Shocking Quiz (It's NOT a knowledge quiz, so don't worry. Only 1 Question).?
Sometimes you may be ordered to do something horrific in times of war. The trouble is you may have to spend the rest of your life with the terrible act on your conscience. Here is a true case. Imagine it happened to you: You are a British soldier in Burma during the second world war, marching through the jungle towards the Japanese enemy. Your patrol captures 3 Burmese villagers and a 10 yr old boy who are almost certainly spying for the Japanese. IF you let them go, they will report your position to the enemy and the lives of all your comrades will be in danger. The officer decides the Burmese must be shot and he select YOU to be one of the firing squad. What do you do? Choices: a) Refuse and ask if someone else can do the shooting b) Agree to shoot the men but plead to let the boy live c) Obey. Shoot the three men and the boy. **The soldier in the actual story chose c. (true case) Which of the above would YOU pick? (also state the reason why) And for those of you that chose A, think about it, if you refuse to follow a direct order, the officers could have you shot.
Military - 39 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I pick C. I'm not going to let my enemy live so that I can die. Nor would I do it so that my compatriots can die.
2 :
I would also choose C b/c of the simple fact that it is a time of war and if there is a choice between the people that I love and the enemy I would choose the people I love everytime.
3 :
I would wish never to be stuck in a situation like that. Thinking about it now, I would say choice A and if I could beg to not shoot them at all. But you never know what a person will do until they are stuck in that situation.
4 :
I'm not trying to be evasive, but signing up for military service is a quick way to lose your identity, maybe a limb or two, and the most effective way to catch yourself a personality disorder.
5 :
Shooting these people is a war crime, and in any case, the shots might be heard by enemy patrols. Slit their throats. Make sure the officer kills at least one, so he is in the same boat as you when it comes time to answer to a tribunal. Otherwise he will hang you out to dry.
6 :
a. because i am a girl and girls normally arnt ordered to do those things and i also cant think like a guy i may choose b cuz if someone else was chosen the boy would also get killed..... but if the boy isnt killed he is gonna grow up and be jus like the adults and he probably wouldnt think twice before killing a child anyways so hmmmmm i think ill stick with a
7 :
A.) Refuse- I'm sorry but who am I to take someone Else's life, If that means my life is in danger, so be it. I could not live with killing another human being, let alone a child!
8 :
a) Refuse to shoot but must held the Burmese temporarily until the patrol group is safe.
9 :
i would choose C simple reason if they let anyone live most likely the wold run straight to the enemy and my company would be killed. no one made them spy for the enemy they chose to do it themselves. they knew the risk and they paid for it. judging by the answers from everyone else seems like no one has what it takes to be in the military sorry to burst your bubble but if you join the military you are trained to kill or be killed sex is not an issue just because you are a chick doesnt mean that you cant defend your self or company makes me glad that none of you were in iraq with me
10 :
i would go with c myself because first i was ordered to do it and second if i didnt that would mean all of my platoon would be in danger and its better them than us. and i wouldnt even look back .
11 :
Well when going into any type of governmental position you have to be ready for all things. Esp. in the army, etc. so with this knowledge you are taught to kill therefore filling nothing is wrong with what your doing because your protecting your nation. I personally wouldn't go into the armed forces for the simple fact that I'd never want to have to make this type of decision, but if faced with it I'd probably have to back down and let someone else do the dirty work, I know its not the bravest thing, but I cant imagine living the rest of my life with this on your conscience.
12 :
i would pick answer c because it is the only way to be sure, well besides torture, and it would be a mercy to kill them outright because it would be harder to torture a child.
13 :
Well at the moment .....with the current mindset i would choose A But if i was the soldier ur refering to then it would be C... reason being is simple when ur a soldier your trained to kill and u should have a totally different mindset when facing these kind of situation..... This is my honest opinion...
14 :
My choice will be (b). The boy will be kept with the team until all reached safe. He may be used to do some work for the soldiers like assisting cleaning, cooking etc
15 :
B. I choose this one because children are easily influenced by adults and sometimes have no other choice when recruited by adults. Hopefully, I would've been able to take him into custody and go from there.
16 :
I will choose B. I will let the boy go because he still have to experience life. I would give him a chance to come with us or stick to the Japanese. In addition, compared to the men, we would have much easier to psyche the boy to against our enemies or just stay home and be safe with his parents. As a soldier, we should always have plan B in case the boy really told the Japanese our position.
17 :
I would hope I would never be in that position, but I would have to choose C. I would hate to think of what would happen to the rest of the ppl in my group, if we were caught. that would be a worse fate, I am afraid.
