A Question Regarding Soldiers

[Starwynd]

One of the hard choices a soldier might have to make is that sometimes a child will be armed with the intent to kill a soldier with a bomb or a firearm. For example, in Israel children will drop stones that are large enough to crush a soldier’s head in from a high roof. In Iraq there have been suicide bombers as young as twelve I believe.

So the question I have is should a soldier allow the child to kill him or should he kill the child in self defense?

Does the Church have a position on this situation?

And is it a mortal sin to do so regardless of the circumstances? Or is the killing of children, even under these situations, completely off-limits no matter what?

 

[ConallCernach]

One of the hard choices a soldier might have to make is that sometimes a child will be armed with the intent to kill a soldier with a bomb or a firearm. For example, in Israel children will drop stones that are large enough to crush a soldier’s head in from a high roof. In Iraq there have been suicide bombers as young as twelve I believe.

So the question I have is should a soldier allow the child to kill him or should he kill the child in self defense?

Does the Church have a position on this situation?

And is it a mortal sin to do so regardless of the circumstances? Or is the killing of children, even under these situations, completely off-limits no matter what?

This is a difficult scenario, and I’m going to try my best.

First we have to discern whether or not the war is justified, if it is then we can move on.

Next, comes an attack from the child, if you can stop the child without killing or harming them, that’s the way to go (i.e. shooting them in the shoulder or disarming them if possible).

In a justified war, the intent of the person is the defense of their nation, not the killing of opposing soldiers, and Christians shouldn’t wish death upon those that they fight. As such the death of a child combatant isn’t the object, or intent of the soldier fighting.

Pax

 

[Wirraway]

…
Next, comes an attack from the child, if you can stop the child without killing or harming them, that’s the way to go (i.e. shooting them in the shoulder or disarming them if possible).

In a justified war, the intent of the person is the defense of their nation, not the killing of opposing soldiers, and Christians shouldn’t wish death upon those that they fight. …
Pax

I don’t think that’s either practical or good advice, shooting to wound (wounded people can still pose a deadly threat). the law enforcement community could weigh on on this. if lethal force is justified in self defense, defense of others situation, using less than lethal force indicates that the shooter believes that lethal force was not justified. however, shooting a gun is, in fact, the use of lethal force (since any wound could kill).

the unstated problem here is that older military cartidges, jacketed, .30 caliber and full power, could make a clean wound, basically a through and through puncture with a small wound channel, hence the preference for these bullets by the Hague Convention of 1899 over the outlawed expanding bullets (as a hunter would use). a soldier could be wounded, but not necessarily destructively so, and be off the field of combat.

on the other hand, modern military cartridges like the NATO 5.56x45 are ballistically unstable when they enter a body, rotate forward and tend to fragment, creating larger wound channels and more destructive, life threatening wounds.

 

[JPUSC]

You should try asking your question a catholicmil.org

It is a great resource sanctioned by the Archdiocese for the Military Services

 

[rpp]

This is a difficult scenario, and I’m going to try my best.

First we have to discern whether or not the war is justified, if it is then we can move on.

Next, comes an attack from the child, if you can stop the child without killing or harming them, that’s the way to go (i.e. shooting them in the shoulder or disarming them if possible).

The implication of this post is that American soldiers are all murders. That is utterly false and a cruel lie.

In a justified war, the intent of the person is the defense of their nation, not the killing of opposing soldiers, and Christians shouldn’t wish death upon those that they fight. As such the death of a child combatant isn’t the object, or intent of the soldier fighting.

Pax

There is quite a bit wrong with this answer.

Whether a war is just or not does not enter into the equation. The Church HAS spoken on this. Soldiers can rightly serve in the military even if their country orders them to engage in an unjust war.

Next, shooting to wound someone bent on killing you or other is generally a bad idea. Wounding a suicide bomber, for example, will only lead them to detonate their bomb sooner. Secondly it is very difficult to shoot to wound someone and have the wound actually stop them.

Finally, this does not actually answer the OP’s question. Soldiers, and civilians for that matter, are morally obligated to protect people. The age or gender of person attacking and threatening death is irrelevant. What is relevant is our perception of children. Which is why evil people manipulate children to fight in wars or be suicide bombers. The enemy will either not suspect them of being dangerous or will not properly defend themselves.

The direct answer to your question is if a child is trying to kill a solder, the solder is morally justified in taking whatever action to stop the threat. The same if it was an adult attacking. If deadly force is required to stop the threat, then deadly force is justified.

 

[twb1621]

The direct answer to your question is if a child is trying to kill a solder, the solder is morally justified in taking whatever action to stop the threat. The same if it was an adult attacking. If deadly force is required to stop the threat, then deadly force is justified.

I agree with this. A person is to use only that force necessary to end the threat. Who the person is that is carrying out the threat does not matter, only that the threat is real and unjust.

