Dealing with that fact that you may kill someone while in the Military

I think it is from the relative safety of the button pushers and the plexiglas cockpits where the soaked sheet nightmares are more likely to begin.

USNA69,

this is interesting because i'd like to select SNA or SNFO and i've thought about the mission of these pilots and the enemies they kill. and how as a christian, i could deal and reconcile that.

is the above spoken from 1st hand experience? i mean, as a former navy pilot, did you find it harder to cope with the death you were dealing than perhaps an infantry soldier in the battlefield?
 
Yes, more educated about what combat is all about. Listen to what some of the PTSD patients are saying.

Perhaps you need to read up on the IDF before before you start telling me about combat. :unhappy:
 
Answer to your question SemperExcelsius, here's the Coast Guard Motto\/\/

"The Coast Guard is the hard nucleus about which the Navy forms in times of war" Sir,
 
Uh. Ouch. This is gonna be a hot topic. I would like to see this subject conversed about without insult as it is one of THE most important issues facing our young service men & women of today. Please try to keep it civil. We have the opportunity to learn from one another here.

What are ya'lls thoughts on the recent incident involving the MSC ship in the Suez canal? I truly think that since the USS Cole attack, Captains of US ships have good reason to fear the small peddler type vessels in the water near our ships. I understand the confusion on the part of the "locals" not realizing it was an actual contracted Naval vessel. I will admit that I would have fired the warning shots as well.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/25/suez.incident/

it's definitely a sad tragedy, if that person did die, but i think read in another article about this that the ship crew was following the laws of warfare and all by firing that warning.
 
Yep. They were. I know the USNS Comfort, another MSC ship, fired the same warnings as to the local vessels that got too close when they were around Latin America. Made me feel better. Geez, ya just never know so I would have been manning the guns doing the warning shots.
 
Last edited:
The Coast Guard (and when we're talking about the US Coast Guard, it's capitalized) IS currently involved in the war, and maintains PSUs, LEDETs, and a group of 110' cutters in the Gulf.

The Coast Guard has never been part of the Department of Defense, and during WWII was in the Dept. of the Treasury.

When directed by the President, during a time of war, the Coast Guard MAY fall under the direction of the Navy. This is very much to have a unified naval fleet and hasn't happened in quite some time. Again, not part of the Navy, and not part of DoD, just under the direction of the Sec. of the Navy.

True, the Coast Guard had a very active role in both World Wars, however the location of the current conflict wouldn't warrant the mass movement of Coast Guard vessels to augment the US Navy in the area.

Finally, it's important to remember that while the war is fought over seas, we lost 3,000 right here at home because of an attack, four attacks in three locations. If we remember this is the Global War on Terror, the battle could find it's way anywhere. Where are our largest, most populated cities? On the coast, and they're port cities....Los Angeles/Long Beach, New York, Baltimore, Boston, Houston, Seattle, Miami, and Philadelphia to name a few. Are those attractive targets? I would think so, and this has been discussed in the media at length.
 
"110% don't mean any disrespect to coast guardmen by this, but i wonder if more of them would be struggling with themselves if in some future conflict, the coast guard had to take an active part as they did in ww2. "


I'm trying to figure out exactly what is meant by "struggling with themselves" means.


Can you please expand on that? I may be just reading it the wrong way.
 
A couple of things here --

When my daughter visited the USCGA - in their own presentation they mentioned one of the aspects of CG service was they were in the business of saving lives, rather than taking lives. This was supposed to somehow make the parents feel better.
Later in the same program - they mentioned that as an officer they would not HAVE to go to Iraq - in fact there was a waiting list for CG officers to be deployed to the Persian Gulf. It is a great career move. The irony was not lost on me.

What VMINROTChopeful was saying is that IF the time came and the CG came under the Dept of the Navy - how would CG officers who have issues with offensive combat reconcile that?
It is a good question.

I personally have no issues with Luigi's son's reasons for choosing Coast Guard - however most folks in the Air Force are NOT killing people. Nor the Army for that matter. Even pilots there are lots of flying jobs that do not involve combat. One could always choose to fly cargo planes, for instance. My dad flew a bomber in the Air Force. He flew recon. A camera in the belly in lieu of a bomb. They took pictures and were defenseless. Could not have killed if they wanted to - but he was called a baby-killer anyway.

Luigi - the thought that choosing CG to avoid a personal conflict with offensive combat can come off high handed. There is at least one person on this forum who is serving in Baghdad right now- as we speak. There are parents who have or will have children serving in war - lucky for you, you won't have to live the anguish.
We have to be careful what we post and how we post it. On this pro-military forum we certainly don't want to be presenting ourselves as "holier-than-thou" for choosing a non-combative branch of the military.

