but they will not be reluctant to fire their weapon. Snipers see their target through a scope and this can make the enemy less human to the shooter. In Desert Storm, the use of night sights made the war seem more like a Nintendo game.

Another factor that can a big effect on whether or not a person fires is the presence of authority. If an officer is standing next to a person and orders that person to fire, then that person is much more likely to do so. A Sergeant ordering his squad to fire will increase the fire rate. This is another point in argument for a fireteam because it allows a team leader to order his troops to fire and they will do so.

Other factors also have an effect on a soldier's willingness to kill the enemy. Vengeance, hate and fear are all different factors that may enable a soldier to attempt to kill the enemy instead of just posture. Also letting down one's fellows is an important factor because they rely on each other to keep them alive.

Battle Fatigue

Warfare is very traumatic, especially for front line troops that must face their reluctance to killing as well as being killed. It is much more frightening to have someone try to kill you with a knife than lob a bomb at you. You don't see the fear and hate in a bomb's eyes as he tries to insert a length of sharp metal into your body. The psychological casualty rate of front line units gave the Powers That Be, the idea of doing the same thing to enemy populations. In WW2 this became more evident as the nations bombed innocent, helpless civilians. It was believed that bombing them would cause a high number of psychiatric casualties for the enemy and destroy their will to fight, but it didn't happen. In many cases it hardened their resolve instead of creating hordes of mentally traumatized people.

In this way, maneuver warfare is superior to attrition warfare because it strikes directly at an enemy's will to fight. By violently attacking some rear area people begin to get frightened and realize that there is a threat of invasion and close up interpersonal aggression. The potential of close-up, inescapable, interpersonal hatred and aggression is more effective and has a greater impact on the morale of the soldier than the presence of inescapable, impersonal death and destruction. Officers are often buffered from enemy attack by ranks of soldiers that are defending them.

When an enemy attack destroys a headquarters unit, people realize that they are a target and the enemy is not interested in killing front line units. This can cause a great deal of psychological trauma for a battalion commander as he realized the enemy wants his head on a pike and is trying to get it. Living under this kind of threat can have a noticeable impact on people and because a front line soldier has to deal with this constantly he is more likely to become a psychiatric casualty.

Studies have shown that the more time in combat a soldier spends the more likely they are to become a psychiatric casualty. A psychiatric casualty is useless to a combat unit and presents as much danger to his fellows as the enemy. It is generally believed that sixty days of frontline combat will destroy a unit as an effective fighting force because after sixty days of combat ninety eight percent of the unit is likely to be a psychiatric casualty.

To prevent this, units are rotated back from the front to a relatively secure area. If the enemy has penetrated friendly lines and there is no 'secure' area then it is little different than being on the front. This might be another reason so many people suffered in Vietnam because there were no 'front lines' and no 'safe' areas.

Units are frequently rotated into the reserves to allow them time to 'recover'.

To understand the 'sixty day' concept lets look at what happens when a unit goes into combat.

Within the first ten days a unit becomes 'battlewise', they become used to the demands of watching from every direction, they learn to deal with the enemy threat and they become more 'undisturbed' by what goes on around them. Between ten and thirty days, they reach maximum efficiency. The fall into the pattern of combat.

After about thirty days they may become over confidant and believe their efficiency is not decreasing when it is. Their bodies are running out of stored energy and the battle field environment is beginning to take its toll on more than just their mind. Combat exhaustion begins to set in. Combat exhaustion is the effect of the elements, poor food, and physical exhaustion. It also includes what happens to the body. When a human experiences an adrenaline rush there is a price to pay afterwards. Combat is like a roller coaster in this way with high's being the adrenaline rush and lows coming after the rush. This 'roller coaster' affects a human body dramatically because of the highs and lows, and can be severely draining physically and emotionally.

After about forty-five days Emotional Exhaustion may set in and the unit's efficiency decreases dramatically. Troops aren't willing to attack, they are unwilling to dig fighting positions or run patrols. They lack the will they had before.

In WW2 the British believed their troops were good for one hundred days in battle before they became psychiatric casualties. This was made possible because they rotated the troops out of the battle zone every twelve days for four days of rest. US policy was to leave troops in combat for up to eighty days.

The ability to leave troops in combat like this has only become possible recently. In previous times, troops didn't have the physical or logistic ability to support constant combat, but today they do.

