Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've always thought paratroopers were an especially awful job to have. If everything goes well, you're behind enemies line with an objective to hit, and then have to walk back to friendly lines. If it doesn't, you're scattered, likely isolated, and have an entire enemy force between you and safety. Oh, and of course, you don't know where you are. No resupply, likely no communications with your side, it's just an awful situation.

To top it all off, there's the not inconsiderable chance that you're injured from the parachute drop itself, or flak.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I've always thought paratroopers were an especially awful job to have. If everything goes well, you're behind enemies line with an objective to hit, and then have to walk back to friendly lines. If it doesn't, you're scattered, likely isolated, and have an entire enemy force between you and safety. Oh, and of course, you don't know where you are. No resupply, likely no communications with your side, it's just an awful situation.

To top it all off, there's the not inconsiderable chance that you're injured from the parachute drop itself, or flak.

Parachuting by itself isn't that dangerous, at least now. My dad made around two dozen jumps while he was in and I think the only injury he mentioned occurring was during a night jump in Alaska. These are of course non-combat situations.

But yeah, as a deployment strategy, it's questionable IMO for anything other than special operations. I think German losses at the Battle of Crete and the Allied losses during Operation: Market Garden are the best examples of paratroops failing spectacularly because of their various limitations. Technological improvements since then only make paratroops less viable.

IMo worse military jobs:

Antiquity - Really bad - Any slave/serf class/camp follower in any given army/faction. You are doing all of the hauling, all of the heavy lifting and you dont have a single weapon to defend yourself or get a single dime of the spoils and most likely get sexualy, physicaly and mentally abused by some psychopathic hard bastards... One of the most common tactics in warfare that ensured swift victory would be to send a wide out flanking force to hit & torch the enemy camp to break their morale as the main line joins battle. So you would be on the recieving end of some R*£ing & pillaging and no way to even try to defend yourself - a bad time.

The second worse - Being some sort of auxilary/ levy. More often than not, you'd have next to no training(unless you're some sort of barbarian hard bastard already), terrible equipment, and none of, or very little of the pay everyone else got while being expected to be thrown into the meat grinder "to wear the enemy down"..

The absolute worse? - Being a literal human shield. For example the Mongols used this practice during particularly bloody sieges, they'd round up & enslave local populations and force them all but naked up to the fortification to try fill ditches & sap, but mainly to waste enemy arrows and demoralise them as they have to kill their own people. The upside is youd not be killed outright and might survive?

Modern Days - Anyone doing patrols in any insurgency areas of any kind.

Absolute worse - IED dispsal..

Take Mongol stories with a grain of salt--the way their expansion panned out resulted in circumstances where both sides had cause to exaggerate their actions. The victims for purposes of seeking aid, the Mongols for intimidation.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Take Mongol stories with a grain of salt--the way their expansion panned out resulted in circumstances where both sides had cause to exaggerate their actions. The victims for purposes of seeking aid, the Mongols for intimidation.

This. Consider also that those in power in non-mongol controlled lands also had a very strong vested interest in keeping it that way as the Mongol MO when conquering new territory was to kill all of the ruling class and abolish the existing hierarchical power structures in place. This went completely against the understood rules of war in the west at the time, where the rich and powerful were held for ransom. As such it was very much in the best interest of the aristocracy to paint the mongols in the least favourable light, lest their own populations get some similar ideas about the usefulness and necessity of the ruling class.

i am not sure, that that is accurate considering population numbers dropping massively during the expansion and rule under the mongol empire, Afghanistan, iran , etc.

LordOfHats wrote:I'd also point out that the entire Soviet Air Force often went without parachutes early in the war. They didn't have enough and fatality rates for pilots so rarely came back there were at times attitudes that it was a waste to issue them. I know little of the Night Witches but I'd question if the issue was really sexism or logistic in nature. More often than not, the Soviets actually experimented with simply jumping out of the plane. Many of the aircraft they used could move very slow when needed without stalling, and they conducted experiments in the interwar years on simply jumping out of the plane at low altitude and landing in the snow, which isn't that fatal when your plan is going as slow as 50 mph. You get banged up, maybe break a bone if the snow is shallow or hiding a rock, but it was what they had.

