Shooting combat medics - Your view on the "open debate" on Tvtropes.org?

[Dr TPK]

I'm talking about this article: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShootTheMedicFirst

The article itself is humorous, but it touches an interesting subject which brings up moral and tactical questions. Both views are given in the article, for shooting the medic and against it.

Would you, in a convential war, shoot an enemy combat medic? In order to make answering the question hard as possible, you would know for almost certain that you would not get caught for shooting him or her. Would you do it?

Against shooting:
- It's against the Geneva Convention. Even if you know that you will not get caught, it's still wrong.
- If you get wounded and taken as a POW, he/she might treat your wounds and may save your life.
- If you are able to take the medic as a POW, he/she will treat your wounds as well as the other POWs'.
- The medic is a non-threat and you shouldn't think about him in a combat situation. Ignore him and concentrate on the actual threats.

For shooting:
- It's an enemy. Shoot him/her.
- He might save the life of the guy who could kill you and your friends later on.
- You may stumble on him/her later on and he/she may still shoot you with a pistol if he/she views you as a threat to his/her current patient.
- Shooting a medic will demoralize the enemy. It's worth shooting one.

[Xuc Xac]

It only makes sense in an RPG setting where the healers can return enemy combatants to battle immediately (or in a matter of minutes). In cases like that, you need to take out the medic first to avoid having to take out everybody else several times each.

In the real world (or a setting with realistic healing times), it's strategically better to wound enemies rather than kill. That applies to the medic too.

[SiuiS]

In conventional warfare, shooting medics is suboptimal behavior. In conventional warfare, direct kills are suboptimal. Every wounded soldier takes many more resources than a burial. The medic is one of those resources. The absolute stupidest thing to do is shut down the enemy's ability to spend money on inefficient logistics.

[blacklight101]

In conventional warfare, shooting medics is suboptimal behavior. In conventional warfare, direct kills are suboptimal. Every wounded soldier takes many more resources than a burial. The medic is one of those resources. The absolute stupidest thing to do is shut down the enemy's ability to spend money on inefficient logistics.

This, even if I am of the "Shoot til it Stops Moving" camp. Taking them out of the fight takes them out of the fight one way or another though, so I wouldnt particularly be choosy.


And I thought war was about killing efficiently? What is this nonsense with "fmj only" in the guns? Give me mass reactives, WP, softpoints, black talons, the works! Flamethrowers and napalm too, its ok in my book of warfare. WW2 style- far far less restricted as long as it takes the enemy out of the fight.

Untargeted carpet bombing anyone? Frag bombs followed by incendiaries just to set the mess on fire after? Some of them even on time delay to nail the people cleaning them up? Howitzers set to low airbirst over convoys? Strafe everything they have with warthogs? Hell yes, pull out the stops.

Have a house? BRRRRT nope, not now. Car? BRRRRT don't have that either. Friends? BRRRRT definitely not now. A-10's solve everyrhing. Love me some 30mm gau-8 Avenger.



Tl; dr? Kill them all, the Gods shall know their own.

[SowZ]

This, even if I am of the "Shoot til it Stops Moving" camp. Taking them out of the fight takes them out of the fight one way or another though, so I wouldnt particularly be choosy.


And I thought war was about killing efficiently? What is this nonsense with "fmj only" in the guns? Give me mass reactives, WP, softpoints, black talons, the works! Flamethrowers and napalm too, its ok in my book of warfare. WW2 style- far far less restricted as long as it takes the enemy out of the fight.

Untargeted carpet bombing anyone? Frag bombs followed by incendiaries just to set the mess on fire after? Some of them even on time delay to nail the people cleaning them up? Howitzers set to low airbirst over convoys? Strafe everything they have with warthogs? Hell yes, pull out the stops.

Have a house? BRRRRT nope, not now. Car? BRRRRT don't have that either. Friends? BRRRRT definitely not now. A-10's solve everyrhing. Love me some 30mm gau-8 Avenger.



Tl; dr? Kill them all, the Gods shall know their own.