Manifestations of Psychiatric Casualties

When a person becomes a psychiatric casualty this can take different forms of various degrees. After several months of combat nearly everyone will exhibit some symptoms of mental stress will appear. This does not mean they have gone completely bonkers and in some cases rest and recuperation helps a great deal. When it gets too bad there may be no easy solution. In some cases a person may exhibit symptoms to avoid battle. The way military units handle this is by treating as many people as possible as near to the front lines as possible.

Fatigue cases can best be described as the soldier becoming 'tired' and is unwilling to do anything. He doesn't want to associate with friends or participate in any physical or mental activity or responsibility. He may be subject to sensitivity to loud noises, crying spells or fits of anxiety. In many ways all he wants to do is vegetate but he is subject to mood swings. The best way to cure this is to remove the person from the battle zone for rest and recuperation.

Confusional States are when a psychiatric casualty begins to lose track of time, place, and cannot deal with his environment. A person who was suffering from Fatigue can quickly shift into this state and become psychotic. Some symptoms include delirium, psychotic dissociation, and manic-depressive mood swings. Another possible effect is called the Ganzer syndrome. When a psychiatric casualty suffers from Ganzer syndrome he will make jokes, act silly or otherwise try to avoid the horror and fear with humor.

For instance a soldier may use a body or body part and treat it as still alive, like what the soldiers did to a dead body in Full Metal Jacket. They propped him up, put a cigarette in his mouth and 'pretended' he was alive. Some cases may become more extreme.

Conversion Hysteria can happen during combat or years later. This is a severe form if the Confusional state. The sufferer loses all touch with reality and may wander around regardless of dangers, like mines, enemy snipers, ect. The soldier may ball up into the fetal position and try to deny his surroundings or shake violently. Large portions of a person's memory may be blocked out to protect the conscious mind from the horror. Another possibility is a certain portion of a person's body may not function, like the arm that pulls the trigger.

Conversion Hysteria can appear in a soldier after being knocked out by a concussion, receiving some a minor wound or after a near miss. Hysteria can show up in the hospital or rear area. Sometimes it will appear when a soldier is told he must return and fight.

Anxiety States can affect a soldier's ability to sleep. No matter how much sleep or rest he gets he is always tired. His dreams may be plagued by nightmares and the soldier may become obsessed with death. He begins to fear he may be a coward, he might fail his men or comrades or others might find out he is a coward. Some of the symptoms of anxiety are shortness of breath, weakness, pain, blurred vision, giddiness, temporary paralyzation and fainting.

Another effect of Anxiety disorders is called PTSD or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Years after combat the soldier's blood pressure may rise dramatically along with sweating, nervousness and so on.

Obsessional and Complusive States are like Conversion Hysteria except the soldier is more aware of what is going on. The soldier understands that fear is causing everything but he cannot do anything about it. This can be manifested by uncontrollable tremors, palpitations, stammers, tics and so on. After a while the trooper may find some kind of hysteria that allows him to escape psychic responsibility for the physical symptoms.

Character Disorders are when a soldier becomes fixated on certain actions or things. Paranoia may include irascibility, depression and anxiety about his personal safety. Schizoids become hypersensitive and prefer to be alone. Epileptoid's become more prone to violent and sometimes unpredictable rages. Some become obsessed with religion and some become psychotic. In essence a person's very character has changed.

For more detail on they psychology of what goes on I highly recommend the book "On Killing" by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. The book is printed by Back Bay Books and goes into great detail on the different aspects of soldiers killing each other and killing in general. I would classify it as a must read.

What about kill or be killed?

My friend, that's exactly what war is. Kill or be killed. And yet you still see the many problematic areas soldiers encounter, as shown by this article.

War will always be kill or be killed. Now, if you know that your civilization is about to be utterly crushed (A la AMF's attacks) then quite a few points become moot. But there still would be battlefield stress, still would be psychological trauma, and there still would be a large lack of effective shooting by both trained soldiers and civilians.

Killing, you can be deconditioned to not wanting to kill, it just takes time and effort. Build yourself up over time to hating those you believe you'll one day have to be fighting (the federal government, NWO, etc)


If you show compassion for the enemy, you've already lost.