Mother of God.. They must have looked at the casualty figures for the eastern front (or western front it would have been for the Soviets) and thought "what more can we do to add to this figure?"

It's interesting, I know the concept of an Imperial Guard commissar is based loosely on the concept of the role that existed in the red army, but often some of the things that you read about in that theatre (which often can just be summarised as an absolute lack of any value being bestowed on the lives of those fighting on the ground) would seem to ridiculous or far fetched if they were placed as a fictional background in the 40k setting.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Which is why those separate standards shouldn't be a thing. They decided the male standards were what was needed for -soldiers- and if someone wants to be a male or female -soldier- that is the standard they should meet. I'd go on but we're getting a bit off topic.

Yes I think that's fair. Really anyone that falls short of Vasquez from Aliens need not apply (or at least for front line roles - know it's a completely different matter for other supporting roles, and of course pilots and roles of that nature).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Take Mongol stories with a grain of salt--the way their expansion panned out resulted in circumstances where both sides had cause to exaggerate their actions. The victims for purposes of seeking aid, the Mongols for intimidation.

This. Consider also that those in power in non-mongol controlled lands also had a very strong vested interest in keeping it that way as the Mongol MO when conquering new territory was to kill all of the ruling class and abolish the existing hierarchical power structures in place. This went completely against the understood rules of war in the west at the time, where the rich and powerful were held for ransom. As such it was very much in the best interest of the aristocracy to paint the mongols in the least favourable light, lest their own populations get some similar ideas about the usefulness and necessity of the ruling class.

From what I understand pretty much most of what we have about mongols that has a degree of accuracy comes from chinese "secret history of the mongols" and many different Asian contemporaries as well as european with classic christian writiers equating the khan to satans spawn

Mongols didin't come into contact with europe until Subatai blundered into eastern europe as Genghis Khan died and they didin't come back in force for decades until the golden horde time. Persia, georgia and the south russian steppes and kievan Rus vikings were their main theaters and foes in europe for years. Thick stoned european style fortifications were too strong for their asian style catapults initialy so it took years to adapt and concolidate.

The Chinese sources and historians agree regarding the mongol MO overall. Basically their whole shtick was pillaging and Sacking & looting cities. Their armies strength lied in their mobility and structure and command chain of the Tumens allowing for very delicate manoeuvring I.E. the feigned retreat which was their bread and butter. Co-ordinating 10,000 horsemen to about face and charge back down the road in unison accurately is no small feat.

However you paint it they were absolutely ruthless no ifs or buts. They slaughtered populations to instill fear in neighbours, and to ensure there simply wasn't enough people left to rise up after they leave and those that were left will continue to pay tribute for decades. Risking mongol veteran rider lives in sieges when you have perfectly good meatshields was also standard procedure. In order to keep supply liens open and rule such vast swathes of land you simply had to kill as many people as possible... Cities being exterminated regularly was just how they did things. Non mongol life had no value apart from learned men, and those with a useful trade. Any craftsmen and artisans were spared. everyone else got the pointy end of a spear...

To be fair didn't most nations use cheap fodder for the worst spots during a battle. If you've got a breach in the wall with a near certain death for the first few hundred through why send your best; send raw recruits, peasants or whatever you can to overwhelm with numbers then send your better troops after.

 Overread wrote:
To be fair didn't most nations use cheap fodder for the worst spots during a battle. If you've got a breach in the wall with a near certain death for the first few hundred through why send your best; send raw recruits, peasants or whatever you can to overwhelm with numbers then send your better troops after.

Yeah front-line chaff/ levies is probably the worse lot you could have had in any army.

Oh definitely. In war the Mongols were brutal if you did not immediately surrender. If they offered you terms, then you'd best take them.

