PDA

View Full Version : Suicide, the soldier, and the samurai



John Lindsey
17th September 2002, 22:25
Should soldiers, Law Enforcement, and Government Agents be trained on how to take their own life? If the possibility exists in which they could be in a situation in which death and torture is imminent and unpreventable, would suicide training be considered appropriate?

Back when I was an Army Ranger, we did discuss methods such as biting our tongues off by slamming our chin down on a window sill (a method used by Japanese military cadets during the war), making a “nicotine tea” out of a pack of cigarettes, etc.

Are there such arcane skills taught in the ko ryu?

Sochin
18th September 2002, 16:17
I think you need help. Who in their right mind in this day and age considers suicide?

Everyone over the age of 30 is a suicide survivor. And, if by some miracle a person did not ever think of suicide as a solution previously, the temptation later in life will be that much greater.

I can't see it becoming official policy, that's for sure!

Brently Keen
18th September 2002, 21:43
Suicide is cowardly and selfish. I agree with John Leonard, I don't think the question merits a serious answer. It is not at all appropriate.

Anyone who is contemplating suicide or even just experiencing persistent depression and/or anxiety should talk to someone and get some help. Help is available from numerous counseling hotlines, churches, and parachurch organizations. There are people who can help you. Whatever your situation - it can be helped, all you have to do is reach out for that help and don't give up.

Occasional depression is not abnormal, and chronic depression is likewise quite common, as are thoughts of suicide as Ted indicated, especially when the struggles of life seem so bleak that one dreads facing another day - but actually entertaining thoughts of suicide, by that I mean repeatedly visualizing, imagining, planning, or attempting suicide is cause for real concern - that is not healthy. Taking one's life may seem to be a solution, a way of escape, but it's really the ultimate trap, if you think living another day is bad, suicide is much, much worse.

Why? Because everyday that we live our circumstances may change, there are always options for the living, whereas suicide allows for no options, no last minute changes, solutions, or miracles. When all else fails, when there looks to be no humanly possible way out, we may simply need a miracle. Your only choice is to cry out in faith for divine assistance, and trust God in His mercy and grace to take care of you and bring about His will, and make something good out of whatever mess you're in.

Regardless of a persons faith or religion, I can't imagine any righteous, just or loving God advocating the taking of one's own life prematurely even to avoid death or torture at the hands of another. To do so in fact, shows irreverence towards God and His ability to intervene and make a difference, hardly a practical or wise attidude when you're hastening on your way to meet your Maker (imo).

If soldiers, LE officers, and gov't agents are todays professional warriors, suicide just does not become a warrior, rather it suggests weakness, lack of confidence, faithlessness, cowardice, and plain old giving up. A martial artist shouldn't ever quit, shouldn't ever give up. It's one thing to fight against all odds, resolutely to death, and to be valiently brought down by one's opponent(s). Indeed that is honorable and inspiring. But suicide is the ultimate self-defeating solution, it's succumbing to one's own fear(s), rather than to the hand of one's enemies. It is cowardly, selfish and ultimately demoralizing to those who are left behind.

Brently Keen

John Lindsey
18th September 2002, 22:32
I think you need help. Who in their right mind in this day and age considers suicide?

I think you need help to understanding what I was saying. I spent 4 years as an Army Ranger. In times of war, Rangers and other spec ops run a high risk of capture. If faced with torture and execution, I sure as hell would want to be able to end my life on my terms. These are things we discussed and I guess some of you cannot grasp the importance of what I am discussing.

I am not talking about suicide in regards to civilian social situations, depressions, etc. If your squad has been captured and you watch your buddies one by one get tortured and have the heads brutally cut off, I sure as hell don't see how the situation can improve...

Jody Holeton
19th September 2002, 00:15
Mr. Lindsey is right.


1. Its a GOOD martial arts question. Soldiers, police and serious martial artists NEED to know the answers to questions like this especially in these dark times.


