Comment by aksss | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aksss | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I may get downvoted into oblivion for saying this, but -- I think it's wishful thinking to imagine soldiers will make the 'right' decision when the call comes. During the Tiananmen Square debacle/massacre, interviews with people there indicate that many/most never imagined the "people's" army would act against them - they were considered on the same side. Yet act against them they did. Similarly, I think you see some of the comments from RCMP about recent horse tramplings, etc and are pretty shocked that these guys are all in on state use of force. I'm not singling out the RCMP, because you can see it in the US policing and probably any country (remember the t-shirt, "We get up early to beat the crowds"?), but it's a fresh example. People like to think those in the military and police are our neighbors and thus must be "on our side", and some are - but you gotta remember that these guys are purposefully trained to obey, and suffer a lot of hardship daily seeing the worst examples of society's degradation - such that "restoration of order" and "compliance" are righteous causes that they all too frequently cannot affect. The opportunity comes and maybe they're all too ready/eager to do so - pent up frustration and all. Again, I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush or make absolutist statements, but if that guy's job is to hit the "launch" button, rest assured that he's been through a few powerpoint presentations coaching him on how to deal with his second thoughts in the moment and been exposed to a lot of conditioning to impress expectations upon him. For "men of action", whether state-sponsored or not, part of the training/learning process is to be able to turn off visceral reaction and just get the job done - you are practiced in recognizing inconvenient and distracting thoughts as an impediment that you can power through, the same as a runner trains himself to break through bonking. So not only are we talking about individuals acting in opposition to their understood purpose in life, but add to that the social/peer pressure in the moment, add to that the guy with the 1911 pointed at his head when he shows hesitation. shrug

I agree. For every example of soldiers ethically disobeying orders there are dozens or even hundreds of examples where they; followed through, carried that violence beyond its stated ends and even initiated it themselves with the tacit but not explicit approval of their commanders.

It's nice to believe everyone is thinking their orders through but militaries exist to get people to do violence and they are often very good at their intended purpose. They explicitly seek to drive individualism out of people in order to ensure high discipline in uncertain circumstances when that discipline is most necessary.

Thank God there are multiple real world examples of officers getting the order to fire a nuke and disobeying it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

That i not an example of subordinate disobedience in the face of a clear retaliatory order. From the article

> Unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, three officers on board B-59 had to agree unanimously to authorize a nuclear launch: Captain Savitsky, the political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and the chief of staff of the flotilla (and executive officer of B-59) Arkhipov.

Arkhipov had authority to veto the order. What's more, the captain was assuming war had begun and had no order from above to attack.

>During the Tiananmen Square debacle/massacre, interviews with people there indicate that many/most never imagined the "people's" army would act against them - they were considered on the same side.

I don't think even Tiananmen is quite as cut-and-dry as you're making it out.

There were at least half a dozen generals who risked execution to publicly oppose the attack, and many of the commanders instructed their soldiers not to open fire on the crowds. The insubordination went down to the level of the individual soldier, and if more than a tiny minority of soldiers (namely the 27th army) had actually, genuinely been following orders then the casualties would be orders of magnitude higher than they were.

At least that's what I've heard from people who witnessed it.

I’m merely relaying what I’ve heard from people who were there describe in interviews - that while they were protesting, they could not imagine the army turning on them, specifically underscoring the idea that this was the “people’s” army by brand or design, so we’re shocked when it happened. You’re saying there may have been incidents of insubordination - I wouldn’t doubt that, but not sure how it takes away from larger point. It’s evident that in the balance, the military did the job the ruling party asked them to do, in opposition to the lay people, not the other way around.

> I think it's wishful thinking to imagine soldiers will make the 'right' decision when the call comes.

I understood the point you are responding to differently than you - it is not about doing the (morally) "right" thing, it is about doing the self-preserving thing. I imagine there is always a lot of people willing to do horrible things when they can reasonably expect they will face no personal consequences (your Tiananmen Square massacre example, which would mean personal consequences for not doing it). The expectations are very different for officers hitting the launch button - they have to know that if they do it, it is very likely that they themselves and everybody they love will die or face horrible future in the post-apocalyptic world. I am not saying this means nobody will hit the button, I am just saying it makes doing it a lot harder and (hopefully) less likely.

A group of Russian soldiers in Ukraine has already surrendered because this was more than what they signed up for.

Only like 10,000 units to go.

It's going to be very interesting to watch the gap between casualties / defections / surrenders / prisoners increase over time between pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia media accounts.

Source?

For many (most?), even cops, heavily beating up people who didn't nor do anything violent or amoral/immoral isn't easy.

Isn't violent repression nearly always triggered by protesters' violence (sometimes only by a fraction of them, sometimes by people acting up in order to trigger repression, sometimes through misinterpretation or some fake-flag operation...) ?

Isn't a well-rehearsed then conducted (in order to avoid and isolate provocations) peaceful protest efficient against it? Moreover even if it isn't efficient the net result (w/o any massive manipulation through mass-media) empowers the protesters through bystanders sympathy.

> Isn't a well-rehearsed then conducted (in order to avoid and isolate provocations) peaceful protest efficient against it?

Of course not. In Russia peaceful protesters are routinely beaten for standing with a piece of paper. There wasn't much violence from protester's side for about a decade now because you get 3-7 years in prison for throwing a paper cup at a riot cop, or touching his helmet (not striking — simply touching). You can be peaceful all you like, it won't help you to get out of it unscathed. Just yesterday we got a few fresh examples (ironically from anti-war protests).

That's when you hire thugs and minimize training.

"social/peer pressure in the moment"

It can be more subconscious and insidious. Anger, hate, and violent action is incredibly contagious. Mob mentality hijacks brains, and spreads like wildfire among peers. It's likely part of our DNA and it takes a special awareness to escape its grip.

It's one thing to kill an "other", without much risk to yourself, but another thing entirely to risk your own self and your own loved ones with MAD.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com