What is really interesting is how starkly contrasting the society under Genghis was to his ruthlessness on the battlefield. The Mongol empire had freedom of religion and diplomatic immunity, he criminalised abduction and enslavement of Mongols, he forbade the kidnapping and selling of women (which was previously a legitimate way of acquiring a wife and Genghis himself had had his wife stolen earlier in his life), all children born of Mongol parents were legitimate, he abolished inherited aristocratic titles, he introduced tax exemptions for people in professions of essential public services including religious leaders, doctors, teachers, undertakers etc. This on top of how he had earlier changed the structure of the council of a horde, changing it to more of a meritocracy where you would be assigned positions based on loyalty and ability rather than relation to the leader. He also effectively introduced a war pension for families who lost members in battle where a share of the spoils of the looting was set aside to be shared amongst the families of those Mongols killed in battle.

 Argive wrote:


Absolute worse - IED dispsal..

I've seen this a few times in this thread now. . . and I have to disagree.

Now, I was not EOD myself, but have a handful of good friends who were. . . Sure, it takes a very. . . interesting, mindset to say the least, to do the job.

But, the job itself isn't really all that bad (at least for american troops, I have no idea what militaries outside of the US do for outfitting, so cannot speak to them), because at least in the US, an EOD tech has access to: specially designed vehicles with cool rake toys, tracked robots with arm things, the ubiquitous "bear suit", and over a year of schooling encompassing 3 separate schools.


Basically, its the "easiest job in the world" (per my buddies) because, as they tell me "if I get it wrong, it suddenly isn't my problem anymore" . . . Like, these guys are generally of a type, and people who don't really understand them will view them as being off their rockers. But its not as if they are being sent in to a job without proper equipment and support.

I worked for a company that did software development for US military EOD. Our onsite SME was a retired AF E-7 (I don't know USAF/USN enlisted ranks off the top of my head). There were several others on the government side that I interacted with on a fairly frequent basis. None of them gave any indication that it was particularly awful. Ironically the one individual who had actually lost fingers was a Combat Engineer I believe and it occurred in a training accident.

Sidenote: All the military software I encountered during that timeframe was an abomination. Thank god it was just web apps.

I meant the poor sods that have to go in in person (bear suit etc) if no robots available as well as any divers that have to do explosive disposal/mine disposal.

I guess maybe its overblown and not as bad as it used to be.

From what I've gathered accumulated knowledge in that field has grown exponentially over the last twenty years and has so has the ability to safely handle explosives of all varieties.

Edit: I can hit up my buddy for further questions if necessary.

 Matt Swain wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:


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

Thank you for sharing this. It doesn't sound that bad. They didn't take that many casualties. I had never heard of them before. They had guts to spare. It's amazing that so many women saw combat for the USSR during WWII and some people today still wring their hands over female fighter pilots for example.

"It doesn't sound that bad"?

They were subjected to deliberate abuse, disrespect and virtual sabotage by their own side. They were denied important equipment because "Women were too dumb to know how to use it." They operated alone, behind enemy lines, in cold night in russian winter, they had zero chance of survival if their planes were hit, they didn;t even carry parachutes because bombs were more important and they were likely better off dying in a crash than being taken alive by the nazis.

Also, while 32 of the 261 people in the unit died, it is likely that the casualties were mostly the pilots, and not so much among the ground staff, but " It doesn't sound that bad"?

While most of the russian military disdained and disrespect them in the end it took the monstrously evil joe stalin to finally show them the respect they'd earned. But at least they got it it even if was from someone probably more evil than the devil.

German army casualties in Stalingrad were like 75-80% though weren't they? There were a million of them. Of the 250,000 that were taken prisoner, only a fraction survived (I seem to recall it as 10% or something).The Russians, who's strength was around 1.1 million at the time of the Soviet counter-offensive, recorded over a million casualties, half of them being KIA or MIA (so KIA basically).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Argive wrote:


Absolute worse - IED dispsal..

I've seen this a few times in this thread now. . . and I have to disagree.

Now, I was not EOD myself, but have a handful of good friends who were. . . Sure, it takes a very. . . interesting, mindset to say the least, to do the job.

But, the job itself isn't really all that bad (at least for american troops, I have no idea what militaries outside of the US do for outfitting, so cannot speak to them), because at least in the US, an EOD tech has access to: specially designed vehicles with cool rake toys, tracked robots with arm things, the ubiquitous "bear suit", and over a year of schooling encompassing 3 separate schools.


