On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

The natural inhibition against killing a member of one’s own species can be overridden by training and psychological conditioning. Indeed, with such new models of training and conditioning in place, the US military has increased the ratio of fire from 15-20% in World War II to 90-95% in the Vietnam War. To achieve this result, the military has used numerous psychological techniques, such as forms of conditioning, the structure of combat units, and language and technology to dehumanize the enemy. Problematically, Grossman asserts, some of these forms of psychological conditioning are now being applied without forethought to American youth via violent media imagery and video games.

Grossman explains that the military desensitizes soldiers to violence using classical conditioning, or Pavlovian techniques. Soldiers are forced to watch violent scenes of death repeatedly. The use of positive associations with such violence is also introduced. Operant conditioning, pioneered by behavioralist B.F. Skinner, is used as well. Soldiers are trained to shoot at human-like targets and are rewarded for their success with badges and weekend passes. The drill is repeated so often in training that the behavior of shooting a human-like target becomes reflexive. Soldiers in basic training are guided by the role model of the drill sergeant, who connects the use of violence to manhood and is himself a decorated soldier. Importantly, the drill sergeant teaches recruits to kill, but only on the orders of their commanders. Any unauthorized use of violence is severely punished.

Political and military leaders overcome the resistance to killing by encouraging a soldier’s deniability of killing to self and others. At times, leaders dehumanize the enemy via the creation of cultural distance. In such cases, dehumanizing terms are used to describe the enemy, which in turn allows the soldier to deny that the victim is human. Moral distance is created when leaders emphasize the just nature of their cause, which allows for rationalization of killing. The military ensures that there is social distance between enlisted soldiers and officers to enable the latter to order the former to their deaths if needed. Modern weaponry allows for the creation of mechanical distance. Soldiers can kill from more distant ranges and therefore not see the human victims of their actions. That too significantly helps to overcome the resistance to killing.

The military is also mindful of the organization of combat units. Small, tight-knit groups are more likely to have all members participate in killing than larger, loosely connected ones. Grossman explains that membership in a group allows for anonymity and, therefore, a lack of responsibility. People do things in groups that they would never do individually. In addition, soldiers are held accountable by their peers for their participation in combat.

With these new methods of training and conditioning, the military has greatly increased the percentage of soldiers who kill in combat. Grossman not only worries about the psychological effects on these soldiers who kill legitimate targets in war but also is deeply concerned that similar methods of conditioning are being applied to children and adolescents without the safeguards of military discipline. He argues that constant exposure to violent movies, which are associated with pleasures such as treats, has desensitized people to violence. Only a very small percentage of people need to act on these impulses to cause significant increases in murder rates. Without a change in this conditioning, Grossman fears escalating violence in society. Just as the ratio of fire was increased in the military, he argues, so too will it be in the civilian population.