2. Suicide IS an option to some things!
Torture, rape, killing innocents etc. etc.

3. Quality information will stop people from doing STUPID things.

for example: I was told that I could kill myself OR an opponent with a "special" neck snapping technique. Its a neck crank! Maybe Mr.Yamamoto, who is built like BOLO, could do it BUT I would just hurt myself.


I have had CLOSE people in my family commit suicide. Mr. Lindsey wrote this is as a martial arts question not a pysch. 101 job.

George Kohler
19th September 2002, 01:03
Originally posted by Brently Keen
Suicide is cowardly and selfish. I agree with John Leonard, I don't think the question merits a serious answer. It is not at all appropriate.

Oh God, please read the original question. It's in the CQC forum for a reason.

Here is the question again.


Should soldiers, Law Enforcement, and Government Agents be trained on how to take their own life? [/B]

My answer

Yes, soldiers and government agents should, but would not support LEA (local and state) in learning this.

As for Government Agents, most likely just CIA. On some occasions FBI, but only if they are at a place where they would be near a hostile country (ie Pakistan).

Soulend
19th September 2002, 05:50
I believe members of elite units, snipers, CIA, and possibly pilots should receive training in this. Those who have a higher probability of being captured due to them being alone or in small groups. I don't think it should be taught to your rank-and-file members, though. Suicide rates are high enough already without giving them instruction, and possibly the idea that it's okay to off yourself since we gave classes on how to do it.

Suicide is not neccesarily cowardice. If one has information on locations of units, weaknesses, etc., and kills himself to avoid being captured alive and have such information tortured out of him, then he is saving lives by sacrificing his own. I would personally rather die than be taken alive. Things would have to get pretty hairy for me to kill myself by biting my own tongue off though....

Jody Holeton
19th September 2002, 06:33
Dear Soulend,

I don't know anything about torture but I would assume that anyone could be made to talk.


Can you imagine what a world power/terrorist org./power group would do with the info that an American Ranger/CIA agent/information officer had?

North Korea took (and killed) how many regular Japanese people for language/culture/geographic info?

I think that high-risk occupations should be taught proper techniques BUT for proper instances.

Jeff Cook
19th September 2002, 21:31
Jody,

I am NOT and never have been an American Ranger/CIA agent/information officer. I am sorry if I gave that impression.

John, I wonder if the appropriate time to consider suicide would be right before the point of capture, when you still have your weapons? I would think that a specops troop or S2-type with TS information would have a before-imminent-capture suicide plan? I would think that any reasonably intelligent enemy would put specops EPW's under a suicide watch, making suicide after capture almost impossible.

How would biting off the tip of your tongue cause death?

This is a very appropriate question for the CQC forum.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Jeff Cook
19th September 2002, 22:05
Upon reflection, I have a few questions.

John, how many Rangers on mission would have any information that is so sensitive that it absolutely could not fall into enemy hands? Your average Ranger is not going to have very much of value for the enemy. A Special Forces A team will have a lot of enemy data on hand that they have gathered on the enemy, but I wonder how much even an A team would know that would be of value to the enemy.

I believe the nature of warfare today, with our technological superiority, makes this issue somewhat irrelevant. Of course, the enemy could still think you know something of value, in which case you would still be tortured.

What is the primary concern? Being tortured, or giving up sensitive information?

A commander will know immediately if unit personnel who have been captured know any truly sensitive information. Any commander will assume you will divulge that information. Any good commander will have a contingency plan for this.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

John Lindsey
19th September 2002, 22:49
John, how many Rangers on mission would have any information that is so sensitive that it absolutely could not fall into enemy hands?

Very little, and I can't image a situation in which a spec ops soldier would take his life to prevent disclosing information. I once attending a LRRP school run by the SAS in southern Germany. They told us that after 48 hours, most of the information the enemy could get from us would be outdated.

John Lindsey
19th September 2002, 22:52
Ok, the tongue biting is supposed to allow you to bleed to death. I first heard about it in a book written by a famous Japanese fighter ace. He said that a friend of his in the air academy slammed his chin down on a window sill with his tongue extended. It cut his tongue open and he bled to death.

