If you were interested in the 18th and 19th centuries, you’re interested in Specifically – at the mention of bright uniforms. I like it, for such a era of camouflage, such a colorful orgy looks funny. Although it was just that relevant. Why?
It’s simple. Wars today’s standards looked like a natural dump. It would be difficult to understand that it would be a warrior. uniform There were no limits on this. adversary.
As we all understand, it became widespread when the army routinely entered into firearms capsule type. That is, when the “loading-shot” pair finally got away in less than a minute. It would be a little trickle to make it. And given multiple weapon (even if not automatic), it was normal very quickly.
Already in the boer war (Captain Sorvi-Head “) That is notorious “khaki”, which is translated from Indian – “dust”. By the way, it’s a very different concept of this color. Dust – it is everywhere.
So, notice how the situation has changed. If they were themselves, they were clearly identified as invisible to the enemy.
Everything has changed tactics. Changed equipment. Changed weapons. And as a result – changed combat psychology.
In modern realities, one often encounters questions like:
- Do you need hand-to-hand combat in the army?
- Do you need a knife fight in the army?
This is a great tool for OFP and physical development of a fighter. The fact is that melee and knife fight he sees a bit in training And so close that it can literally face-to-face. In all other cases, a soldier’s shoots are not a person, but a person’s “humanoid creature”. It can be seen even in the short distance of 50 meters.
But the opponent in modern war gradually becomes a target of man. No more.
Is it correct? A philosophical question. It is not a lot of ways to get it. be targets. Completely devoid of any human signs. But again, this is already a philosophical question, this is not for us.
The question is
In ancient times, when of war It’s a banal one: war was a personal matter. You can say – personal.
Warriors converged in melee. Passionately hacked on swords and other scrap metal. But it was near contact. The spirit of mind. Not for nothing, he tried as much as possible. It is a subconscious level. The fact is that war called “male work.” And there is. However, in this very work, we’ve given you Namely – ritualization.
Do you know how to be a female one?
If women are going to fight, they will surely fight. But the men – not a fact. By and large, we left not far from our ancient ancestors. All the same pussy melancholy – “It’s a bit harder, and there are muscles!” the enemy (primitive way to identify the type stress response, and develop tactics of action against it).
In short, a male fight is a ritual act.
It was one of the reasons why they were discharged, for example, and they did not like it. not follow the ritual of individual fights), always disliked and feared the “berserkers” (such as the phenomenon). They are those who have been killed at a distance (hunters, archers).
Whatever you say, “if your sermyag. Moreover, it’s not a problem. And there was no honor in the murder from a distance. Of course, has always been noted. But in military legends heroes-heroes archers are extremely rarely appear. Makhateli club / sword.
It has been a stronghold of warriors. Moreover, in modern the war this distance from the enemy began to achieve its apotheosis altogether. Judge for yourself – shock drones, which are controlled by the operator from a completely non-combat zone. And you can work offline search&destroy. It is a fact that it from a height of 5-10 kilometers you can see. And sometimes the enemy is completely invisible to the eye. Similarly, with artillery, and with rocket men.
In other words, the fucking cloud military, which can kill people packaged “in general”.
They are pleased that they do not see. It is not a problem. It was the time when the pilots refused to go. Although it is a sense to a lesser extent.
So, about the psychology of war
Modern people have terrible problems with combat stress. They are sickened by the olfactory-tactile connection with death. This is not the case. Modern civilization has to do. Recall, at least, dear comrade Peshkov from his child.
The life is now undeservedly exaggerated. Simply simply not have survived. For stupid dudes, I’m not saying that this is bad. This is normal.
So, in fact, that the concept of “combat stress“Including society. Moreover, it is strongly condemns it. It was a beautiful way to say, “I am the executioner. That is my job. ”And do not be afraid after this reaction of others?
Of course, the question of combat stress as a post-traumatic syndrome survive, Although it is much in common, it varies. Post traumatic stress for those who participate in the war directly, all these actions are devoid of domestic sense.
It was where he sent her boyfriend to go somewhere. Why was he given there? weapon? Why should he kill they are not
Do you recognize the questions? Cant be formulated about any of war citizens of a liberal orientation. These questions arise regardless of the political views. Especially they arise when a child is born.
Mankind completely deprived war household logic for the civilian population. Replace it is ideology. But, as you know, it’s not. Again, the radical effect of ideological pumping is rather short-lived.
If you dig in military history (and to dig deep), then the ancients of war were for territory and resources. And necessary for survival and development. And connect of war he couldn’t have been carved out by another, that’s all. And that, war destruction at that time Hen be slaves. No, it is clear that there were cases of total genocide, but it was mostly the civilian population. It would have been time to bring profit / resources, which would also require labor. It is a simple calculation. And again, then of war did not have such scope, as now.
In short, the emergence of of war also changed dramatically. But he is a political scientist and sociologists. Although, of course, it is difficult to refrain from referring to these areas.
The cause of combat stress
Main cause post-traumatic syndrome within combat stress – this is the influence of society. In which the murderer still remains a murderer. It is a censure of society and it is a censure of society. This is if simplified to the limit. Again, this is not the case.
And the main cause of combat stress on the ground lies in a rather similar plane. If you’re paying attention to people from the rural areas. From the villages. It is due to the slaughter livestock. It is normal for them. Trying to protect from this. Therefore, they have a harder time.
And what is the one of those? war becomes impersonal.
For those who have been around for 50 years, it’s not a problem. It was considered that the programs of the person were sold.
It is difficult for the most part. Yes, and sometimes it’s not possible. For the most experienced fighters. This is not the case. enemy, jumps out into a fighter face to face. This is not the case. enemy appeared before a fighter suddenly and suddenly. And in that enemy clearly identifiable as the same person. This is a far-away moment. adversary, is lost.
Again, in such situations adversary (although it is more correct with the death of a person) is an additional stress factor. If you’re trying to catch something, convulsions. Cry of pain. All the shooter, driving him into a state of shock. This is precisely because of the fighters. It is either an object “adversary” or “a target”.
It is not used. He fired – the object fell. You only need to check if you’re in a fall zone.
It becomes a condition that you can’t end up with the mechanical phenomenon, effects put on it … it happens here shock and stress. No, this doesn’t mean at all. “Shot – fell”. But it can be a 30 or 300.
It is a fact that it’s not a problem. It is impossible.
Something like this. Messy happened. If I’m not lost, I’m thinking it is understandable. Or at least roughly clear.
Psychology, philosophy and sociology of modern war