 

[Il_Cattivo]

So the question I have is should a soldier allow the child to kill him or should he kill the child in self defense?

If there is no way around it, and the life of you and your friends are at stake, the soldier should kill the child in self-defense, as horrible as that sounds.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

I’m having trouble imagining a scenario where a soldier [or policeman or any of us] would have an opportunity to ascertain with certainty the age of an attacker-- ‘Stop shooting for a moment, would you? Do you have any ID? Because I’m not allowed to use deadly force if you are a ‘child’. Ah, 17: you can’t vote, but can give consent for sex, and in some states, marry. In that case, I’m allowed to shoot you, but only a little. Thanks for your co-operation in this matter. Let us now take our prior positions and on the count of 3 resume our hostilities…’

The age of the attacker has no bearing on the inaliable right of self defense.

Whether the attacker is 8 or 80, the prosepective victim would be just as dead, would he not?

 

[Il_Cattivo]

The age of the attacker has no bearing on the inaliable right of self defense.

 

[RobGentner]

I don’t think that’s either practical or good advice, shooting to wound (wounded people can still pose a deadly threat). the law enforcement community could weigh on on this. if lethal force is justified in self defense, defense of others situation, using less than lethal force indicates that the shooter believes that lethal force was not justified. however, shooting a gun is, in fact, the use of lethal force (since any wound could kill).

the unstated problem here is that older military cartidges, jacketed, .30 caliber and full power, could make a clean wound, basically a through and through puncture with a small wound channel, hence the preference for these bullets by the Hague Convention of 1899 over the outlawed expanding bullets (as a hunter would use). a soldier could be wounded, but not necessarily destructively so, and be off the field of combat.

on the other hand, modern military cartridges like the NATO 5.56x45 are ballistically unstable when they enter a body, rotate forward and tend to fragment, creating larger wound channels and more destructive, life threatening wounds.

**
As a soldier with 54 comfirmed kills in Vietnam. Using both the M14 and later the M-16 I would like to add a couple of points. We were taught to “wound” the enemy, Why? Because you get him and the others that have to move him to the rear out of the fight (Good Theory)
I found the Patton Rule: "A soldier’s job is not to die for his country, it is to make the other “soldier” die for his! (Couldn’t use Patton’s word without a TOS Violation, so I substituted “soldier”) (A better working Theory!)

Remember, a dead soldier fights no more!

With a knife you could carve a “cross” which while a religious symbol, also weakened the jacket and might make rounds expand. Of course no soldier would do this, it would be against the rules of engagements Just like shooting 50 Cal machine guns at ground forces. I remember the first time the VC did that, It tore down trees all around us! :bigyikes: **

 

[RobGentner]

One of the hard choices a soldier might have to make is that sometimes a child will be armed with the intent to kill a soldier with a bomb or a firearm. For example, in Israel children will drop stones that are large enough to crush a soldier’s head in from a high roof. In Iraq there have been suicide bombers as young as twelve I believe.

So the question I have is should a soldier allow the child to kill him or should he kill the child in self defense?

Does the Church have a position on this situation?

And is it a mortal sin to do so regardless of the circumstances? Or is the killing of children, even under these situations, completely off-limits no matter what?

** In Vietnam, I never shot a child nor a woman. Why not? Easy answer ~ None ever tried to kill me!

In war, Soldiers kill other Soldiers. Not the innocent people. We also don’t steal or rape. That is done by criminals of which some are in the military. They aren’t soldiers!

Now if a “young enemy soldier” or a “female enemy soldier” wanted to have a shooting match. I would only say: “Bring it on!”

How dumb would you have to be to allow someone to injure or kill you just because of their age or sex? Your first name would have to be Forrest or Conall !**

 

[RobGentner]

One of the hard choices a soldier might have to make is that sometimes a child will be armed with the intent to kill a soldier with a bomb or a firearm.

**Not even close to a “hard” Choice. A hard choice to a soldier is if he should “INSURE” the child is dead by shooting a full magazine into the body or conserve the ammo incase another Kid wanted a little action! That is the only hard decision! **

For example, in Israel children will drop stones that are large enough to crush a soldier’s head in from a high roof. In Iraq there have been suicide bombers as young as twelve I believe.
** They would do it only once if you take a good bead and shoot them right between the eyes! It would even stop 7 and 8 year olds from doing it, I think!**

So the question I have is should a soldier allow the child to kill him or should he kill the child in self defense?
**Tick, tock, tick, tock! Oh sorry … I was thinking? Hmmmm what should I do? Boy why the hard questions?

:extrahappy: **

Does the Church have a position on this situation?
**Yes it does. **

And is it a mortal sin to do so regardless of the circumstances? Or is the killing of children, even under these situations, completely off-limits no matter what?
**Looking under age of killers, wait, It has to be in the CCC somewhere :jrbirdman:

:coffeeread: Moral dilemmas

I guess I would just shot him and let God decide! :doh2: **