Wait, I don't get your point.

As to the OP, were I a soldier I would shoot a combat medic if they posed a credible threat to me. As in they had a firearm drawn and were at a reasonably effective range for it. Otherwise, no.

[Razade]

Wait, I don't get your point.

As to the OP, were I a soldier I would shoot a combat medic if they posed a credible threat to me. As in they had a firearm drawn and were at a reasonably effective range for it. Otherwise, no.

His point is why are there Rules of War which is probably something we can't talk about on this forum considering it is pretty heavily entrenched in political issues. Other than the obvious answer of "Because you wouldn't want to be napalmed yourself."

[Liffguard]

Are they armed and presenting a threat to myself or other human life?
Then yes since no law of war supersedes the right to basic self-defence.

Otherwise, no.

[comicshorse]

No, it's inefficent ( for reasons given by others), it's immoral and it's probably going to mean the enemy are going to start shooting your medics back which will impinge on your survival chances

[SiuiS]

This, even if I am of the "Shoot til it Stops Moving" camp. Taking them out of the fight takes them out of the fight one way or another though, so I wouldnt particularly be choosy.


And I thought war was about killing efficiently? What is this nonsense with "fmj only" in the guns? Give me mass reactives, WP, softpoints, black talons, the works! Flamethrowers and napalm too, its ok in my book of warfare. WW2 style- far far less restricted as long as it takes the enemy out of the fight.

Untargeted carpet bombing anyone? Frag bombs followed by incendiaries just to set the mess on fire after? Some of them even on time delay to nail the people cleaning them up? Howitzers set to low airbirst over convoys? Strafe everything they have with warthogs? Hell yes, pull out the stops.

Have a house? BRRRRT nope, not now. Car? BRRRRT don't have that either. Friends? BRRRRT definitely not now. A-10's solve everyrhing. Love me some 30mm gau-8 Avenger.



Tl; dr? Kill them all, the Gods shall know their own.

That's oxymoronic. You're not being efficient. You're being highly inefficient. You're just hoping that you do such an amazingly big amount of inefficient choices to do as good as a few efficient choices.

And the reason for not doing immoral things is they are immoral.

[Tyndmyr]

It only makes sense in an RPG setting where the healers can return enemy combatants to battle immediately (or in a matter of minutes). In cases like that, you need to take out the medic first to avoid having to take out everybody else several times each.

In the real world (or a setting with realistic healing times), it's strategically better to wound enemies rather than kill. That applies to the medic too.

This. I'd rather shoot someone else, and have the medic get tied up taking care of him(and possibly taking other soldiers as well, to evac him). Way more efficient.

[SiuiS]

This actually segues really well into a topic that tends to separate folks into two groups.

You all know, the purpose of was is not, and almost never has been, "kill all their doods", right? Your goal isn't Body count. That's a means to an end. Anyone going into war – Not combat, but generals at the planning table with kings and presidents level going into war – With the goal of "kill everything" is missing how war actually works.

[Iruka]

This actually segues really well into a topic that tends to separate folks into two groups.

You all know, the purpose of was is not, and almost never has been, "kill all their doods", right? Your goal isn't Body count. That's a means to an end. Anyone going into war – Not combat, but generals at the planning table with kings and presidents level going into war – With the goal of "kill everything" is missing how war actually works.

There are however ideologies that have "kill all their doods" as at least a sub-goal. You are however right that doing that in actual combat is not very effective.

[Bulldog Psion]

This topic makes me a bit nervous due to forum rules. But anyway ...

No, I wouldn't shoot a combat medic unless they were firing at me or other soldiers on my side.

I suppose my reason could be called "practical compassion." I have nothing against the individual enemy soldiers I'm fighting, presumably, so I don't wish them any more ill than necessary, though I wouldn't hesitate to kill them when they were still active and hostile, either. But once they're down and bleeding? They're just another person then, with a momentary life in the vastness of eternity, and i see no reason to vindictively remove it once they're pretty much hors de combat anyway.

