What's the difference between a soldier, an assassin, and a mercenary? - Page 2

GoldenRivet · 06-10-09, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

If "duty" means "follows orders regardless of personal morality (if any)" then I can agree with that part.
The other three are all properties of an individual; they are not magically "instilled" (your word) in someone when they take a certain job.

coming from a military family, i can tell you that most soldiers do have an enlarged sense of patriotism and honor.

duty has multiple definitions i suppose?

Duty to me and many i know does not mean "follows orders without regard to personal morality" - duty means a sense of obligation or dedication to a cause larger than one's self.

ie - if i were in the peace corps it would have been my "duty" to help people in need and promote intercultural understanding through peaceful initiatives and projects.

as a flight instructor - it is my duty to see that my student receives the best possible training that i am capable of providing.

Skybird · 06-10-09, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

The same could be said (and is said) about military organisations.

Not really. A nation uses to support and maintain it'S military even when not being at war. It even may desire to avoid war. However, that decision is a political one, not a military one. The decision to join a war is made by politicians and givenrment - not by the miluitary. But the mercenary company makes that decision itself, by chosing its contracts and offering its services.

I agree however, that this is somewhat the ideal circumstance that probably in no other Western country has been left behind to such a degree like in the US where the mililtary-industrial complex heavily interferes with policy-making to sell it's goodies to the military, which leads to absurd events like systems and quantities being sold that the military does not need, but is ordered by politicians to get nevertheless. War-profiteers certainly are not feeling sad about wars braking out. they are also great in painting threats that are exaggerated or not real at all.

The borderline between ideal utopia and failing reality certainly is no solid one. the American example above we have had in Germany, too, and several times. Most prominent is the old Starfighter-program of which the CSU defence minster ordered more than the Luftwaffe needed, or had the potential to properly maintain. The result was that the damn things did not stop to fall out of the skies. Every third plane in German service, to name it - almost 300.

onelifecrisis · 06-10-09, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Duty to me and many i know does not mean "follows orders without regard to personal morality" - duty means a sense of obligation or dedication to a cause larger than one's self.

And what is that cause?

onelifecrisis · 06-10-09, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Not really. A nation uses to support and maintain it'S military even when not being at war. It even may desire to avoid war. However, that decision is a political one, not a military one. The decision to join a war is made by politicians and givenrment - not by the miluitary. But the mercenary company makes that decision itself, by chosing its contracts and offering its services.

I agree however, that this si somewhat tjhe dieal circumstance that probably on no other Wetsern country has been left behind to such a degree like in the US where the mililtary-industrial complex heavily interferes with policy-making to sell it's goodies to the military, whioch öead to absurd events like systems and quantities being sold that the military does not need, but is ordered by politicians to get nevertheless. War-profiteers certainly are not feeling sad about wars braking out.

The borderline between ideal utopia and failing reality certainly is no solid one.

I agree with all of that. But that's boring, so let's find something to disagree on...

GoldenRivet · 06-10-09, 09:59 AM

the soldier's "cause"... it could be many things.

from saving a small farming community from natural disaster, to seeing through the conclusion of the second world war and the liberation of Eurpope, it could be defending the home shores from foriegn invasion, or entering a dangerous area to evacuate the stranded, sick, or wounded in need of help who cannot help themselves (picture elderly or sick stranded on a volcanic island, or those who are displaced after a hurricaine or tsunami).

point being... the mission scope of a soldier is multifaceted... soldiers do not always carry rifles, and their mission is not always to kill, it is often to serve, protect and rescue etc.

the Merc and the Assassin are not paid to perform these services, only to kill.

onelifecrisis · 06-10-09, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

the soldier's "cause"... it could be many things.

from saving a small farming community from natural disaster, to seeing through the conclusion of the second world war and the liberation of Eurpope, it could be defending the home shores from foriegn invasion, or entering a dangerous area to evacuate the stranded, sick, or wounded in need of help who cannot help themselves (picture elderly or sick stranded on a volcanic island, or those who are displaced after a hurricaine or tsunami).

