Drone pilots are showing signs of PTSD and many are quitting!

Ralphy1

Ralphy1

Well-known Member
Killing from afar that seems like a video game has taken a toll on involved Air Force personnel, especially when civilians are blown away. Perhaps this new method of warfare is not the panacea the U.S. had hoped for to avoid any blood and gore on our side...
 

QuickSilver said:
Guess maybe some people don't get a shiver up their leg from taking a life..
Click to expand...

That's very true, and especially when it's justified. When it comes down to a situation where it's you or them, only the saints and martyrs feel remorse for acting to protect their own lives and those of others.

I won't say you don't feel the physical after-effects - just that you won't beat yourself up mentally for the rest of your life. That isn't what true warriors do.
 
I deal/dealt with elite warriors on a regular basis, while not all of them exhibit signs of PTSD, none of them escape without mental or emotional scars, except of course, the psychopaths. Psychopaths are often among the best soldiers, organized, fearless, not hindered in any way by constraints of empathy or conscience. They will definitely get the job done, providing you don't object to their often vicious tactics, or their penchant for often removing even their friends/allies if it suits them.
 
SifuPhil said:
That's very true, and especially when it's justified. When it comes down to a situation where it's you or them, only the saints and martyrs feel remorse for acting to protect their own lives and those of others.

I won't say you don't feel the physical after-effects - just that you won't beat yourself up mentally for the rest of your life. That isn't what true warriors do.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people there for "a" job and/or resume time for another job. They are also smart enough to see the repetitive nature of their jobs and/or the lack of impact or results.

They are exactly that-NOT a career or true warrior.
 
Shalimar said:
... Psychopaths are often among the best soldiers, organized, fearless, not hindered in any way by constraints of empathy or conscience. They will definitely get the job done, providing you don't object to their often vicious tactics, or their penchant for often removing even their friends/allies if it suits them.
Click to expand...

More like high-functioning sociopaths, no?

The vicious tactics - that's something that has bothered me most of my life. Not the employment of them (when necessary), but the brouhaha raised by the pacifists and the liberals. It's like that line in the movie A Few Good Men -

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
Click to expand...

WhatInThe said:
There are a lot of people there for "a" job and/or resume time for another job. They are also smart enough to see the repetitive nature of their jobs and/or the lack of impact or results.

They are exactly that-NOT a career or true warrior.
Click to expand...

Quite true.
 
Ralphy1 said:
Killing from afar that seems like a video game has taken a toll on involved Air Force personnel, especially when civilians are blown away. Perhaps this new method of warfare is not the panacea the U.S. had hoped for to avoid any blood and gore on our side...
Click to expand...

Gotta be a hell of a lot easier than hand-to-hand fighting up close and personal with a bayonet!
 
Butterfly said:
Gotta be a hell of a lot easier than hand-to-hand fighting up close and personal with a bayonet!
Click to expand...

Historically it seems we're going further and further away from hand-to-hand combat and into death-by-remote-control-robots.

Maybe that's a good thing - I don't know ... now if the robots could all fight each other that would be great! :encouragement:
 
The vicious tactics - that's something that has bothered me most of my life. Not the employment of them (when necessary), but the brouhaha raised by the pacifists and the liberals. It's like that line in the movie A Few Good Men - [/qoute]

So what is it about Conservatives that makes them vicious, and callous? Is there honor in blood lust?
Click to expand...
 
QuickSilver said:
So what is it about Conservatives that makes them vicious, and callous? Is there honor in blood lust?
Click to expand...

I would call them "realistic".

Honor and blood-lust are two VERY disparate thoughts, although it is true that at times they have joined together.

Shalimar said:
QS, I think for some, the end justifies the means?
Click to expand...

To put it simply - if someone is trying to kill me or mine, I will try my hardest to kill them first. By any means. So yes, the end in that case would require (but perhaps not legally justify) the means.

It's like that old joke about a Conservative just being a Liberal who was mugged - in order to hold certain views you had to have experienced certain scenarios in your life. Otherwise there is no shared frame of reference.
 
SifuPhil said:
I would call them "realistic".

Honor and blood-lust are two VERY disparate thoughts, although it is true that at times they have joined together.



To put it simply - if someone is trying to kill me or mine, I will try my hardest to kill them first. By any means. So yes, the end in that case would require (but perhaps not legally justify) the means.

It's like that old joke about a Conservative just being a Liberal who was mugged - in order to hold certain views you had to have experienced certain scenarios in your life. Otherwise there is no shared frame of reference.
Click to expand...


Could that be an oversimplification of war in general? Like who was trying to kill 'you' when the USA invaded Iraq? Or who was trying to kill who when the Ukrainians decided to stage a coup and then murdered those 45 protestors in Odessa? How many wars has the USA been involved in in the last twenty five years and how many times were your citizens attacked? And before you answer, just remember that Obama drew his 'line in the sand' with Syria and was probably days away from attacking until Russia mediated and yet Syria hadn't attacked you at all.
 
