The ultimate sacrifice

[Psycluded]

What in this world is worth dying for, to you? What, when given the choice between seeing its destruction and laying down your life to prevent it, would you gladly choose the latter?

This question is spurred by recent, repeated examples of individuals believing that there is no such thing, no such ideal, no such person in their lives worth risking, and if necessary, sacrificing their lives for.

Personally, the top of my list is dominated by my 8-month old daughter and my wife. I have in the past, and will gladly again if need be, risk my neck to keep theirs safe. What about you?

[baggygreen]

Well.. given as i think what we got down under is worth a bit of personal sacrifice to take care of, i enlisted.

There are a few people around who i have had to do things for that i've not liked afterwards, but at the time there was no real choice, a bit of the adrenaline thing i spose. Id do the very same thing again if i had time to think about it though, because they're people i care enough about to want to ensure their continued healthy lives.

is that answering what you asked? im prettty sure i understood your question, but my mind is off in the realm of australias republican debate, so god knows what im really reading here

[Psycluded]

Yeah, that's pretty much it. *grins*

I've served in the US Air Force, and as a member of my local city's police force, and I was simply curious as to how many people out there acrually have -something- they're willing to put it all on the line for. I read so many opinions from pacifists and the like that to them, nothing is worth that, and to be blunt, the paradigm is pretty disturbing to me on a basic level.

[Letum]

RAF pilots asked if they would make kamikaze attacks

[Camaero]

America and what freedom means. I would die for it today.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Camaero

America and what freedom means. I would die for it today.

Isn't death for freedom a little ironic?
You can't really be free if you are dead.

If you mean other peoples freedom, then there are plenty of people that are not free. If you are really up for risking your life to give them more freedom than I can point you in the right direction!

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I'd gladly do so to save the girl in my sig. I'm serious.

[baggygreen]

you're lucky, KP! very very lucky to have someone like that - n believe me, i dont doubt your sincerity!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

RAF pilots asked if they would make kamikaze attacks

Yes, that is an interesting thing, this British general and the young pilots, isn't it.

But isn't it like this: that in war you sometimes do give commands (or even accept commands) that surely mean that some of your men (or you yourself) surely will die?

I remember the opening scenes of the battle in "Thin Red Line". Two soldiers get the orders to advance through the high grass on that hill to search for the Japanese snipers and positions. they make to steps, they hear two shots, they fall down, and the high grass is moving lovely in the wind. no Japanese to be seen. The commander swallows - and then waves another two soldiers to advance. The Japanese positions must be revealed at all costs. They make two steps, two shots, they fall, and the grass still is moving in the wind, unimpressed. The commander looks desperate, than order the general attack, the whole company raises and storms towards the hill, and in the same second artillery, machine gun and snipers let brake loose all hell.

Recce sometimes is being done by getting hit.

Is that grim? Brutal? unfair. It surely is. That's why it is called "WAR". Which is the opposite of peace, life, order. It is terrible.

I thought about that general and the BBC article a while, and the more I thought about it, the more I changed my initial mind. In the beginning I was disgusted. Now I wonder if those pilots really have picked the right job, and if they really do not have illusions about what it means to be soldier. Being soldier means trying to kill the others. Sometimes the need to kill the other is even higher than your wish to survive. I think, if you choose to become soldier, you should be aware of that.

I think it shows some courage and sense of realism that this general dared to speak out what he did. And I think that the West has some problems with it's willingness to defend itself when the occasional need for such acts is causing opposition so "naturally", and the situation itself is totally rejected and reality gets bend. Hopefully we never will witness situation where such self-sacrifice is needed. But it could happen, wether we like it or not.

Of course a soldier should have any reason there can be to safely assume that his superiors never, never, will order them to s suicidal attack without very good reasons that are beyond doubt. But a soldier also should live with the knowledge that eventually he will receive such an order during his career. That's one of the reasons why I am so deeply disgusted by the war in Iraq. As I perceive it, the leadership betrays tens of thousands of American soldiers by displaying an almost criminal willingness to sacrifice so many of them all for nothing but party interests at home. Shameful. Inexcusable. Court-martial them for high treason, and slaughter - because high treason is what it is in my eyes.

If you are not ready to accept order that will surely get you killed for a given reason, you better don't become a soldier. In a way, soldiers should disrespect the difference between life and death. Pick the Samurai, who are seen as the most efficient warriors there ever have been. Many lived by the symbol of a cherry blossom, and carried it on their backs. It grows, it blossoms, and then it falls off the tree. It does not try to stay attached, it does not care, it simply is, and then it is no more. It doesn't care if we perceive it as beautiful, or not. It simply is, totally embedded in the situation and this moment we call the present. This was the ideal for the Samurai to spend his life by - and this was the reason for their legendary sense of awareness and readiness. There was no hesitation when a conflict suddenly emerged in the present moment. they did not thought about it, they did not care for wether they would survive or not - they acted immediately, and were ready to do so all the time. Their honour and their loyalty to their king were the higher values than their own survival.