Okay, in respect for your not rising to my previous comments I'll temper my response to this bit... but I must say that IMO that is an unrealistically romantic vision of what a soldier really is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

point being... the mission scope of a soldier is multifaceted... soldiers do not always carry rifles, and their mission is not always to kill, it is often to serve, protect and rescue etc.

the Merc and the Assassin are not paid to perform these services, only to kill.

Fair point, and I should think (I certainly hope) that most soldiers prefer the work that doesn't involve killing. But still, for me, I'd have real difficulty signing on the dotted line of a contract which said:

In this job you will, hopefully, spend most of your time helping the helpless and assisting old ladies off the top of volcanoes (and we'll take pictures of you doing it) but every now and then we'll tell you to kill people and you'll have to do it, okay?

I'm not sure I could sign that.

GoldenRivet · 06-10-09, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

I'm not sure I could sign that.

soldiering ain't for everybody

but one day if a dictator shows knocking on the door of your nation, killing your civil populous - you will be glad there was someone who did sign that line.

of course that already happened to your country and mine

onelifecrisis · 06-10-09, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

soldiering ain't for everybody

but one day if a dictator shows knocking on the door of your nation, killing your civil populous - you will be glad there was someone who did sign that line.

of course that already happened to your country and mine

Indeed. As you Americans might say:
Ain't that a b!tch.

GoldenRivet · 06-10-09, 10:27 AM

always is a b*tch when that happens :rotfl:

so... have we established that there is at least a notable difference between a soldier, and the merc/assassin?

hope so!

i have to go to work for the rest of the day!

(where i hope to not kill anyone)

06-10-09, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

However, that decision is a political one, not a military one.

How exactly do you differentiate between the two?

onelifecrisis · 06-10-09, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

i have to go to work for the rest of the day!

(where i hope to not kill anyone)

Heh, good luck with that last part! In my last job my boss took me to one side one day and asked if there was any possibility that I might show up to work with a gun one day and start randomly killing people. I laughed, but he didn't. Then I realised he was serious.

Okay so I was going through a bad period at that time, and I suppose it showed, but still...

onelifecrisis · 06-10-09, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

How exactly do you differentiate between the two?

Read the rest of the post you quoted.

06-10-09, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Read the rest of the post you quoted.

Well maybe I'd like to hear how he defines it in Germany because we here in Finland have problems with our 'military-industrial complex' meddling with day to day politics etc.

The way I see it there is no clear line between politics and the military in ANY nation. There is always a significant amount of overlapping, much more then is usually openly admitted.

roman2440 · 06-10-09, 10:58 AM

Most of you guys have it all wrong.

I'll start with the distinction between soldier and merc. The difference comes solely from the origination of the service.

Soldiers are drawn into a service, trained, equipped, housed, and otherwise taken care of. There generally isn't any requirements beyond simple physical requirements made of the people joining up. The government provides training and equips the soldiers in most cases. There is an expectation that to muster a new unit of soldiers requires some lead time to prepare the soldiers and to train.

Mercs are paid to perform their tasks. Generally the paying entity (i.e. the government) doesn't provide a whole lot other than the pay and orders. Sometimes they'll provide transportation, sometimes some housing, but usually the bulk of what it takes to build a fighting unit is put upon those they are hiring. Meaning that the government generally doesn't pay for training, doesn't pay for most of the equipment, etc... In most cases, mercs are 'purchased' ready to go, or very near ready to go - very little prep time/training time is allotted for.

Once a soldier or a merc is brought on board, there is little/no difference between them. They both can do the same tasks. They both can kill, they both can decide to care about an issue or not.

The only other real difference I guess is what happens when a particular member decides to retire - as a soldier generally they are taken care of by the state, whereas as a merc the outfit has to take care of them (if it all).

Assassins on the other hand are different, and could be a subset of either group. Assassins are defined simply as someone whos sole job is to kill other individuals without regard to any other conflict related tasks (such as holding ground). An assassin can be a soldier or a merc - all that depends on is whether they are trained and equipped by the country or the unit/themselves.