It's a different time, it's a different enemy, it's a completely different technology, but I don't think our young men and women are any less courage than their predecessors.
 
Last edited:
With respect, Phil, I have personally experienced multiple scenarios of extreme violence in my life, some of it life-threatening in the extreme, yet my response has been to increase my liberal stance. Clearly there are other factors that come into play around this contentious issue.
 
Debby said:
Is anybody 'cut out for killing people'?
Click to expand...

Some more so than others, I believe.

Debby said:
Could that be an oversimplification of war in general? Like who was trying to kill 'you' when the USA invaded Iraq? Or who was trying to kill who when the Ukrainians decided to stage a coup and then murdered those 45 protestors in Odessa? How many wars has the USA been involved in in the last twenty five years and how many times were your citizens attacked? And before you answer, just remember that Obama drew his 'line in the sand' with Syria and was probably days away from attacking until Russia mediated and yet Syria hadn't attacked you at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not judging the right or wrong of a country - I'm talking about what constitutes the physical, mental and emotional abilities of individual warriors. A warrior has no choice but to obey their commander, whether the orders they receive are moral or not.

It's what they do once they are in a combat situation, for whatever reasons, that I'm interested in here - not politics.
 
AZ Jim said:
It's a different time, it's a different enemy, it's a completely different technology, but I don't think our young men and women are any lees courage as their predecessors.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because there are far less of them now, thus they will make up a higher percentage; maybe it's because of their more liberal upbringings; but whatever the reason I think there is a far higher number of those who object to killing.
 
Shalimar said:
With respect, Phil, I have personally experienced multiple scenarios of extreme violence in my life, some of it life-threatening in the extreme, yet my response has been to increase my liberal stance. Clearly there are other factors that come into play around this contentious issue.
Click to expand...

No doubt. I realize I'm only aiming at one factor, but it's one that resonates with my background of martial arts.

It would be interesting to hear how you became more liberal after your trials and travails, though. ;)
 
SifuPhil said:
... or perhaps the current generation of warriors are just not cut out for that kind of work ...
Click to expand...

An old friend of ours, a Kiwi and real diamond in the rough, was haunted by memories of flying just one bombing mission over Germany at the end of WW II. He was troubled by the children who were under the bombs.

Dealing death at a distance can be just as disturbing to the mind as hand to hand combat . At least the latter can be justified by the 'kill or be killed' maxim. Harder to do when you are ordered to kill unknown people at a distance. Worse when it becomes clear that the wrong target was hit.
 
SifuPhil said:
Maybe it's because there are far less of them now, thus they will make up a higher percentage; maybe it's because of their more liberal upbringings; but whatever the reason I think there is a far higher number of those who object to killing.
Click to expand...

It would be a good thing for the world if everyone objected to killing.
 
There is a high for some in war and killing. Just read "American Sniper" written by Chris Kyle. He loved war and he loved killing, and he was not an anomoly as many of the SEAlS and guys from other branches couldn't wait to "get some." Maybe it it is a good thing to have a military and continuous war to allow these guys a place to legally exercise their violent impulses...
 
Dame Warrigal said:
... Dealing death at a distance can be just as disturbing to the mind as hand to hand combat . At least the latter can be justified by the 'kill or be killed' maxim. Harder to do when you are ordered to kill unknown people at a distance. Worse when it becomes clear that the wrong target was hit.
Click to expand...

That's true. But then facing an assailant with a knife can be more terrifying than one with a gun - it's a much closer encounter. Certainly eliminating the wrong target can be troublesome to the mind - maybe that's why they use the sterile term "collateral damage".

AZ Jim said:
It would be a good thing for the world if everyone objected to killing.
Click to expand...

It would, but just like the idea of "improving" the world by removing religion, I'm not sure it's at all feasible. Besides, some of us still believe that there are certain people that would be better off removed from the face of the earth ...

Dame Warrigal said:
"A journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step" - Chairman Mao

"From little things, big things grow" - Paul Kelly
Click to expand...

Excellent warriors are not violent. [Tao Te Ching chapter 68]

Excellent soldiers are not furious. [Tao Te Ching chapter 68]


Excellent conquerors do not engage. [Tao Te Ching chapter 68]



Ralphy1 said:
There is a high for some in war and killing. Just read "American Sniper" written by Chris Kyle. He loved war and he loved killing, and he was not an anomoly as many of the SEAlS and guys from other branches couldn't wait to "get some." Maybe it it is a good thing to have a military and continuous war to allow these guys a place to legally exercise their violent impulses...
Click to expand...

I thought that's what professional hockey was for ...
 
Not even close, unfortunately...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top