This sounds archaic to us modern Westerners, but today we are confronted with enemies that share some similarities to the Samurai. Not in ability and mindset, but in their willingness not to differ between life and death. Islamic fighters and terrorists are (like centuries!) superior in motivation, when looking at it this way. And this is why western armies find it so hard to fight them, even more so since there are so many self-imposed hesitations concerning not using excessive force (could there be something like this in war?) and trying to prevent the death of bystanders on western leader's minds. Bystanders in war? Is there something like that? When you happen to become witness of scenes of war, you are in the wrong time and the wrong place - but no matter if you like it or not, you are part of that war, in that place, in that time. If there is an important military goal to be achieved, the presence of bystanders should never prevent you from going for those goals and using the force needed to achieve them. so you better make damn sure that the military goal is worth it.

And you better also make it damn sure that the war you launch is worth it.

But if you go to war, let neither the death of bystanders nor your own death stop you. The present illustrates it for us: we don't do like this: and wherever we are locked din war and military conflict, we are currently loosing. Afghanistan. Iraq. Lebanon.

And in the future: Iran.

Concerning Iran: if it comes to war with Iran, I personally am willing to use that amount of nuclear weapons that is needed to m make sure the country's military and valuable assets are destroyed. And exactly because I am willing to use nukes - I am so very hesitant to accept going to war with Iran right now. Because if I would go to war, I would do so without any restriction, and absolutely rejecting any limits.

A wise man picks his fights carefully. For the sake of others - and the sake of his own men.

[Godalmighty83]

Originally Posted by Letum

RAF pilots asked if they would make kamikaze attacks

well they were asked to think about such an attack what it would mean as well the circumstance that could 'demand' it.

many in the news are making it out as 'RAF orders pilots to go kamikazi!'

[Skybird]

Pilots and commanders had to consider what they would do in a worst case scenario where they had a Taleban or al-Qaeda commander in their sights and found themselves out of ammunition or suffered a weapons failure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6521311.stm

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/...aid_52500.html

said one pilot:

Originally Posted by Focus

„Nach Ihnen, Sir. Ich bin dabei, wenn mir der General vorher zeigt, wie es geht.“ (After you, Sir. I'm joining if the general would show me before how it is done). "

Such an order would cost a lot of money: 73 million for a Typhoon, and 9 million for the pilot's training.

P.S. Al Quaeda commanders I would not consider to be a worthy target for a Kamikaze attack. They are simply not important enough, and are too easy to be replaced. nice to get rid of them, but not at that price. On the other hand: maybe wouldn't it have an impact on their attitude and moral if they see the enemy (us) going for them even if it would cause the enemy to die himself? Would it make a difference if they see an enemy confronting them as death-defying as they claim to be themselves?

But to stop an airliner from being flown into a WTC building... an option hard to be ignorred... At what ratio the value of a single life must be considered to be of lower importance than the life of many? 1:10? 1:100? 1:1000? 1:1 million? Ask yourself.

[gnirtS]

Tornados are also 2 seater. Better get permission from the guy in the back as well before plowing it into the desert !

Fail to see the point anyway. A crashing/exploding plane wont have the impact a 2000lb bomb going of will and with the JDAM bolt ons you can get them to hit a point more accurately than a crashing aircraft.

Strange comment really.

On 11/9 some US pilots in unarmed fighters it was suggested they could consider ramming the passenger aircraft if they had to down one and had no weapons. Didn't come to it though, not as many hijacks as thought and they got QRA aircraft up eventually fully armed.

[Camaero]

Originally Posted by Letum

Isn't death for freedom a little ironic?
You can't really be free if you are dead.

If you mean other peoples freedom, then there are plenty of people that are not free. If you are really up for risking your life to give them more freedom than I can point you in the right direction!

I don't know, death seems like a lot of freedom to me! Also, what I mean is the American way of things. Every single person here has the opportunity to make money and live well. A lot better than most other countries anyway. That is something worth saving in my eyes.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Fail to see the point anyway. A crashing/exploding plane wont have the impact a 2000lb bomb going of will and with the JDAM bolt ons you can get them to hit a point more accurately than a crashing aircraft.

You missed the point: the general laid out a hypothetical scenario where your weapons are blocked or you already have run out of ammo. The best JDAM is useless for you if you don't have one with you, or your weapons control system is broken and refuses to fire it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Tornados are also 2 seater.

Tornado is 30 years old, very very work-intensive and surely will start to be phased out soon, both in germany and Britain as well. As a matter of fact I think I red that German Tornados already have started with that when the Eurofighter started to get delivered to the Luftwaffe. Typhoon/Eurofighter is the future.