Now - this is becoming rather disjointed - sorry. Finally, there are many fine reasons to choose the CG as a service. If one has a serious issue with killing people either defensively or offensively, they might want to think long and hard - you just never know what your country is going to call you to do.
 
"110% don't mean any disrespect to coast guardmen by this, but i wonder if more of them would be struggling with themselves if in some future conflict, the coast guard had to take an active part as they did in ww2. "


I'm trying to figure out exactly what is meant by "struggling with themselves" means.


Can you please expand on that? I may be just reading it the wrong way.

what it mean is that i imagine that many U.S. Coast Guardsmen (ok? :shake:) signup to defend america's shores and ports. i'm guessing that quiet a few view themselves as policemen and not soldiers. but historically, the U.S. Coast Guard has also had more active roles in wartime where tens of thousands of U.S. Coast Guardmen have died in battle however that is defined.

so i could imagine that if we ever got in a really major war, the average U.S. Coast Guardsman will be very upset to be put under the command of the Secretary of the Navy. More than let's say the average airforce, navy or army soldier, who expects to have to fight, or should expect it. my example of the video is that even for those that sign up in services like the army, navy or air force, who should know they can end up on the battlefield, sometimes runaway to canada. not that they necessarily get cold feet, but they start thinking about whether the war is just and other such stuff. i am sure every U.S. Coast Guardsman is patriotic and loves his or her country- i don't doubt that for a minute! but many of them probably signed up to in their view "defend". wouldn't being called to participate actively in a major war be a big strain on the U.S. Coast Guard and the brave men and women that serve in it?
 
If those service members cannot reconcile the fact that their mission is to kill (whether to save lives or not), then they need to reconsider their profession.

The above statement could be considered extremely harmful for candidates considering a military career. Please do not feel that this is something that, unless you can reconcile it at the present, you have no place in the military. Some need help. Some need rationalization. Some cope quietly. It is a personal thing. You will most likely come to grips with it.
 
I don't really agree with much of that, but I'll explain why.


First, once you are out there, you don't really classify yourself as "a policeman" or a "port security guy (ok, PS is a rate)", because the Coast Guard is multimission, we don't generally define ourselves by the mission, but more as a subculture...aka, a Cutterman (career ship driver), or an Airdale (pilot), Coxswain (small boat station guy).

I do agree that the entire Coast Guard has had a greater role in the past for past wars, but as for those serving now...

PATFORSWA is HARD to get. Those billets are some of the most competative billets out there, especially for my rank. My unit has 76 members attached. In that group, my last CO an (O-6) is now the Commodore of CG afloat assets in the Gulf, my old Ops (O-3) was a member of a LEDET deployed to the Gulf, I have had three guys this year alone leave for units over there, and have a guy who applies EVERY time he can, but still hasn't been able to go. They augmented the officer billeting for them too, where a usual 110' (Island class patrol boat) would have an O-3 CO and O-2 XO, they have senior O-3 COs, an O-2 XO, and an O-2 OPS. This isn't something the Hooligan Navy would shy away from.

I can also assure you that Coast Guardsman realize it's a branch of the military as soon as they step off the bus in Cape May. Police don't head out to sea for 2 months, 3 months, or 6 months at a time, Coasties do.

Death tolls were no where near tens of thousands in WWII for the Coast Guard. If you consider that the Coast Guard currently has around 35,000 members, you can imagine what "tens of thousands" would mean for a service of that size.

Does the Coast Guard have policing powers? Absolutely, and derives that authority from 14USC89, however do not be duped into thinking (although a "senior" member has attempted to relegate the CG mission to "playing policeman") that Coasties don't see their mission as a little more than your water cops. Each of us knows many Coast Guardsman currently serving overseas, in the Persian Gulf.
 
so i could imagine that if we ever got in a really major war, the average U.S. Coast Guardsman will be very upset to be put under the command of the Secretary of the Navy.