Brently Keen
20th September 2002, 00:44
I added the bit about depression because I've had friends and family of friends commit suicide.

The question that started this thread had to do with suicide when death and/or torture were imminent. Nothing indicated the choice was over one of disclosing sensitive intel, etc... John clarified this when he added:

"If your squad has been captured and you watch your buddies one by one get tortured and have the heads brutally cut off, I sure as hell don't see how the situation can improve..."

I don't think suicide in such instances indicates the desirable attributes of a warrior like bravery, courage, honor, determination, never-say-die persistence, faith, dignity, defiance of the enemy, inspiration of one's mates, stoicism, heroism, etc...

It does indicate naturally, fear, cowardice, giving up, lack of faith, aquiescence to the enemy, demoralizing of one's mates, etc... and while those are all human and understandable characteristics, they are not admirable or desirable attributes of a warrior.

Survival training plays an important part in the training of a warrior. Many martial arts have been created with survival being even more important and paramount than victory. Suicide OTOH precludes any possibility of survival, whether it be by the mercy of one's enemies, escape, or rescue. The goal of soldiers, LEO's and gov't agents if captured should always be survival, if you survive then you have or can triumph over your circumstances - you can return another day to fight, or go on to inspire your mates to do the same, you can provide intel on the enemy, or lead the authorities to capture the suspects, and/or provide the testimony and/or evidence to put them away, you can return to your loved ones.

If you would rather die than be taken alive, then by all means die fighting, sacrifice your life for your brothers - such is admirable and heroic, but do not take your life with your own hand. If your enemy succeeds in taking off your head then, you are glorified as a martyr and the enemy is vilified as a barbarian, your comrades will fight all the more harder for your vindication whereas if you commit suicide you are no martyr, but a victim, and such only serves to demoralize your comrades adding to the notions of helplessness, hopelessness, defeat and despair.

Suicide is just not becoming of a warrior. Fighting for survival is becoming of a warrior and even dying in the process, if need be, for the greater cause, for the greater good, but killing yourself to avoid suffering is weak and rather pathetic (imo).

Think of your loved ones would they rather learn that their son, husband, father had been valiently killed in action, fighting the enemy, or had killed himself when he thought there was no way out? How would the latter affect their estimation of you, and help them to come to grips with their loss, and deal with the grief?

Suicide is selfish.

Brently Keen

shinchaku
20th September 2002, 08:54
If you want to look at suicide and how it pertains to "warriors" then you should specify wich type of warrior you are reffering to.
If you read about samurai history it is replete with acts of suicide. At no time during that era was the act of suicide considered wrong, or cowardly. It wasn't until the spread of Christianity in Japan that the notion of killing yourself was thought of as a bad thing. I think it's important to remember the ideology behind the beleif, before judging it.

Jeff Cook
20th September 2002, 15:23
I don't agree. Mr. Keen does not need to understand an arachaic ideology that does not apply to this age or this particular military institution - various western militaries - in order to have an informed opinion about it.

If he was judging the actions and ideology of ancient, long-dead warriors and their ethos, then one would expect for him to do a little research on that before passing judgement. But we are not talking about history. We are talking about current events, and the modern warrior.

Furthermore, if you are talking about samurai traditions, I think you will find that suicide in battle was considered dishonorable. If one's master was killed due to the fault of his samurai, then one could expect the samurai to take the honorable way out by committing seppuku because he dishonered and failed his master (one can only hope that a kaishaku-nin was available to complete the act.) This is just one example of an "acceptable" act of ritual suicide in feudal Japan. There are other "acceptable" criteria, but there are also unacceptable ones. Hopefully someone with much more knowledge on that particular piece of history will chime in (help, John!), but the fact remains it is irrelevant to this thread.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

John Lindsey
20th September 2002, 15:37
In another forum, we have been discussing the falling woman statue. Does this not signify the acts of suicide performed by those who preferred to jump rather than be burned alive? My God, what a horrible situation to be in, facing flames or the fall...