Also, on the practical side, I'd hope that the enemy would then also refrain from shooting my medics, so that if I was lying there pumped full of lead, maybe someone could actually come and help me without being killed, too.

[thorgrim29]

And, if your side looses the battle the enemy medics may save your life

[blacklight101]

That's oxymoronic. You're not being efficient. You're being highly inefficient. You're just hoping that you do such an amazingly big amount of inefficient choices to do as good as a few efficient choices.

And the reason for not doing immoral things is they are immoral.

No, im just simplifying it down to "meat grinder" or attrition tactics. Efficiency wasnt my concern, neither was a well designed conflict. All this assumes you could tailor the conflict to your specs, im just saying yes I would kill/wound their doods with the (read: any) weapons at hand.

Base generalizations aside, this is basiclly a kill all their doods/ dont kill quite all their doods deal anyway. That and immorality is relative in most cases, what I see as evil you may not. What you see as evil, I may not.

Either way, kill/wound/take them out of action is the main goal. I don't particularly care who they are and I have the feeling they feel the same way about me.

[veti]

Are they armed and presenting a threat to myself or other human life?
Then yes since no law of war supersedes the right to basic self-defence.

You can read the First Geneva Convention right here (https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/1595a804df7efd6bc125641400640d89/fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3?OpenDocument), it spells out when you're "allowed" to shoot medics. Basically, if they take any kind of offensive action, they lose their protection.

Interesting sidenote: the protections granted to medics also apply to "chaplains" and other religious personnel. So, there's no shooting them either.

[Alent]

No, im just simplifying it down to "meat grinder" or attrition tactics. Efficiency wasnt my concern, neither was a well designed conflict. All this assumes you could tailor the conflict to your specs, im just saying yes I would kill/wound their doods with the (read: any) weapons at hand.

Base generalizations aside, this is basiclly a kill all their doods/ dont kill quite all their doods deal anyway. That and immorality is relative in most cases, what I see as evil you may not. What you see as evil, I may not.

Either way, kill/wound/take them out of action is the main goal. I don't particularly care who they are and I have the feeling they feel the same way about me.

The problem with this is that the rank and file are largely unimportant in the grand scheme of war. Your goal is not to kill the rank and file, that's the means rather than the end. The end is to secure fortifications and capture or kill leaders, without whom the war ends. (in theory.)

The vast majority of the rank and file are just following orders, and if ordered will stand down and surrender. Unless they're completely going off the rails and disregarding the code of conduct we expect an army to uphold, there's no point in focusing on them past what's needed to kill, capture, or terrify the enemy commanders.

Now in an RPG, your healers are prime first target territory, because the enemy isn't going to surrender or run ever. (except maybe those pesky metal babbles.)

... RPGs and real war are about as different from each other as possible.

[SiuiS]

There are however ideologies that have "kill all their doods" as at least a sub-goal. You are however right that doing that in actual combat is not very effective.

Yeah, you could view it that way. But it's never really "my ideology and the entire rest of existence". It's mine, theirs (the conflicting ones) and everyone else.

In this case, killing all their doods works. So does converting them. Or making them renounce their own ideology.

At no point does eliminating every single conscript ever truly serve your purpose though. That's an actual thing. And there's a reason for that; it's like giving someone a haircut because you're technically removing cells from their body. Unless your goal is the bad PR of a crappy haircut, you're not achieving anything.

But, yeah. That's about as far as this goes. Anything else is just specific ideologies, which aren't really descriptive of the concept. We'll just go in circles if we do that.



No, im just simplifying it down to "meat grinder" or attrition tactics. Efficiency wasnt my concern, neither was a well designed conflict.

Uh...


And I thought war was about killing efficiently?

Anyway. If you're fighting a war with the weapons at hand instead of the weapons you choose, you've lost. Framing the conflict is part of the higher level logistics of warfare. Using the wrong gear because it's slightly more convenient than taking charge? That's the same sort of issue as over penetration. Sounds cool in Call of Duty, sure fire way to throw a fight.