Basically, its the "easiest job in the world" (per my buddies) because, as they tell me "if I get it wrong, it suddenly isn't my problem anymore" . . . Like, these guys are generally of a type, and people who don't really understand them will view them as being off their rockers. But its not as if they are being sent in to a job without proper equipment and support.

I blame "The Hurt Locker" for planting a RIDICULOUS number of misconceptions about the Army as a whole, and EOD in specific. Oooof, that reminds me I need to add to another thread...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Argive wrote:


Absolute worse - IED dispsal..

I've seen this a few times in this thread now. . . and I have to disagree.

Now, I was not EOD myself, but have a handful of good friends who were. . . Sure, it takes a very. . . interesting, mindset to say the least, to do the job.

But, the job itself isn't really all that bad (at least for american troops, I have no idea what militaries outside of the US do for outfitting, so cannot speak to them), because at least in the US, an EOD tech has access to: specially designed vehicles with cool rake toys, tracked robots with arm things, the ubiquitous "bear suit", and over a year of schooling encompassing 3 separate schools.


Basically, its the "easiest job in the world" (per my buddies) because, as they tell me "if I get it wrong, it suddenly isn't my problem anymore" . . . Like, these guys are generally of a type, and people who don't really understand them will view them as being off their rockers. But its not as if they are being sent in to a job without proper equipment and support.

The US military does things a lot differently to over here in the UK. A lot of your techniques are almost opposite to ours.

In our doctrine, as much of the actions on the ied as physically and practicably possible should be undertaken remotely. Theoretically this means that the operator will very rarely walk to a fully operational device.

 LordofHats wrote:

Being a tanker, especially in the WWII era, could also be pretty damn bad. Internal combustion engines and ammunition storage in the time were still having kinks worked out of them. There was always a risk that your tank would catch fire or that ammunition would be set off. With you inside the tank. Trapped in an iron can. With only a few tiny hatches to shimmy your way out of.

If I recall correctly, US tankers in WW2 had casualty rate of ~5% vs ~20% of Infantry. Being in a WW2 tank was still a lot safer than being out in the open.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Oh definitely. In war the Mongols were brutal if you did not immediately surrender. If they offered you terms, then you'd best take them.

What is really interesting is how starkly contrasting the society under Genghis was to his ruthlessness on the battlefield. The Mongol empire had freedom of religion and diplomatic immunity, he criminalised abduction and enslavement of Mongols, he forbade the kidnapping and selling of women (which was previously a legitimate way of acquiring a wife and Genghis himself had had his wife stolen earlier in his life), all children born of Mongol parents were legitimate, he abolished inherited aristocratic titles, he introduced tax exemptions for people in professions of essential public services including religious leaders, doctors, teachers, undertakers etc. This on top of how he had earlier changed the structure of the council of a horde, changing it to more of a meritocracy where you would be assigned positions based on loyalty and ability rather than relation to the leader.

In that respect, it's remarkably similar to how pirates operated in the Caribbean. Absolutely brutal and ruthless if forced to fight- but far better working conditions than equivalent naval vessels for their crews. And if you surrendered most of the time they'd just take the cargo or a wealthy captive or two for ransom and then leave the ship to sail off to its destination. Most pirate ships were democratically run outside of combat where the Captain's word was law, and split wealth by shares. It's a very peculiar paradox that the ones willing to operate in the bloodiest fashion to their enemies don't want to treat their subjects and allies that way.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Oh definitely. In war the Mongols were brutal if you did not immediately surrender. If they offered you terms, then you'd best take them.

What is really interesting is how starkly contrasting the society under Genghis was to his ruthlessness on the battlefield. The Mongol empire had freedom of religion and diplomatic immunity, he criminalised abduction and enslavement of Mongols, he forbade the kidnapping and selling of women (which was previously a legitimate way of acquiring a wife and Genghis himself had had his wife stolen earlier in his life), all children born of Mongol parents were legitimate, he abolished inherited aristocratic titles, he introduced tax exemptions for people in professions of essential public services including religious leaders, doctors, teachers, undertakers etc. This on top of how he had earlier changed the structure of the council of a horde, changing it to more of a meritocracy where you would be assigned positions based on loyalty and ability rather than relation to the leader.