shinchaku
20th September 2002, 17:09
There is also a lot of argument over peoples right to die when they have become afflicted with a fatal and debilitating disease. These are situations where mentally healthy people are asking permission to end their lives before the quality of their lives degrades to the point where they would not be able to make the request.
If someone decides that they want to end their life, quietly and without endagering anyone else, and while in full command of their faculties, then why sholdn't they? Who has the right to say that they should not be allowed to?
I am not asking about the morality and ethics of this. Those factors change with belief systems and cultural upbringing. But more I am asking simply about the right of the individual to choose their own fate, even if that fate is suicide.

Soulend
21st September 2002, 11:33
Originally posted by Brently Keen
It does indicate naturally, fear, cowardice, giving up, lack of faith, aquiescence to the enemy, demoralizing of one's mates, etc... and while those are all human and understandable characteristics, they are not admirable or desirable attributes of a warrior.

Although Mr. Cook rightly states that this is archaic ideology, the Japanese believed that there was great dishonor in being captured alive. This, I think, accounts for some of their contempt of prisoners of war captured during world war 2. I must confess (even though it opens me up to attack from the relatives of P.O.W.'s..though I myself am one too) that I ascribe in some degree to this way of thinking. And in the mind of the compatriots of the Japanese soldier, I don't believe it 'demoralized' them, but rather inspired them. That their brother-in-arms was so stalwart as to refuse the indignity of capture and take his own life..thus stealing a small part of the enemy's thunder, was considered commendable. To allow him to take you alive is 'aquiescence to the enemy', not depriving him of that victory.


Originally posted by Brently Keen

Survival training plays an important part in the training of a warrior. Many martial arts have been created with survival being even more important and paramount than victory. Suicide OTOH precludes any possibility of survival, whether it be by the mercy of one's enemies, escape, or rescue. The goal of soldiers, LEO's and gov't agents if captured should always be survival, if you survive then you have or can triumph over your circumstances - you can return another day to fight, or go on to inspire your mates to do the same, you can provide intel on the enemy, or lead the authorities to capture the suspects, and/or provide the testimony and/or evidence to put them away, you can return to your loved ones.
[/B]

Sorry, Brently, I disagree 100%, apart from the point that many martial arts have been created with survival in mind. From my perspective, survival is not what is important in battle against an enemy force, if it was thus I would have become an accountant. The successful completion of the mission or the taking of the objective is what is important. Victory is what is important. This is the fundamental difference between a civilian train of thought and a military one. If one holds his own skin in regard over all else, then victory will not be achieved. Even though it is a lofty ideal, unless one attacks with the mindset that 'I'm going to take this objective or die', you are going to lose. "Rescue" and "escape" should not be even in one's thoughts..destroying the enemy by any means possible should be what you are thinking of. When a soldier shows more concern for his own survival than the accomplishment of his orders, then he is more likely to retreat or surrender. This is cowardice, not the action of depriving the enemy the satifaction of capturing you, belittling you, disgracing you, and making a trophy of you.


Originally posted by Brently Keen
If you would rather die than be taken alive, then by all means die fighting, sacrifice your life for your brothers
[/B]

This of course is optimal, to die in battle. However, the possibility of ammunition depletion and/or grave injury to where one can no longer fight exists. You run out of ammo, then in attacking against overwhelming odds you are knocked out or subdued. Then what, be the enemy's bitch so that you can return to your loved ones in personal disgrace?


Originally posted by Brently Keen

Suicide is just not becoming of a warrior. Fighting for survival is becoming of a warrior and even dying in the process, if need be, for the greater cause, for the greater good, but killing yourself to avoid suffering is weak and rather pathetic (imo).
[/B]

Oh, yes, Mr. Keen, tell us what warriorship is all about.