To each their own I guess. :)

[pendell]

I'm talking about this article: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShootTheMedicFirst

The article itself is humorous, but it touches an interesting subject which brings up moral and tactical questions. Both views are given in the article, for shooting the medic and against it.

Would you, in a convential war, shoot an enemy combat medic? In order to make answering the question hard as possible, you would know for almost certain that you would not get caught for shooting him or her. Would you do it?

Against shooting:
- It's against the Geneva Convention. Even if you know that you will not get caught, it's still wrong.
- If you get wounded and taken as a POW, he/she might treat your wounds and may save your life.
- If you are able to take the medic as a POW, he/she will treat your wounds as well as the other POWs'.
- The medic is a non-threat and you shouldn't think about him in a combat situation. Ignore him and concentrate on the actual threats.

For shooting:
- It's an enemy. Shoot him/her.
- He might save the life of the guy who could kill you and your friends later on.
- You may stumble on him/her later on and he/she may still shoot you with a pistol if he/she views you as a threat to his/her current patient.
- Shooting a medic will demoralize the enemy. It's worth shooting one.

In real world terms , as a general rule, no.

I say "as a general rule" because there are a lot of wars not fought by the Geneva convention. While I would not shoot a medic carrying a plainly displayed red cross/red crescent symbol who was obviously unarmed and being about medical business, there are plenty of guerrilla/terrorist medics who will neither display such a symbol visible from a distance, nor observe the other side of the agreement; that medics must both be unarmed and not participate in fighting.

A man carrying a rifle is a legitimate target regardless of whether he's a medic or not. That goes doubly for a man shooting at me.

In some wars, once one side starts shooting at medics, medics start carrying weapons and start hiding their symbols, because they mark them out as sniper targets rather than providing any protection. And once the war has reached that point , even people who don't want to shoot at medics are going to have to; they are now combatants like everyone else, and must be treated as such.

Wars are nasty, vicious, hell brought to earth. That's why we need to do what we can to limit their hellishness and bring some order of sanity back. That's why we demand uniforms (the better to protect noncombatants), why we don't use poison gas (too cruel and damaging to the environment while providing minimal tactical advantage) , and why we don't shoot medics.

Wars have a tendency to bring out the worst in men. That's why I can't promise I would never shoot a medic -- if the war gets nasty enough , I may have to. But I'd also want to do what I could to not let things come to that pass. That starts with words like "honor" and "dignity" .


In roleplaying or whatever -- the rules are different. In an RPG setting a cleric is a combatant and a dangerous one, so always geek the healer first to prevent your enemy from regaining HP faster than you can take it down. But in a real world where healers cannot instantly revive incapacitated soldiers with a snap of their fingers, it is inappropriate.

ETA: I should clarify that I am not a member of the armed forces and never have been. I HAVE worked as a defense contractor, and during that time learned a lot from all kinds of soldiers, sailors, and airmen. It is on this and on my reading that I base my answer, but it's not the answer of a combat soldier. So take it for what it's worth.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[SiuiS]

Ah. Thank you, sir.

[Tyndmyr]

This actually segues really well into a topic that tends to separate folks into two groups.

You all know, the purpose of was is not, and almost never has been, "kill all their doods", right? Your goal isn't Body count. That's a means to an end. Anyone going into war – Not combat, but generals at the planning table with kings and presidents level going into war – With the goal of "kill everything" is missing how war actually works.

Two different types of war. Victory via Attrition verses Victory via Maneuver. There are fights that are slugfests, and you wanna have the last folks standing. There are other fights when violence is merely a means to an end.

I prefer the latter type of victory, obviously.

Agreed that RPGs do not always portray war realistically.

[SowZ]

Two different types of war. Victory via Attrition verses Victory via Maneuver. There are fights that are slugfests, and you wanna have the last folks standing. There are other fights when violence is merely a means to an end.

I prefer the latter type of victory, obviously.

Agreed that RPGs do not always portray war realistically.