Arming the general populace gives the few that do choose to form a resistance a big supply base. It basically takes away the need to raid military arms depots like they do in Iraq in favor of having the weapons predistributed. It makes taking arms away from the resistance extremely difficult.

Its just a supply route change.

Arming the general populace gives the few that do choose to form a resistance a big supply base. It basically takes away the need to raid military arms depots like they do in Iraq in favor of having the weapons predistributed. It makes taking arms away from the resistance extremely difficult.

Its just a supply route change.

That is why I arm each household with a rifle and ammo. We train everyone on how to use it not expecting everyone to fight back. But the few who are ready and willing now have a gun at their disposal and every household around has a gun for use.

Arming the general populace gives the few that do choose to form a resistance a big supply base. It basically takes away the need to raid military arms depots like they do in Iraq in favor of having the weapons predistributed. It makes taking arms away from the resistance extremely difficult.

Its just a supply route change.

Right, I acknowledge that. But making every single civilian with a weapon suddenly become a 733T K1LL1N8 M4CH1N0RZ! is what this is trying to address. You won't have a high percentage actively fighting the enemy- or at lest not effectively.

Killing, you can be deconditioned to not wanting to kill, it just takes time and effort. Build yourself up over time to hating those you believe you'll one day have to be fighting (the federal government, NWO, etc)
If you show compassion for the enemy, you've already lost.
Errrm, sure. But if you somehow did that to all your civilians, better be prepared to RP all those serious psychological problems as soon as fighting starts. Or wait- even better, all the time. because if you've got a nation of killers, you've got one screwed up nation.

Let's take your nation for a moment DA. Your people hate all non-white, non-Christians. So, if a lot of those people invaded, your civilians would have less of an emotional distance. But just try it against white soldiers who have the smae religions. Poof! Lots of emotional distance.

So I'm not saying you can't arm civilians and that they won't ever be effective. Just nowhere near as effective as nearly everyone makes them out to be. Or as numerous or as lethal. They're kinda scary, not really scary like an enemy army.

ooc: screwed.

Every household has at least one individual that is mentally ready to kill in my nation. Someone that can kill, but has no gun, is better than someone with a gun that won't fire it.

I'm sure your professional sports scene is magnificent with that sort of crowd. I'd love to go to a hockey or rugby match.

No, really, though. I think you've missed the point of the article quoted by Samtonia. The problem is that it's very hard to find people willing to kill. Even in the professional RL militaries, few are truely willing. To make a blanket statement like *every* household has a natural borne killer inside is thus very hard to believe. Really, take another look at the article, and think about the realism of what you just said, versus the in-game convenience of having such a population.

Thank you Angelico. You have understood the gist of the article and the reasoning behind it entirely. My compliments to you.

And Mass PWnage, what about houses with grandpaernts and small children? Or nursing homes? Or orphanages? Your theory makes little sense when you look at it from those and many other perspectives.

ooc: screwed

It works. But you should have a higher crime rate from this....a lot higher violent crime rate and a ton more murders.

ooc: ALRIGHT! Screw it, I take my comment back.

With a nation full of trained killers? You can't be serious. If they have nothing holding them back from killing, there will be a high murder rate. No arguments. Otherwise, your murderous civilians suddenly just don't seem as murderous.

Right, I acknowledge that. But making every single civilian with a weapon suddenly become a 733T K1LL1N8 M4CH1N0RZ! is what this is trying to address. You won't have a high percentage actively fighting the enemy- or at lest not effectively.


Errrm, sure. But if you somehow did that to all your civilians, better be prepared to RP all those serious psychological problems as soon as fighting starts. Or wait- even better, all the time. because if you've got a nation of killers, you've got one screwed up nation.

Let's take your nation for a moment DA. Your people hate all non-white, non-Christians. So, if a lot of those people invaded, your civilians would have less of an emotional distance. But just try it against white soldiers who have the smae religions. Poof! Lots of emotional distance.

So I'm not saying you can't arm civilians and that they won't ever be effective. Just nowhere near as effective as nearly everyone makes them out to be. Or as numerous or as lethal. They're kinda scary, not really scary like an enemy army.



A lot of our citizens (probably 30-40%) consider non-Mississippians (even white Christians who aren't Mississippian) to be "Sub-humans" or even just animals/beasts without souls. This is a result of the Movement of Mississippian Supremacy and the successes it's had. But the Czar does denounce that movement as divisive of the white race.



