Why We Don’t Kill

Unbeknownst to many, killing in military conflict is not a normal human response

Contrary to popular belief, killing is difficult, especially in the context of war. Unlike in movies, where enemies are mowed down at will by overly enthused fighters, real combat finds soldiers often unwilling to take another life, even in the face of imminent danger. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman explores this phenomenon in his 1996 book, On Killing – The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War & Society.

On Killing is one of those rare works that dares to shatter long held societal myths. In this case, it calls into question the notion that soldiers are innate killing machines who, when faced with a life or death situation, respond in a predictably lethal manner. Although there are those soldiers who have an affinity for taking lives and find themselves able to do so without moral compunction, Grossman argues that the vast majority of human beings are almost instinctively hardwired not to kill. He backs his assertion with a range of eye-opening facts.

Throughout the book, Grossman uses firsthand anecdotal accounts from history’s great wars to show that even getting soldiers to fire at the enemy has been a difficult task to accomplish. In fact, notes Grossman, until the Vietnam War, it was not uncommon for only 15-20 percent of soldiers to fire their weapons; and when these soldiers fired, they often intentionally missed their targets.

Grossman explains that corrective conditioning in the training of soldiers increased firing rates in Vietnam to 90 percent; however, even with such frequency of weapons discharge, the kill rate was abysmally low. There is evidence drawn from ammunition expenditure statistics that shows that in Vietnam some 50,000 bullets were fired for each Viet Cong enemy combatant killed.

These sorts of statistics hold throughout history. Grossman points out that during the Civil War “at 75 yards, a 200-man regiment should [have been] able to hit as many as 120 enemy soldiers in the first volley. If four shots were fired each minute, a regiment could [have] potentially [killed] or [wounded] 480 enemy soldiers per minute.”

Yet during the Civil War, where the enemy was often engaged at 30 yards, Grossman writes, “But instead of mowing down hundreds of enemy soldiers in the first minute, regiments killed only one or two men per minute. And instead of the enemy formations disintegrating in a hail of lead, they stood and exchanged fire for hour on end.”

In Grossman’s estimation, either soldiers throughout history have been woefully incompetent, or there is some social-psychological mechanism at play that fundamentally prevents one man from killing another.

Grossman uses an analogy from the animal kingdom to explain man’s aversion to killing. He notes that in any intra-species conflict – whether that is between bears, lions, snakes, etc. – dueling to the death is a rarity. Most frequently, there is a great deal of posturing in the form of growling, hissing, clawing and raising hackles. If there is physical confrontation, it is non-lethal in nature, and at some point one animal will choose to submit or retreat.

For Grossman, humans are not so different from other animals in combat situations. During the Civil War, there was the infamous “Rebel Yell” – a mechanism of posturing – that sent chills down the spines of Union troops, often leading their retreat before even engaging the enemy. He argues that non-lethal gunfire is a form of posturing; and based on the Vietnam ratio of bullets fired to enemies killed, one might conclude that many soldiers feel quite comfortable posturing even in the modern military age.

Although it is comforting to know that humans are typically averse to killing one another, it is unnerving to find in On Killing that as history has progressed, societies have become increasingly more callous to this aversion. Grossman points to today’s television programming, films and video games and the violence therein as agents of change in the issue of killing. He argues that these media influences create a certain Pavlovian response in humans that is remaking society into a place where killing is more acceptable.

On Killing is a brilliant piece of psychological analysis at the societal level. It examines the fundamental nature of human character and provides insight into where we are headed in the 21^st century where more lethal weapons and fewer inhibitions to using them threaten our way of life. This book should be on the reading list of all Washington politicians.