For a different reason that you're probably guessing right now, yes.:wink:
 
Death tolls were no where near tens of thousands in WWII for the Coast Guard. If you consider that the Coast Guard currently has around 35,000 members, you can imagine what "tens of thousands" would mean for a service of that size.

thanks for your comments!

sorry, i was definitely wrong. wikipedia says less than 2000 U.S. Coast Guardsmen were killed in ww2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

interesting to see that back then the U.S. Coast Guard had almost a quarter of a million Coast Guardsmen when today it has 35,000. our country's borders haven't gotten any shorter so i guess that means you guys are busier than ever! :biggrin:
 
USNA69,

this is interesting because i'd like to select SNA or SNFO and i've thought about the mission of these pilots and the enemies they kill. and how as a christian, i could deal and reconcile that.

is the above spoken from 1st hand experience? i mean, as a former navy pilot, did you find it harder to cope with the death you were dealing than perhaps an infantry soldier in the battlefield?

I think as a Christian society you have posed a question way to deep for a simple forum post response. First off, my perspective. I am from a different generation. Before I first went off to war, the military history that I had studied in school was not too different than back in Medieval times when knights faced each other with lances. Your enemy was in direct sight, right in front of you, similarly armed and it was a survival of the fittest. Wars were just, usually involving physical borders, and not a lot of ethical and moral quandary about the whole episode. Moral quandaries usually involved the senselessness of it all, specifically dealing more with buddies dying than killing the enemy. You who grew up during the Cold War probably have an entirely different outlook on war.

Okay, a little background about me. My first tour in Vietnam was a grunt. I was a team leader for an electronic ground sensor team, monitoring infiltration along the Cambodian border, just north of Saigon. I was ambushed, I set up ambushes, and I “pushed the button”. This is more retrospect than anything. Maybe as a team leader I was remiss, but we didn’t talk about it much at the time. However, when we were ambushed, the goal was very defined. Get everyone’s ass home safely. Back at base, it usually involved a silent round of hugs and then, if the threat level was yellow or below (we really didn’t have that back then), we all got drunk. We set up claymore mine ambushes on ‘mules’ carrying supplies from North Vietnam into the Saigon area. Most didn’t even carry weapons. A successful mission usually caused a lot more introspective soul searching and any drunkedness was usually alone and not celebratory. I occasionally ‘pushed the button’ by calling in artillery and air strikes. The following day’s body count usually left me with the ‘the poor SOBs never knew what hit them’ . The air and artillery strikes which I had read about and studied as a teenager never involved an air strike as a result of a little electronic device buried along some trail and an enemy who never knew what hit him. Very much more introspective. This is where I developed my rationalization that I was saving lives.

My subsequent tour to Vietnam, I was an ‘airdale’. Combat SAR off the carriers. I suppose this might be more akin to someone joining the Coast Guard to save lives instead of kill people. However, the bad guys did not want us to save lives. No moral or ethical qualms whatsoever. Save a life or be killed. Nothing to think about.. The late night double double slider mid rats with the jet jocks also did not reveal any particular angst. The SAMs and Migs made it very akin to the knights with lances on horseback.

Fast forward to IAF and basically a Plexiglas cockpit with no real opposition. Pilots talk about the ‘golden BB’, the indiscriminate less than lethal round that somehow, against all odds, knocks them out of the sky. Maybe they now need this if they are schooled in the old knight vs knight warfare mindset. There is still someone out there trying to get them. I have watched my son, who flew the first carrier based flight of OIF and is on his third deployment over Iraq, mature from someone who was daily dodging SAMs and AA, to someone who, not to down play it too much, is a UPS delivery guy delivering bombs, rockets, and 20mm. His mindset has become the same as mine when knocking out the unarmed ordnance laden NVA troops in Vietnam. With every enemy and with every piece of ordnance destroyed, he is saving the lives of friendlies. Actually, his emails and phone calls in re successful missions usually begin with “well, I saved a few/some/a lot of lives today.

It is a factor. Whether more so in this modern standoff electronic age, is open for debate. There was a recent article in a magazine about UAVs and the operators have to be reminded occasionally that they are not playing video games. The attitude from a few members of this forum that one should either suck it up or they do not belong in the military, is extremely naïve.
 
Last edited:
All the services have a place in defending our country and freedoms. I'm assuming that all the servicemen and servicewomen in all the branches have thought about the possibility that they may have to kill another human being in the line of duty and have chosen to accept that responsibility.

I'd be more disturbed if a serviceman/woman was not affected by having to kill someone. After all, hasn't this war on terror shown that our enemies have no such remorse or conscience?

I've not served in the military, but I'm grateful for all the dedicated men and women, past, present and future, who have chosen and will choose to serve.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke
 
There will never be an honest, frank, and open discussion of this topic, it seems to frighten and bother some parents and candidates, hitting a little too close to home for some.

"Out of sight, out of mind" is not going to serve them in the future either.
 
Back
Top