Oh, and my nation does have a lot of problems with sadists, psychopaths, and brutal killers... But we just take them all and push them into the intelligence services (mainly in regards to interrogation squads)

That was a really interesting article, thanks!

ooc: Ok, my military slave division is made up of intensely loyal psychopaths, my skorpion raider corps and my skorpion inquisition are all psychopaths, sadists and nut jobs. But I can't say all my people are killers, many are downright pacifistic.

This is not an end-all thread. The main example in this is america, and things can change very much from this.

In chellis, for example, 99% of the population is atheist. They are brought up with little emotion. This is not to say they are machines, certainly not. However, their lives are very harsh, they are brought up with the idea that Chellis is first, they are secondary. Many brainwashing forms come into place.

They are also brought up with the idea that killing is often nessecary in good. While this does lead to a slightly higher murder rate in chellis, more of the murders are justified, at least by chellian courts.

Chellians see life in a way different than say an average american. They see it as a race to be the best. While this doesn't include all chellians, maybe 30% are off the average, most chellians would much rather kill someone, especially a non-chellian, than have their plans for their lives changed.

Chellians have to spend at least 2 years in the military, they get to choose between 16-26 to spend the two years. After this, all the men and women are always part of the chellian reserves. They train with their weapons and equipment for four weeks a year, in two sessions.

There are also many things that make such insurgency's easier. Many chellians reserves are trained in the use of AFV's, artillery, flying vehicles, etc. Large chellian exports of military equipment mean large surplus's of equipment. If the time came, these surplus vehicles could be cordoned off for chellian use, who are trained in their use. Chellian infantry weapons usually use optics, which as said, makes it seem less real in combat.

While not everyone would fight, a large number would. The ratio's for how many would actually fight in the military, and the chellian reserves, are just about equal. Chellis has one of the most advances reserves in the world, and a large part of the military budget goes to maintaining that.

I think it depend more on the culture, every nation would be different. Take Russia in WW2, or Spain in the napolionic wars both had large civilian surport.
Intersting article tho.

In P3X1299 dueling is legal. In the United States, the authorities have a tendency to frown on in. Then, there's the whole grenade launchers on cars issue too.

OOC:This is a good thread. Makes some very good points. My soldiers dont suffer battlefatigue unless they are wounded beyond fighting capacity(or killed, or become too old to fight). This is because of a special 'feature' I equip my soldiers(and intelligence agents) with. But my civilians on the other hand... they wont kill but will WELCOME invading army. Becuase, despite the constant propaganda, they have seen all the oppression they are under clearly. So even if threatened they will actually HELP the invading army. The only thing holding the Red Tide goverment together is The Consortium(my intellegince department), the military, and the Corporations(who dont want their wealth under the current goverment to go kaput).

OOC: You are aware that this article applies only to "Western" culture?
Some cultures throughout history have been less against the idea of killing, and quite often the citizens of these civilizations are ruthless and "heartless" when required.

These "Psychological problems" only really apply when the culture/civilization as a whole that the person grows up in disproves socially of the things required in these times.
Some nations could have their people so brainwashed into the national idology that they are spoonfed propaghanda from birth, and that there is no higher cause then the nation. Further, said nation could put time, money, and effort into training every civillian to use weapons, and supplying them with weapons, then the percentage of citizens being good in battle increases by quite a bit.
This is the only flaw in your claim that it godmoding. That this is subjective to the culture, and if someone puts the time and effort into RPing a nation that culturally different then the "Western world", then I think it's more then appropriate.
Of course.. I'm sure this is more directed to the "newbies" who don't realise that. In wich case I'd be inclined to agree.

OOC: You are aware that this article applies only to "Western" culture?
Some cultures throughout history have been less against the idea of killing, and quite often the citizens of these civilizations are ruthless and "heartless" when required.

These "Psychological problems" only really apply when the culture/civilization as a whole that the person grows up in disproves socially of the things required in these times.
Some nations could have their people so brainwashed into the national idology that they are spoonfed propaghanda from birth, and that there is no higher cause then the nation. Further, said nation could put time, money, and effort into training every civillian to use weapons, and supplying them with weapons, then the percentage of citizens being good in battle increases by quite a bit.
This is the only flaw in your claim that it godmoding. That this is subjective to the culture, and if someone puts the time and effort into RPing a nation that culturally different then the "Western world", then I think it's more then appropriate.
Of course.. I'm sure this is more directed to the "newbies" who don't realise that. In wich case I'd be inclined to agree.