Even in wars of attrition, though, killing enemies is not the primary goal. You are killing enemy personal in order to take land, resources, even answer an insult if you have a particularly crazy dictator, etc. etc. And in such wars, wounding someone to the point that they are unable to fight again for the rest of the war is equal to killing them.

[pendell]

Two different types of war. Victory via Attrition verses Victory via Maneuver. There are fights that are slugfests, and you wanna have the last folks standing. There are other fights when violence is merely a means to an end.

I prefer the latter type of victory, obviously.


Hmm ... I think that applies to battles, to the tactical and operational level.

On the strategic level, I suggest there are more types than that.

I can think of at least three instances in the twentieth century in which a third-world nation with little more than rifles and RPGs took on a superpower. They were outclassed in every possible way. They won no conventional battles. The kill ratio was horrifically lopsided.

Yet, in every single case, it was the third world country that won. Even against the old Soviets, who are NOT noted for their observance to any rules of humanity in their wars.

Why?

Because killing isn't enough . It'll win battles. It won't, by itself, decide wars.

The essence of war is, as Clausewitz would put it: Politics by other means. In English, it is imposing your will on the enemy, so that he does what you want.

So the important thing in war is not how many of your enemy you kill. The important thing is 1) What do I want to do? 2) How exactly does killing people get me there?

Answer these two questions correctly, and it is possible to win without fighting at all; Sun Tzu tells us this is the acme of skill.

Answer incorrectly, you're going to get a lot of people killed and accomplish nothing.

That's one reason you want to reign in the barbarity of war; because there has been no war decided since ... when? ... by killing every breathing enemy. They always end in a negotiated truce or a surrender of some kind.

And it's very hard to convince a man to surrender if he's just seen you sawing off the head of his captured buddies.

That's a practical reason to take prisoners and treat them well; because you WANT the fifty guys with guns in the next town to seriously think about laying down their guns or , heck, just walking way, rather than fighting to the death.

Same with medics. If the guys in that fortified pillbox with a machine gun see you kill a medic right in front of them, what are your chances of getting them out without a grenade?


So that's the brutal , amoral, pragmatic reason for fighting a clean war: Wars are not ended by killing but by surrender. And enemies will surrender or walk way if they think it means going to sit in a camp for a few years with food and red cross packages before going home. If they think "surrender" means buried in a mass grave, they'll fight to the death and take some of your people with them. Seems pretty certain to me that if they see you killing medics and prisoners, they're going to believe you're going to do the second. They will fight harder, you'll take more casualties, and you just might lose.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[veti]

I say "as a general rule" because there are a lot of wars not fought by the Geneva convention. While I would not shoot a medic carrying a plainly displayed red cross/red crescent symbol who was obviously unarmed and being about medical business, there are plenty of guerrilla/terrorist medics who will neither display such a symbol visible from a distance, nor observe the other side of the agreement; that medics must both be unarmed and not participate in fighting.

A man carrying a rifle is a legitimate target regardless of whether he's a medic or not. That goes doubly for a man shooting at me.

Point of order: medics are allowed to be armed, and to engage in fighting in some circumstances:

Art. 22: The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge....

If you're defined as a medic, and acting as a medic at the time you encounter the enemy, you're entitled to protection no matter what else you might do at other times. That's "by the letter of the law", at least. (The convention explicitly mentions regular soldiers detailed as stretcher bearers as an example of people you can't shoot, provided that at the time you encounter them, they're engaged in stretcher-bearing rather than fighting. You can tell the difference 'cuz they'll be wearing red cross insignia of some sort, probably as armbands.)

[Zyzzyva]

Pendell said most of everything I wanted to say on this slightly silly-to-even-be-considering topic, although "also, it means your descendants won't revile you as a moral monster a century down the road" is also a thing.

[Forum Explorer]

In conventional warfare, shooting medics is suboptimal behavior. In conventional warfare, direct kills are suboptimal. Every wounded soldier takes many more resources than a burial. The medic is one of those resources. The absolute stupidest thing to do is shut down the enemy's ability to spend money on inefficient logistics.