In that respect, it's remarkably similar to how pirates operated in the Caribbean. Absolutely brutal and ruthless if forced to fight- but far better working conditions than equivalent naval vessels for their crews. And if you surrendered most of the time they'd just take the cargo or a wealthy captive or two for ransom and then leave the ship to sail off to its destination. Most pirate ships were democratically run outside of combat where the Captain's word was law, and split wealth by shares. It's a very peculiar paradox that the ones willing to operate in the bloodiest fashion to their enemies don't want to treat their subjects and allies that way.

has probably to do with maintaining cohesion and discipline in a manpower pool and structures that have inherent disadvantages for such.
By treating everyone as fairly as one could, including early forms of insurance, you can maintain motivation and loyality far easier.
However it's also a two sided sword when you look at punishments for the same lot, you can even compare it to condotieri or other mercenary forces. Landsknechte f.e. had Spiessrutenlauf for heavy punishments and or beeing forced to partake in the forlorn hope, swiss regiments were known to string up cowards, etc.

Cronch wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Being a tanker, especially in the WWII era, could also be pretty damn bad. Internal combustion engines and ammunition storage in the time were still having kinks worked out of them. There was always a risk that your tank would catch fire or that ammunition would be set off. With you inside the tank. Trapped in an iron can. With only a few tiny hatches to shimmy your way out of.

If I recall correctly, US tankers in WW2 had casualty rate of ~5% vs ~20% of Infantry. Being in a WW2 tank was still a lot safer than being out in the open.

Oh it was.

I just think that burning alive, or suffocating as your armored shell fills with smoke, or being pinned as heavy rain floods the vehicle after a battle are all rotten ways to die. Like, I've never been shot, but in abstract I'd rather be shot than set of fire. One of those sounds more horrific than the other XD

I think what also really sucks were the dudes landing on fortified beaches with the enemy knowing they were coming. D-Day is the most popular example, but I'm sure there were similar situations in the pacific and elsewhere. The same situation for paratroopers when they are dropped somewhere, where there are armed defenders aware of them. I think few things suck more than hanging on a parachute when down below are hundreds of armed enemies seeing you gliding down or sitting in a landing boat when the enemy knows full well where you will be standing at when the ramp drops and he has a machine gun.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I think what also really sucks were the dudes landing on fortified beaches with the enemy knowing they were coming. D-Day is the most popular example, but I'm sure there were similar situations in the pacific and elsewhere. The same situation for paratroopers when they are dropped somewhere, where there are armed defenders aware of them. I think few things suck more than hanging on a parachute when down below are hundreds of armed enemies seeing you gliding down or sitting in a landing boat when the enemy knows full well where you will be standing at when the ramp drops and he has a machine gun.

I highly recommend With the Old Breed by E.B. Sledge if you want a first hand account of the island hopping campaign. The book along with another (or two, I don't remember off the top of my head) was used as the basis for The Pacific, Band of Brother's sister show. D-Day was horrific, but overall my impression is that the Pacific campaign was worse. War crimes were committed casually, even by the USMC (admittedly to a lesser extent than those of the Japanese Army). It was severe enough that I don't understand how Vietnam wasn't anticipated better in terms of that conflict becoming a SNAFU.

Cronch wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Being a tanker, especially in the WWII era, could also be pretty damn bad. Internal combustion engines and ammunition storage in the time were still having kinks worked out of them. There was always a risk that your tank would catch fire or that ammunition would be set off. With you inside the tank. Trapped in an iron can. With only a few tiny hatches to shimmy your way out of.

If I recall correctly, US tankers in WW2 had casualty rate of ~5% vs ~20% of Infantry. Being in a WW2 tank was still a lot safer than being out in the open.

It's also worth noting that most U.S. tanker casualties happened when the tankers were outside the tank as well. Sentry duty and the like.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I think what also really sucks were the dudes landing on fortified beaches with the enemy knowing they were coming. D-Day is the most popular example, but I'm sure there were similar situations in the pacific and elsewhere. The same situation for paratroopers when they are dropped somewhere, where there are armed defenders aware of them. I think few things suck more than hanging on a parachute when down below are hundreds of armed enemies seeing you gliding down or sitting in a landing boat when the enemy knows full well where you will be standing at when the ramp drops and he has a machine gun.

