Morality of snipers

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrooklynBoy200
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldiers shoot other soldiers. Generally during wars.

Whether or not the other soldier is aware of danger at that moment, that soldier knows full well that there’s a uniform on his back and he’s in a war situation – and that uniform means he’s potentially in harm’s way.

If you were running around shooting J. Random Civilian, that would be wrong, obviously.

Terrorists don’t wear uniforms but do kill people. That makes them stand outside the traditional laws of war, and traditionally would make them fair game at all times, just as military guys doing missions out of uniform could traditionally be shot as spies if caught. New laws of war seem to be coming in, however, and then soldiers would be bound by the new laws.
 
The Americans in the revolution were some of the first to use ambushes and guerilla (sp?) warfare as regular tactics. Open face to face battles died out with the Napoleanic wars.

The British were shocked at such uncivilized tactics.

Using terrorists disguised as civilians is another matter, and attacking civilians is just plain immoral.

Snipers attacking uniformed enemy(s) is fair game. IF you are in the military, those are the risks you take. Snipers attacking non combatants, falls under asassinations, is cowardly and immoral.
 
wcknight said:
The Americans in the revolution were some of the first to use ambushes and guerilla (sp?) warfare as regular tactics. Open face to face battles died out with the Napoleanic wars.

The British were shocked at such uncivilized tactics.

Using terrorists disguised as civilians is another matter, and attacking civilians is just plain immoral.

Snipers attacking uniformed enemy(s) is fair game. IF you are in the military, those are the risks you take. Snipers attacking non combatants, falls under asassinations, is cowardly and immoral.
Click to expand...
There are also situations in which combatants one one side may not be in uniform, may be considered to be terrorists, may be positioning or planting landmines or IEDs, etc. In that case, they are fair targets for snipers also.
 
Al_Masetti said:
There are also situations in which combatants one one side may not be in uniform, may be considered to be terrorists, may be positioning or planting landmines or IEDs, etc. In that case, they are fair targets for snipers also.
Click to expand...
Yes, in this day and age it gets really tough to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Terrorists seem to cross all lines to create a new category somewhere between spies and nutcases.
 
wcknight said:
Yes, in this day and age it gets really tough to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Terrorists seem to cross all lines to create a new category somewhere between spies and nutcases.
Click to expand...
Snipers tend to watch their targets or the target’s “neighborhood” for hours and days at a time. When they see a “civilian” who is carrying an AK-47 and who is planting an IED, then they have a pretty good idea that it’s a bad guy.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Snipers tend to watch their targets or the target’s “neighborhood” for hours and days at a time.
Click to expand...
Yes, apparently this is why many snipers (I hear) run a high risk of addiction to anti-depressants. Not because they’re depressed, but because anti-depressants like Prozac let the body use more of its seratonin, the chemical depleted when you don’t sleep. Also, anti-depressants stop small muscle tremors that make the hands shake.
 
Hastrman said:
Yes, apparently this is why many snipers (I hear) run a high risk of addiction to anti-depressants. Not because they’re depressed, but because anti-depressants like Prozac let the body use more of its seratonin, the chemical depleted when you don’t sleep. Also, anti-depressants stop small muscle tremors that make the hands shake.
Click to expand...
And you know this because …
 
That snipers have a high risk, is just something I’d heard.

I know how Prozac works because I used to be on it. Switched to 5HTP (concentrated triptophan, the stuff in turkey that makes you sleepy) because it was cheaper and over-the-counter. It works a lot better.

See, Prozac is a seratonin re-uptake inhibitor–it prevents your body from reabsorbing its seratonin, so it gets more use out of it. 5HTP creates more seratonin. Apparently my problem is that I don’t make enough, not that I absorb it too fast, because 5HTP helps more.
 
From the late USMC Scout Sniper Carlos Hathcock :
"…anybody would be crazy to like to go out and
kill folks. . . . I never did enjoy killing anybody. It’s my job. If
I don’t get those [expletive], then they’re going to kill a lot of these kids(fellow Marines). That’s the way I look at it."
 
🙂 Yo, RLT!

Good comment on Carlos Hathcock. It was in his bio that we read about the two Renaissance guys.

Talk about a revolution: Carlos did it almost 100% by himself.

As late as Nov-Dec 1966 our 2-man WesPAC sniper teams were still using M1 Garands with a stubby scope and leather cheek pieces.

By the end of January 1967?

Pow!

Our guys were coming back from Sniper School armed with point three o’eight Remington BDLs, Winchester 70’s, scopes “a yard long” you name it.