See, I figured killing the medic might be better because it strains their resources more because they have less people capable of treating injuries.

But best is capturing a medic.

[Killer Angel]

As Pendell said very clearly, it's better to don't shoot combat medics.
And not because it's immoral (a moral war is almost an oxymoron), but because it's not convenient and doesn't help your side.

[Shamash]

The reasons why it is pointless ideia is in the very own article Rai_skari used:

"For tactical reasons, there's no real point in shooting at medics either (well, except psychological reasons); in combat, a downed soldier usually remains down for the current battle (with medical treatment and recovery occuring slowly over the days, weeks and even months that follow. Medical care also costs the enemy money), and medics are also trained to treat the enemy as well as their own comrades if at all possible, provided that they aren't presenting a threat. And they can only assist one soldier at a time anyway. In fact, you usually want to leave medics well alone since retrieving a fallen comrade usually requires the help of an additional person, so this puts at least one other potential enemy out of action, making the fight easier"

For shooting:
- It's an enemy. Shoot him/her. (No, he is a medic, a doctor, more a academic professional than a enemy.)
- He might save the life of the guy who could kill you and your friends later on. (No, he is a medic after the war is over he may even assist your wounded friends, heck depending of the ethical views of the doctor he may even assist your wounded friends during the war.)
- You may stumble on him/her later on and he/she may still shoot you with a pistol if he/she views you as a threat to his/her current patient. (Combat medics guns seems to be more a formality than a tool to be used. Why would you try to kill a wounded soldier? Besides when and if they use their arms offensively, they then sacrifice their protection under the Geneva Conventions.)
- Shooting a medic will demoralize the enemy. It's worth shooting one.(I guess it will just make both your companions and enemies pissed off with you. Also the they may shoot yours as a form of revenge.)

I think the only good reason to shoot a combat medic is if he is using his status to do anything else than helping and treating the injured.

[pendell]

I think the only good reason to shoot a combat medic is if he is using his status to do anything else than helping and treating the injured.


David Drake, a Vietnam Vet and military SF writer, once did a piece on snipers in his Crisis of Empire (http://david-drake.com/tag/the-crisis-of-empire-series/) series, specifically the book "Cluster Command".

The sniper in the story deliberately target medics -- the mantra from his training was, "a medic is worth six soldiers". That is, kill a medic, kill the six people he would otherwise treat.

David Drake isn't a very inventive writer.His tale "Hammer's Slammers" is essentially the 11th Armored Cavalry he served with. The tanks were replaced by hovertanks, the guns by powerguns, but the other stuff -- the doctrine, the equipment , the psychology -- was lifted from his own real-world service. In the thirty years since then, he's taken to pillaging ancient history and the mythologies of Rome, but the soldiers remain constant.

Which means, that if he put that in his book, then some real-life army somewhere taught real-life snipers that same mantra.

You won't find it written down, of course. Not in any field manual or what not. But someone, somewhere, is passing that on.

So I can understand why there are some armies, and some armed forces, which deliberately target medical personnel even if they won't admit it publicly.

As I said, I am not a combat soldier, but I believe that is both wrongheaded and wrong; killing medics may increase the enemy casualty count marginally, but it's ultimately not casualties that decide a war. Maybe it would be decisive if this was the Somme of WW1, but we haven't fought a war under those conditions in generations. In WWII, maneuver is decisive. In the counterinsurgency wars we've fought since then, perception counts for more than attrition -- every insurgency we've fought has had an order of magnitude more capability to absorb casualties than we did to inflict them. As the joke went in Vietnam, the modelers put in the casualty rate for the NVA and VC, put in our own casualty rate, and the computer system told us we'd won in 1964. :smallsigh:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[SiuiS]

But they wouldn't end up killing the six people the medic supports. They'll end up tying down fewer people. That's just logistics. :smallconfused:

Now, there's an undercurrent of "man, if I was in charge..." In just about every organization, so maybe that's it. But unless we're talking asymmetric engagement..