18 :
I would probably choose option B, shoot the men but let the boy live. I wouldn't let him go right away, however. I would take him with us for a little while until he might have been disoriented as to where he was and then release him. The hope would that he wouldn't know where we took him and therefore could not report our location. Also that he might recognize his close call and be able to decide not to be an active participant in war. As far-fetched as it might be, the little boy deserves a chance which is something the older men already had.
19 :
Yes, I'll do the same.My answer No. c
20 :
none of the above I would have refused to shoot and defended the prisoners if we do not obey the rules of war we cannot expect others to do so as well
21 :
I wouldn't refuse, but I might ask if anyone else is more willing. Its not an easy thing but you cant sacrifice your fellow soldier's lives.
22 :
c, that's the only answer to choose, when you join the military, you do what you're told and don't ask questions, if I had a commander tell me to kill, then, I think that the only choice would be to do it, you don't beg for somebody elses life, I may ask if there's any way the boy could live, but if they said no, that's it, you have to shoot.
23 :
Whats the terrible part of this question? The boy was already brain washed and was put in harms way not by the British but by the Japanese who were incredibly brutal. The boy was as dangerous as if he were carrying a weapon. The reason for a firing squad is so that the person who actually shots the person has no idea whos gun fired the real bullets.
24 :
You have to take your responsibilities. In war time you have to survive together with your fellow soldiers. I go for c). Any normal person will get a trauma of it. So would I. Option a) shifts the problem to another person. Option b) is cruel, because the boy always will have terrible memories. The very best is no war at all. That is why we have the UN. Unfortunately business in arms is too lucrative and may people search for power and control over other peoples. . Our earth is still far from being a paradise. Th
25 :
i cant believe that most of you would either not kill them or let the child go. yes a child he may be..but he will grow up to be just like the others. they are taught this from early childhood..and it will not change. i would choose C. i am the wife of soldier..and if a soldier in his company would let these ppl go so they can tell the enemy and get my husband, his friends, company ect killed..i could never forgive that. i think and military husband, wife, brother, sister, mother, father or child would say the same thing. my husband went to iraq..he lost friends when he was there..and thankfully came home to us safe and sound. i'm very happy that the ppl that would let this kid go were not by his side in war.
26 :
I would choose C because it is the RIGHT thing to do. I know I would live the rest of my life with horrific memories, but in this case, there is only 1 choice. You are in war. The goal here isn't to be nice to your enemies (they aren't going to be nice back). But it is the understanding that when you kill, you are doing so in order to hopefully win the war. Now, first I would only be in this war if I believed the war fought for what I believed. It's a shame I cannot convince these other people otherwise. But when it comes down to the decision and I have to choose. I would choose C.
27 :
The order can be refused if it is an unlawful order. The moment the officer orders you to perform an immoral or unlawful action, the order carries no weight. Therefore, in this situation, the best course of action is an option you've not given. D: Bind and gag them so they can not escape nor reveal your position. Return them to your base camp where the stress of the battlefield won't affect your judgement and a better grasp of the situation can be given. Simply, refuse to shoot on the grounds that the order is unlawful. These are enemy prisoners of war at best, or at worst spies. Even spies are only executeable after a trial, not in the field. The officer should know better than to kill an unarmed, non-threatening individual. The only way you would have to kill them is if their very existence is a threat to the mission (such as a special ops or remote mission where you are unable to take prisoners due to limited supplies). Soldiers are trained to kill with discipline, not recklessly slaughter individuals.
28 :
The Real story is that the Leader of the patrol would normally have done that, and if you do have a choice...ie its a volunteer shooting then you don't have to do it. If these were in actuality spies then they would of course be shot in the head. No one would have hesitated to shoot them in the head...because it would have meant the end of them all. The 10yo boy would unfortunately have to go. Blame the parents for putting the boy in that position.
29 :
I would pick C because when you are in the military you must obey orders whether you like the orders or not.