GoldenRivet · 06-10-09, 10:59 AM

the argument of politics is invalid.

here is why.

the discussion is "what is the difference between the soldier, the merc, and the assassin?"

politics is defined as "the art or science of governing an entity like a nation or a group of people" (imho it is neither art nor science but thats another thread)

all three are affected by politics to some degree, perhaps equally so, politics alone does not determine the role each party plays, it simply justifies the necessity of each party.

assuming each party is equally necessary, what is the difference in the three is the focus of the original question i do believe.

thus i maintain

the soldier serves to protect the citizens of his home nation in multiple ways - through public service, rescue, etc and sometimes yes- even killing.

the assassin kills a public figure for his own personal reasons, or financial motives.

the mercenary kills the enemy of his benefactor, regardless of who the benefactor or the enemy may be.

06-10-09, 09:59 AM	#20
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	the soldier's "cause"... it could be many things. from saving a small farming community from natural disaster, to seeing through the conclusion of the second world war and the liberation of Eurpope, it could be defending the home shores from foriegn invasion, or entering a dangerous area to evacuate the stranded, sick, or wounded in need of help who cannot help themselves (picture elderly or sick stranded on a volcanic island, or those who are displaced after a hurricaine or tsunami). point being... the mission scope of a soldier is multifaceted... soldiers do not always carry rifles, and their mission is not always to kill, it is often to serve, protect and rescue etc. the Merc and the Assassin are not paid to perform these services, only to kill. __________________

06-10-09, 10:27 AM	#24
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	always is a b*tch when that happens :rotfl: so... have we established that there is at least a notable difference between a soldier, and the merc/assassin? hope so! i have to go to work for the rest of the day! (where i hope to not kill anyone) __________________

06-10-09, 10:59 AM	#30
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	the argument of politics is invalid. here is why. the discussion is "what is the difference between the soldier, the merc, and the assassin?" politics is defined as "the art or science of governing an entity like a nation or a group of people" (imho it is neither art nor science but thats another thread) all three are affected by politics to some degree, perhaps equally so, politics alone does not determine the role each party plays, it simply justifies the necessity of each party. assuming each party is equally necessary, what is the difference in the three is the focus of the original question i do believe. thus i maintain the soldier serves to protect the citizens of his home nation in multiple ways - through public service, rescue, etc and sometimes yes- even killing. the assassin kills a public figure for his own personal reasons, or financial motives. the mercenary kills the enemy of his benefactor, regardless of who the benefactor or the enemy may be. __________________

06-10-09, 10:58 AM	#29
roman2440 Seaman Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 32 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	Most of you guys have it all wrong. I'll start with the distinction between soldier and merc. The difference comes solely from the origination of the service. Soldiers are drawn into a service, trained, equipped, housed, and otherwise taken care of. There generally isn't any requirements beyond simple physical requirements made of the people joining up. The government provides training and equips the soldiers in most cases. There is an expectation that to muster a new unit of soldiers requires some lead time to prepare the soldiers and to train. Mercs are paid to perform their tasks. Generally the paying entity (i.e. the government) doesn't provide a whole lot other than the pay and orders. Sometimes they'll provide transportation, sometimes some housing, but usually the bulk of what it takes to build a fighting unit is put upon those they are hiring. Meaning that the government generally doesn't pay for training, doesn't pay for most of the equipment, etc... In most cases, mercs are 'purchased' ready to go, or very near ready to go - very little prep time/training time is allotted for. Once a soldier or a merc is brought on board, there is little/no difference between them. They both can do the same tasks. They both can kill, they both can decide to care about an issue or not. The only other real difference I guess is what happens when a particular member decides to retire - as a soldier generally they are taken care of by the state, whereas as a merc the outfit has to take care of them (if it all). Assassins on the other hand are different, and could be a subset of either group. Assassins are defined simply as someone whos sole job is to kill other individuals without regard to any other conflict related tasks (such as holding ground). An assassin can be a soldier or a merc - all that depends on is whether they are trained and equipped by the country or the unit/themselves.