See, I figured killing the medic might be better because it strains their resources more because they have less people capable of treating injuries.

But best is capturing a medic.

You would think that a situation worth throwing lives at would get those lives Regardless of a facility to spend health resources, though. *shrug*

[Zyzzyva]

As Pendell said very clearly, it's better to don't shoot combat medics.
And not because it's immoral (a moral war is almost an oxymoron), but because it's not convenient and doesn't help your side.

Yeah, but there are degrees of immorality. Throwing your hands up and saying "welp, we're at war, conscience has failed us, break out the nerve gas" is... kinda not a good thing.


As the joke went in Vietnam, the modelers put in the casualty rate for the NVA and VC, put in our own casualty rate, and the computer system told us we'd won in 1964. :smallsigh:

Robert McNamara: patron saint of explaining why technocracy isn't a cure-all.

[SirKazum]

the mantra from his training was, "a medic is worth six soldiers". That is, kill a medic, kill the six people he would otherwise treat.

The thing is (and from this thread I guess you know that better than me), those six people the medic treated are not going to be shooting at you tomorrow. Instead, they're going to be lingering in a hospital tent, draining lots of resources and manpower, and MAYBE come back into combat a few weeks later (by which time the war has evolved considerably), but have a high likelihood of either dying anyway or getting back home, in which case they're as out of combat as if they died in the battlefield, only they got their army to expend resources and manpower first.

It seems that the "kill the medic" mentality is a combination of the beliefs that 1. a medic is a miracle-worker that can get badly-wounded soldiers back in their feet in no time (generally the case in games, but certainly not in real life), and 2. body count is a really important thing in a war (again, true in games, false in real life, as has already been explored in this thread). But yeah, as countless others have noted, by killing medics, what you're doing is forcing your enemy to be more efficient (not caring for wounded soldiers) and giving them reasons to be more ruthless with you. Doesn't sound like a particularly good idea to me.

While we're on that, something that often bothers me about games and other entertainment focused on war is ignoring strategic goals. As in, "here are your troops, there are the enemy's troops, have fun". NO, I won't have fun with that! :smalltongue: Because I want to know why I'm fighting. And it's not just a roleplaying or ethical thing - it's relevant for completely practical reasons.

Does my nation need this stretch of land for its natural resources? Then the most efficient way is to hit the bad guys hard until they either flee or concede the land, by which point I can just let them go their merry way and focus on defending the conquered land. Getting the enemy to waste resources is important here, since the motivation for the war is economic - if one side realizes they're losing more money fighting than they could ever win by exploiting the land's resources, they'll give up.

Do you want to topple a corrupt regime that's oppressing a given land? In this case, it's paramount to separate the regime's soldiers/supporters from the local populace, because you want to defend the latter. So excessive force is right out. Also, your goal is to capture or kill the regime's leaders, so you must get some intelligence on their current location and defenses and focus your strikes there - grabbing land is only useful if it allows you to maneuver into the right place, no need to bother otherwise (or to defend this land after you've done your maneuvering).

Do you want to maybe stall an aggressive enemy until something happens (an ally comes to your help, whatever it is they're after is no longer relevant, their leader can only act for a limited time for whatever reason, etc.)? Then you want to make them waste time. Block their movements, keep moving your strategic assets around so they have to keep chasing you, hunker down into a strong defensive position and just weather their attacks out, and so on. Getting out there and attacking them sounds like a terrible idea in this scenario, unless it's a hit-and-run attack by a small, mobile force to lure the enemy into some time-wasting situation.

And so on. All those scenarios, and many more, involve strategic goals that have an effect on the tactical decisions you make in a battlefield. My point is, the traditional "two armies meet in a field, now fight" thing is boring, because there's really no objective other than "kill all their doods"... and that's a poor reflection of what warfare is really like. There's always a reason for a fight to happen, and this reason should inform all decisions made in the battlefield.

[pendell]

But they wouldn't end up killing the six people the medic supports. They'll end up tying down fewer people. That's just logistics.