30 :
I would pick (c). Not because that guy also made that choice, but because I understand one thing: ~~ The first casualties of war are innocence and morality. ~~ Tough choices have to be made, and I've made them before. Here's my side of experience. I was an F-16 pilot, and was deployed in OEF. I was out on a routine night sortie (2 fighter element), with the predetermined combat loadout of 4 Mk-82 and 2 AGM-65D. Ten minutes before the end of my CAP, I got a request from a ground (TF Ranger + 1 AF Combat Controller) patrol about being pinned down by heavy fire (7.62mm, .30 cal, RPGs, and mortar) south of one of their patrol checkpoints. Our Vipers are equipped with LANTIRN, so I used that to locate and pinpoint both our guys and the Taliban ground forces. Turns out the bad guys were shooting from a village about 2km east of the route our guys were taking. At about the same time, my wingman spotted a second wave of indigenous fighters approaching TF Rangers from their southwest. A simple calculation determined that our guys are heavily out-numbered. From our earlier intel briefings, we were told that some villages are hiding places for the enemy, but at the same time, there were also neutrals there as well. So, we tried to raise up a flight of A-10s that was operating nearby, but unfortunately, they were bingo fuel and therefore, it leaves us as the closest and only friendlies around. Apparently, the Rangers knew what I had in mind at that time and tried to draw them out away from the village in an open fire fight, but the ruse didn't work. With the TF now out-numbered and trap between two approaching forces, I was left with very limited choices. So, I did what was deemed best at the current situation, we pressed in and attacked the group in the village, since that's where all the suppressive fire were coming from (at this point, TF Rangers had already sustained 2 casualities, both badly, as reported by the ground commander). The mortar site (my designated Primary) was located on the far eastern end of the village, so i went in with 2 Mk-82. My wingman designated the .30cal MG (east of the village, within the TF Rangers' LOS) site with 2 Mk-82 as well. Both site were located close to the mud house dwellings, so we were mentally prepared for casualities (civilian and non-civilian). The attack went well, and both targets were destroyed, and the TF managed to drive back the enemy force from the southwest. Having done that, the ground forces were extracted by Chinooks 15 minutes later. After action reports indicated that 3 (2 men and a woman) civilians were wounded as a result from that airstrike (one of the man died from his wounds 2 days later). Although we (my wingman and I) were not faulted for our actions, it still didn't felt good, but sometimes we are forced to take certain actions in order to preserve more lives.
31 :
I notice you say the villagers are "almost'" certainly spying for the Japanese. Also you don't tell us if the adults are men or women. Why must they be murdered? Why not take them prisoners? These are civilians not soldiers. What about the Geneva convention? I would choose 'A', refuse. But I certainly wouldn't ask for someone else to do it. Also I would report the officer at the first opportunity.
32 :
C. As a soldier, you must do as your ordered. Sad but true. Depending on the situation, I might plea for the boys life if we can keep him as a POW. You know.. so he will not be able to give our position or whatever. If that's not possible.. We are on a mission.. and NOTHING can or will stand in our way..
33 :
C, these people are you enemy, they seek to kill you. Do not show mercy to those who show none themselves. Spies cease to be civilians, and non-uniformed spies are not protected under ANY conventions. They can be summarily executed and for good reason. The boy's blood is not on your hands, it's on his parents' or the japanese. He was innocent and someone used him. Using children in warfare is VERY dishonorable.
34 :
C. However wrong it sounds there is a difference between doing wrong and being wrong. It's not right but that's how life works. This is an example of that.
35 :
I would have no choice but to choose option c. It would play on my emotions forever, but it was for the greater good of my comrades and the mission. Military people will tell you that your squad members mean more than family to you in many cases. The soldier probably thought "If I don't shoot this boy, then my squad mates may be killed. I'd rather have the death of the boy on my conscience" Gruesome, I know. But I wouldn't hesitate for long either. Besides, the Officer would have it hang heavily on his conscience too. Effectively, he pulled the trigger as well. Option A would jeapordise the mission, possibly killing your team, option b would also jeopardise the team, even having him come with you, cooking etc as someone said. You're advancing into enemy territory! What makes you think that he's not going to shout out the first chance he gets? Oh, and to the guy who said D: Tie him up and take him back to HQ. Abort your mission? putting even more of the allied forces at risk? No way. C is the only feasible option.
36 :
I chose c... it's a direct order and ever obey or be punished!
37 :
They are spy's and the standing order for spy's is to be shot. while I'd hate to shoot the boy it would have to be done, if I can't simply send them to the rear to a POW camp then they all must die. It should be noted that I would ask that there faces be covered so I would not have there faces welded into my mind.
38 :
Refuse You have the right to refuse any order that is in direct violation on the Geneva Convention papers that were signed by both the US and British Governemnts and the Articles orf War Forbid the Executon of any Prisoners taken in a war Zone. the Officer in charge cannot have you shot for Disobey an order that is direct Violation of these articles, and could be charged himself with a warcrime(remember the Lt Calley from the Vietnam era?) if he chosses to bring charges for you failure to odey a direct order.
39 :
Having never been in this situation I don't know what I would do. If I pick A they die, B they still die, C, they die. So really either way they are going to die, either by my hand or my fellow service member. From talking to people in the military who have been in combat, you don't have much time to think. And when you do it is about getting home to those you love, protecting those who you serve with, and saving yourself. For Malinda: There are females serving in the military, in Iraq, in combat zones/hot zones. If they were on a convoy and the were being attacked, the females are going to have to shoot just like the males. Don't think being a female that they get away with not having to do the dirty work.
Read more discussions :