I'm pretty sure that the intent of the thread is to educate those who might suddenly inform an invading player that "oh, so you're invading? Good luck, because I've equipped each house with an AK-74 and two clips. And an RPG-7. And four mean, mean ferrets."

I agree with your notes that the article is a bit ethnocentric. However, I disagree that any rational society could be trained as a society into effective warriors. So much energy would have to be dedicated towards such training that there would be no effective way to run an economy or even produce sufficient crops. Though it may theoretically be possible, it is by no means something that can be presumed. So I think Sam's message is that, if you want to have an armed population of any consequence, have it justified before hand, and understand the (considerable) limitations on their effectiveness.

I'm pretty sure that the intent of the thread is to educate those who might suddenly inform an invading player that "oh, so you're invading? Good luck, because I've equipped each house with an AK-74 and two clips. And an RPG-7. And four mean, mean ferrets."

I agree with your notes that the article is a bit ethnocentric. However, I disagree that any rational society could be trained as a society into effective warriors. So much energy would have to be dedicated towards such training that there would be no effective way to run an economy or even produce sufficient crops. Though it may theoretically be possible, it is by no means something that can be presumed. So I think Sam's message is that, if you want to have an armed population of any consequence, have it justified before hand, and understand the (considerable) limitations on their effectiveness.

OOC: Well, four mean ferrets per household would certianly scare me out of any nation.. those things can get viscious.
But yea, these consequences come at what cost? What disadvantage? Remember, what one nation sees as an advantage, another may see as the opposite, and vice versa. Like say, US health care versus Cuban health care.
The nation will inevatibly work itself out in a way that it can accecpt, and still keep the crazy armed every-day person.
Also, not quite as much would have to be spent towards such training as you may think. Take this little made uo situation for an example.
A nation could have the training begin with school, in fact, it could be the "physical education" or gym class. You could remove such classes that may nit be considered "needed" by such a nation, like say art class, music, or other classes that have no real meaning on a non-artistic society.
Perhaps a modern Sparta would be the best example?

Well the way I see it is if I put an M-14 in every household with 100 rounds. Train the household how to use it. I have 747 Million Citizens right now. And 5 Percent are in the Military for 37.35 Million Troops either active or reserve (we draft a certain percentage that varies from year to year of people, anyone in active force has to serve in reserve. In active force for minimum of 6 years). That leaves 709.65 People not in the military. And Average of 4 citizens per household. That is around 186 Million Households with a gun. Or 186 Million Extra Guns and 18.6 Billion Rounds of Ammo to use, not including the weapons people can buy on their own. Now if I believe that one in fifty people will be willing to fight that is still 14.193 Million extra Troops. If I take even 1 in 100 willing to fight that is Extra 7.0965 Million Extra Troops. If I even take 1 in 500 willing to fight and kill that is an extra 1.4193 Million Troops. And while these people will not be as effective and get killed more than trained troops, I will still have a large resistance force working in my favor, and this force will have a ready supply of weapons and ammo already through out the country. Because even if people are not willing to fight some will gladly help by supplying weapons and than others can be obtained throug theft. That is my theory on having a weapon in every household.

Yeah, but, Mr.Resistance (Nutropinia) you already have a crippling number of people in the military... your society must be geared towards supporting the regular army. It must by hyper-isolated, like North Korea, in order to justify this. If its people can see the outside world, they will realise that they are being lied to about the threats beyond, and they will desert en masse, as in Russia. This isolation will entail severe technical disadvantage against foreign powers, and will see your regular forces crippled in days (of combat with more reasonable forces). After such a shocking defeat, the civilian populace will be horribly demoralised, and will lack the soul-breaking training to continue the fight. That is, save the 1% or 0.1% of people who happen to be sociopathic, and quite possibly already in prison.

Yugoslavia trained several percent of its population to fight in defence of the federation.

Where is Yugoslavia, now?