Looks ot me like both you and Sandi got it covered.

Aurelio:thumbsup:

“I was in the 27th RLT myself.”
 
RLT said:
From the late USMC Scout Sniper Carlos Hathcock :
"…anybody would be crazy to like to go out and
kill folks. . . . I never did enjoy killing anybody. It’s my job. If
I don’t get those [expletive], then they’re going to kill a lot of these kids(fellow Marines). That’s the way I look at it."
Click to expand...
Excellent post!
 
Aurelio said:
🙂 Yo, RLT!

Good comment on Carlos Hathcock. It was in his bio that we read about the two Renaissance guys.

Talk about a revolution: Carlos did it almost 100% by himself.

As late as Nov-Dec 1966 our 2-man WesPAC sniper teams were still using M1 Garands with a stubby scope and leather cheek pieces.

By the end of January 1967?

Pow!

Our guys were coming back from Sniper School armed with point three o’eight Remington BDLs, Winchester 70’s, scopes “a yard long” you name it.

Looks ot me like both you and Sandi got it covered.

Aurelio:thumbsup:

“I was in the 27th RLT myself.”
Click to expand...
If you read the various letters from snipers, because of their skills, they are looked down upon. They are denied proper equipment. They are not allowed to be properly utilized.

In addition to:
Code: 
[www.americansnipers.org](www.americansnipers.org)
there is another site:

www.sofmag.com

which also has had a long set of articles and letters about and from snipers complaining about their not being allowed to be utilized properly. (Unfortunately, most of the articles and letters are in the paid-portion of the site.)
 
🙂 Howdy, Al!

Only too true, but lucky me, Santa Clause sent me a free copy of SOF Christmas 2005 and I got to read a great article by some Gunnery Sergeant (E-7) and how he got to meet and actually talk with someone involved in his official duties.

Funny thing about all these complaints:

It’s almost like the American Catholic morality espoused by certain Jesuits in a late 1930s text book on on morality, theology, etc., have spread all around the USA these days.

One of my siblings used it in her “Catholic” College in the late 1940s.

The Jesuits said that, while war was a necessary evil, ambushes, trickery, etc. were more or less “morally all wrong.”

Not content with that, these paragons of the so-called Golden Age of American Catholicism went so far as to say that inbound passengers on an international flight who have something to declare but who lie to customs are “ok.”

Why?** Because it is up to the customs officers to make their own decisions!:** 😃

Aurelio:thumbsup:
 
BrooklynBoy200 said:
Is it ok to be a sniper in the army? Is it considered immoral to shoot someone who is unaware of your presence? Is this included in the section or whatever that deals with wars? Thanks.
Click to expand...
My totally non-expert judgment would be that it would depend whom you were shooting and why. I agree with other posters that if you were shooting an enemy combatant engaged in military activities designed to kill you and your comrades, the action would be moral. (I worded that somewhat vaguely on purpose.) If, on the other hand, the purpose was simply to demoralize the enemy (i.e, if you were shooting an ordinary soldier who was not on duty), then I’d say it was immoral. But my guess would be that snipers usually shoot people who are taking part in key military activities–manning machine guns, commanding troops, etc. If any killing is legitimate (which I think it is), then this would be legitimate.

I actually think sniping is more legitimate than most other activities of modern warfare. I have far more problems with dropping bombs, shelling enemy positions, etc. Granted, far more precision is possible than was the case, say, in WWII. But you are still killing impersonally and on a rather indiscriminate scale. Killing a general in the act of commanding enemy troops seems positively virtuous by comparison. (Similarly, I think assassination is less morally problematic than war–I think the invasion of Iraq was horribly wrong on many levels, but I would have completely supported the assassination of Saddam!)

But I have never been in combat, so I am a poor judge. Still, my general opinion would be that unless your conscience tells you with utter clarity that the war is unjust in the first place, then killing an armed enemy combatant would be morally legitimate whether he was aware of your presence or not.

(FWIW, while I opposed the Iraq war from the start, I am not certain enough that it is unjust that I would resist being drafted as a combatant, though I’m grateful that this is not going to happen.)

Edwin
 
Church_Militant said:
Perhaps you have never heard the definition of a fair fight?

Answer: The one that I win…
Click to expand...
That is about as wicked a sentiment as it is possible to express. If any heresy deserved burning, this would.

Of course you may have been joking, in which case why couldn’t you joke about something trivial like theft or adultery?:mad:

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top