I don't think that's true in all cases. Remember the golden hour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_%28medicine%29). Killing a medic adds a degree of response time to the time it takes someone else to respond to a casualty -- if there's such a person available at all.

And even a few minutes delay in care may be the difference between life and death.

And that can mean fewer combat veterans returning from hospitals to fight in a few months, which means more raw recruits in the lines, which means lower enemy combat efficiency.

If you're fighting a months-long engagement as in the Somme or Korea, there's a certain logic to that. That, plus intuitively there are always going to be those who think "less medical care = more dead soldiers. More dead soldiers = better".

That seems to be what's happening in Syria (http://rt.com/news/un-hospitals-attack-syria-834/) on both sides. The war isn't being fought by college-educated professionals who have reasoned out that wounding a soldier ties up more resources than killing him. It's being fought on the emotional, gut level, by people who hate their enemies and want to see them dead.

Any way at all (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dozen-isis-fighters-killed-after-4590573) .

As Zyzzyva said, there are degrees of barbarism even in war. And it's not good for wars to reach that point.

Why?

Pragmatically, because it is pretty much impossible to end such a war short of utter annihilation. And if you're fighting a civil war, that is a tragedy. That's your own cities, your own people, your own brothers and sisters you are annihilating. "Eye for an eye" sounds all well and good until you realize it's your own eye you are gouging out .

That .. and as I've pointed out, annihilation is a lot harder to accomplish than it sounds. So instead of getting what you want from the war, it just drags on... and on.... and on.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Killer Angel]

Yeah, but there are degrees of immorality.

On that, I certainly agree.

[Tyndmyr]

Hmm ... I think that applies to battles, to the tactical and operational level.

On the strategic level, I suggest there are more types than that.

I can think of at least three instances in the twentieth century in which a third-world nation with little more than rifles and RPGs took on a superpower. They were outclassed in every possible way. They won no conventional battles. The kill ratio was horrifically lopsided.

Yet, in every single case, it was the third world country that won. Even against the old Soviets, who are NOT noted for their observance to any rules of humanity in their wars.

Why?

Because killing isn't enough . It'll win battles. It won't, by itself, decide wars.

Those are, oddly enough, still wars of attrition. The point isn't to merely kill MORE of the other side. The point is to kill enough to win. This might be at the point where the other side loses interest, or calculates that no possible gain is worth the ongoing losses, or whatever. The number isn't important, the type of war is. Attrition is a war where the goal is the infliction of losses.

From a grand strategy perspective, you usually want to avoid wars where such a strategy is required, of course, because the defender will usually select it when victory through maneuver simply is not a viable option.

WW1 was, for the most part, a war of attrition. Sure, there were bits and pieces of manuever, here and there, but attrition dominated the war itself, not merely single battles. Killing *more* may be a desirable thing in a war of attrition, but a naive comparison won't tell you the winner.

[pendell]

Killing *more* may be a desirable thing in a war of attrition, but a naive comparison won't tell you the winner.


Quite. Russian casualties during WWII were in excess of 20 million; the Germans only lost a fraction of that on the Eastern Front. The Russians still won.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zyzzyva]

WW1 was, for the most part, a war of attrition. Sure, there were bits and pieces of manuever, here and there, but attrition dominated the war itself, not merely single battles. Killing *more* may be a desirable thing in a war of attrition, but a naive comparison won't tell you the winner.

Well, except on all the fronts except the Western one :smallsigh: It's not like Serbia, Romania, Togoland, Kamerun, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire didn't all get decisively defeated in field battles.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, except on all the fronts except the Western one :smallsigh: It's not like Serbia, Romania, Togoland, Kamerun, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire didn't all get decisively defeated in field battles.

That's fair, I fear I fell into the trap of getting all western centric with the view.

WW2 had a LOT of maneuver, say, but Stalingrad eventually became attrition. Battles of attrition are pretty terrible even when you win, really.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: There's way too much going on here that's inappropriate for this forum. Thread locked.