While Axis Nova doesn't actively encourage a civilian militia, we do have a very liberal stance on firearms-- civilians can own just about any modern tech arm, and civilian vehicles are sold with weapons installed as factory standard (as per Car Wars). Duels (and autoduels) are common methods to settle disputes.

There are some limitations on the weapons allowed (mostly limits on maximum barrel size for guns, and max size period for missiles, and a ban on linear weapons except for police) to keep things reasonable, though. For people who don't want to drive offensively, there's always the very safe public transportation *shrug*

I also don't agree with the civilian killing machine that some nations have. Good article.

Yeah, but, Mr.Resistance (Nutropinia) you already have a crippling number of people in the military... your society must be geared towards supporting the regular army. It must by hyper-isolated, like North Korea, in order to justify this. If its people can see the outside world, they will realise that they are being lied to about the threats beyond, and they will desert en masse, as in Russia. This isolation will entail severe technical disadvantage against foreign powers, and will see your regular forces crippled in days (of combat with more reasonable forces). After such a shocking defeat, the civilian populace will be horribly demoralised, and will lack the soul-breaking training to continue the fight. That is, save the 1% or 0.1% of people who happen to be sociopathic, and quite possibly already in prison.

Yugoslavia trained several percent of its population to fight in defence of the federation.

Where is Yugoslavia, now?

Most of that percentage is in the reserve. Probably one percent are active with 4% in the reserves. We have alot of weaponry but most is in storage or in quays on light duty for use by the reserves if a battle comes.

OOC I like this article.

The article is excellent for a modern US/ Western Europe mentality /society/ culture.

However as some have noted it does depend on the culture for the individual reaction and the national reaction.

In Switzerland every man must do military service and afterwards keep a rifle and x amount of ammo at his residence - I don't see their crime rates soaring, or mental health crumbling.

If you want to take a look at a fictional society take a look at S.M. Sterlings Drakka books.

Ah, but, Tanara, can you actually say how many of those Swiss will take up their weapon when France/Italy/Germany invades and crushes the regular military? I mean, that's not going to happen, but in NS, seriously, it might. The point, I think, is that most of those armed citizens won't choose to use their arms. I'm sorry, but if you can look me in the eyes and shoot me dead, you're a sociopath. I don't care for how long you've owned a gun. I've fired an assault rifle, but I wouldn't be so keen to squeeze the trugger if said rifle were pointed at a real human being. Same goes for 95/98/99% of Swiss people.

OOC: Thanks very much for the highly informative and interesting article!

I do have to agree that it's very culture-specific... as someone else pointed out, Switzerland has no standing army, but requires every male to have have an Assault Rifle and ammunition in the house, and they seem to doing pretty well for themselves.

In an NS example, Roycelandia has compulsory firearms ownership. Having said that, that doesn't mean every house in the country has an M-16 and enough ammo to take out the entire North Vietnamese Army.

Hunting and target shooting are by far and away the most popular sports in Roycelandia, so most of the guns owned are either Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifles, L1A1 SLRs, Pump Action Shotguns, or various hunting and target rifles, as well as MilSurp rifles and handguns.

There are no Arms Laws per se (besides the fact that people with mental problems and persons convicted of serious, serious crimes may not own anything bigger than an airgun), and so there are people (as there are in most countries) who beleive in exercising their ability to own an armoury full of automatic weapons, a Main Battle Tank, and an AA Gun, as well as keeping a Stinger shoulder-launched missile in their car boot.

Having said that, your "Average" Roycelandian is NOT an "OMG 5up3r 1337-455 501|>13r". Yes, they're armed, but most of them regard their gun in much the same way you or I would regard a Cricket Bat or a Baseball Bat, or a Tennis Racquet- as a tool or implement for their sport, not something to put down a rebellion with or fight off an invading army.

Even the Colonial and Imperial Guard, whilst extremely well trained, are not given to actually killing people if they can help it. The official doctrine is "Aim to incapacitate", at least where possible. Volley Fire is still used to help lessen the individual sense of "Oh shit, I just shot that guy!", with one of the more effective uses being against the Arab Raiders led by Akhmed Fu'qari in the Roycelandian Sudan. Volley Fire has also been employed against Gabonaise Rebels in Gabon, the Lusakans (and Communist Rebels) during the recent African Commonwealth Emergency, and many other people who find themselve on the wrong end of the Imperial Guard's Self-Loading Lee-Enfield rifles...