I highly recommend With the Old Breed by E.B. Sledge if you want a first hand account of the island hopping campaign. The book along with another (or two, I don't remember off the top of my head) was used as the basis for The Pacific, Band of Brother's sister show. D-Day was horrific, but overall my impression is that the Pacific campaign was worse. War crimes were committed casually, even by the USMC (admittedly to a lesser extent than those of the Japanese Army). It was severe enough that I don't understand how Vietnam wasn't anticipated better in terms of that conflict becoming a SNAFU.

Great book. But yeah, grim though. Regarding the brutality, it seems like its just how things were. The USMC there seemed to adapt to the brutality shown by the imperial army and met it with full force.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Oh definitely. In war the Mongols were brutal if you did not immediately surrender. If they offered you terms, then you'd best take them.

What is really interesting is how starkly contrasting the society under Genghis was to his ruthlessness on the battlefield. The Mongol empire had freedom of religion and diplomatic immunity, he criminalised abduction and enslavement of Mongols, he forbade the kidnapping and selling of women (which was previously a legitimate way of acquiring a wife and Genghis himself had had his wife stolen earlier in his life), all children born of Mongol parents were legitimate, he abolished inherited aristocratic titles, he introduced tax exemptions for people in professions of essential public services including religious leaders, doctors, teachers, undertakers etc. This on top of how he had earlier changed the structure of the council of a horde, changing it to more of a meritocracy where you would be assigned positions based on loyalty and ability rather than relation to the leader.

In that respect, it's remarkably similar to how pirates operated in the Caribbean. Absolutely brutal and ruthless if forced to fight- but far better working conditions than equivalent naval vessels for their crews. And if you surrendered most of the time they'd just take the cargo or a wealthy captive or two for ransom and then leave the ship to sail off to its destination. Most pirate ships were democratically run outside of combat where the Captain's word was law, and split wealth by shares. It's a very peculiar paradox that the ones willing to operate in the bloodiest fashion to their enemies don't want to treat their subjects and allies that way.

It wasn't "Better working conditions" in the Mongol army - almost all infractions resulted in capital punishment. It wasn't democratic. Most cities that surrendered to the Mongols could reasonably expect wholesale slaughter of the population as their reward for compliance. The two systems, if what you say about piracy in the Caribbean is accurate, were not remarkably similar.

How about the poor gits who were assigned to launch duty on nuclear weapons? The guys who would push the buttons that actually launched the missiles or dropped the nuclear bombs?

Imagine sitting in a deep bunker a few hundred feet underground, knowing it an enemy i warhead detonated near you you'd likely be trapped down there till you died, and even in the best of cases you;re going to be killing countless unarmed people, many7 children?

I recall hearing that the US military had to conduct very careful psych screening for people assigned that duty to see if they actually would push the button if they got the order to.

 Matt Swain wrote:
How about the poor gits who were assigned to launch duty on nuclear weapons? The guys who would push the buttons that actually launched the missiles or dropped the nuclear bombs?

Imagine sitting in a deep bunker a few hundred feet underground, knowing it an enemy i warhead detonated near you you'd likely be trapped down there till you died, and even in the best of cases you;re going to be killing countless unarmed people, many7 children?

I recall hearing that the US military had to conduct very careful psych screening for people assigned that duty to see if they actually would push the button if they got the order to.

On that note, imagine being the observers for all of the tests in the 40's. Here, take these cool goggles and sit a smidge too close to the blast and let us know how it goes..

 Matt Swain wrote:
How about the poor gits who were assigned to launch duty on nuclear weapons? The guys who would push the buttons that actually launched the missiles or dropped the nuclear bombs?

Imagine sitting in a deep bunker a few hundred feet underground, knowing it an enemy i warhead detonated near you you'd likely be trapped down there till you died, and even in the best of cases you;re going to be killing countless unarmed people, many7 children?

I recall hearing that the US military had to conduct very careful psych screening for people assigned that duty to see if they actually would push the button if they got the order to.

Can people really comprehend that end result of pushing a button?