Fortunately, Roycelandia isn't under threat of invasion at the moment, so all this is really academic in our case... :D

Nations that are kidnapping newborns, or growing clones, and raising them as killing machines will, of course, have fewer (if any) morale problems among their (highly expensive) killing machines.

The bulk of Collapsia's army serve in a police capacity, or as support for Collapsia's main troops, who are the aforementioned killing machines. The main troops are a small fraction of their ground troops.

Just one way to all but eliminate morale problems.

Ah, but, Tanara, can you actually say how many of those Swiss will take up their weapon when France/Italy/Germany invades and crushes the regular military? I mean, that's not going to happen, but in NS, seriously, it might. The point, I think, is that most of those armed citizens won't choose to use their arms. I'm sorry, but if you can look me in the eyes and shoot me dead, you're a sociopath. I don't care for how long you've owned a gun. I've fired an assault rifle, but I wouldn't be so keen to squeeze the trugger if said rifle were pointed at a real human being. Same goes for 95/98/99% of Swiss people.

Beth Gellert does what I said afterward make more sense about 5% being in the Military, 1% in active, 4% in reserves.

Ah, but, Tanara, can you actually say how many of those Swiss will take up their weapon when France/Italy/Germany invades and crushes the regular military? I mean, that's not going to happen, but in NS, seriously, it might. The point, I think, is that most of those armed citizens won't choose to use their arms. I'm sorry, but if you can look me in the eyes and shoot me dead, you're a sociopath. I don't care for how long you've owned a gun. I've fired an assault rifle, but I wouldn't be so keen to squeeze the trugger if said rifle were pointed at a real human being. Same goes for 95/98/99% of Swiss people.

Most people model their nations at least a good amount after their personal beliefs(not all, but most...). Call me a sociopath if you wish, but I'm the kind of person who could do that kind of thing. Again, it depends on the person, not all are the same, same with the nations culture, etc.

OOC: I would do it if it meant my own or my families survival or if my nation/beliefs were being threatened.

Beth Gellert does what I said afterward make more sense about 5% being in the Military, 1% in active, 4% in reserves.

I may be misreading -I am really quite drunk, now- but I think that this makes more sense. I mean, in the real world it would still be very militaristic of you, but in Nation States there are a lot more threats hanging about, so it makes more sense.

I don't have anything more to add in regards to the people who think that they could shoot to kill time and again in a combat situation, without any training, and that their friend, their other friend, and their dad could also do the same. I mean, I could say, "Yeah, you're just flat wrong" but why bother, really? BG is in a more realistic RP group (with Roycelandia) so it doesn't bother me how much you godmod or misunderstand the human condition. Have a beer and read a book, I say.

(Budwiser, Clancey, Carling, Grisham, and Fosters don't count, by the way.)

BG, I don't mis understand the human condition - I am a student of it, and a part of it - like all of us here on NS - and I am a distinct advocate AGAINST godmod - I was merely giving an example of a nation where the men are required to keep weapons. Just having weapons and the basic training to use them doesn't mean you will I agree.

I'm sorry, but if you can look me in the eyes and shoot me dead, you're a sociopath.

If you put me in a position where it was defense of self or a third party...then label me a sociopath

Though Dellaltya is very much a 'western' nation, I would think that our population would be very resistant to any invasion attempts. I have modeled the Empire on Nazi Germany (because I'm a sadistic bastard) and have extremely focused on the youth education aspects... After passing prenatal and postnatal eugenics tests, every Dellaltyan child is enrolled in the national schools from age 4 to age 20. From age 4 to 14, the education is academic-based, with some physical training and lots of brainwashing. At age 15, however, the youth are divided between academics (who will be in the higher schools until age 30) and the average Joes. The Joes will train in military style for five years with less emphasis placed on education until they are released at age 20.

The current (obscenely fascist) government has been in control for 87 years to date. The last generation that wasn't raised according to the Party standards died 20 years ago. This means we have approximately three living generations who are trained in firearms use and maintenance, wilderness survival, and militaristic discipline. They are also fiercely loyal to Dellaltya. I expect that at least 35% of the civilian population would gladly take up arms for the fatherland if worst came to worst. Psychological conditioning is easily the most important part of troop training, and I think that our populace is very adequately conditioned.