Originally posted by Brently Keen

Think of your loved ones would they rather learn that their son, husband, father had been valiently killed in action, fighting the enemy, or had killed himself when he thought there was no way out? How would the latter affect their estimation of you, and help them to come to grips with their loss, and deal with the grief?
[/B]

I would like to think that I would fight the enemy until I could no longer fight, and then killed myself to rob them of the satisfaction of taking me alive. In this circumstance, if they have a poor regard of me then it will surely be better than the regard I have for myself giving up helpless to be imprisoned and scorned by the enemy.


Originally posted by Brently Keen

Suicide is selfish.
[/B]

Nope, it's not neccesarily. For a civilian that is afraid to face his problems, and afraid to live..yes, it is selfish. Not so for me, and if some consider it so, oh well, my ol lady and kids know the way I think, so I don't think they would be surprised. I'm not immune to pain or suffering by any means. But I would prefer not to be disgraced by capture. But then again, I'm a pinhead, just ask Jeff Cook :)

Oh well, who cares, probably won't ever happen. What ever happened to joining the service Brently? Still having problems with the weight?

Stéphan Thériault
22nd September 2002, 02:19
As I understand the original question, we're talking about a situation where three factors are apparent.

1: Capture is imminent.
2: The enemy is not going to respect the Geneva Convention. And may very well torture you just for the heck of it.
3: When there done with you, they are going to kill you, period.

In such a situation, I think suicide is perfectly acceptable.

Jerry Johnson
26th September 2002, 17:13
Originally posted by John Lindsey
Should soldiers, Law Enforcement, and Government Agents be trained on how to take their own life? If the possibility exists in which they could be in a situation in which death and torture is imminent and unpreventable, would suicide training be considered appropriate?

Back when I was an Army Ranger, we did discuss methods such as biting our tongues off by slamming our chin down on a window sill (a method used by Japanese military cadets during the war), making a “nicotine tea” out of a pack of cigarettes, etc.

Are there such arcane skills taught in the ko ryu?

This is a very interest thread. One I feel the need to comment seriously on as it is a rather serious topic.

Let me start off by saying, I am or never was a solider. Second of all, I am not a Ko ryu expert ( meaning I have no idea if suicide techniques are taught in my Iaido class). It is my understanding ( and I could be wrong and this is a generalization) that suicide in feudal Japan wasn't taught by the ryu's Sensei. I guess this is something to look into further. So biting the tongue off may have only been the thing to do at the time as there was no other means of suicide, and not a something learned in the ryu. BTW, I have spoke to an ENT and he said the tongue doesn't bleed allot, as it a muscle consisting of smaller veins and no arteries. Also When the tongue is injured it heals quickly. He said that bleeding to death in this manner would be hard for him to conceive under normal circumstances. He added, if such an event did take place of biting off part of the tongue and death did occur it would have be real slow with a lot of effort being made to increase the heart rate.

Probably not the best way to commit suicide, IMO, but a good way of not being able to verbally communicate and piss off your captors. I see such an act of biting off the tongue as a form of self torture, that resulted in death. A second point that maybe of interest, if one was going to choose any method of suicide in a war situation for what ever reason, plan ahead, and know the facts of the action. If your going to bite your own tongue off, isn't going to be a quick and pretty death, more like self-torture. I would bet the reason for biting on a lethal capsule.

This issue that I am posing for discussion is solider suicide being really a self inflicted torture leading to death.

The other issue is there are many ways of suicide. A solider fighting in battle taking great risks wanting to be killed, thus avoiding capture. Or a pilot who allows himself to be shot down when it could be avoided. Both are remembered as a hero, as no one knew about the death wish. Now take the opposite angle, of a solider who doesn't want to die, but faced with the responsibility of the lives of others and makes a decision to end his life, putting himself in harms way, and is killed by the hand of another. Isn't this suicide also?

What really is the definition of suicide, to kill yourself, correct? First there is one solider in a war who can't handle the stress of war, overtly distressed emotionally and physically shots himself in the head with his own gun. We shame him. One for being dispensable. That is no General wants his soldiers killing themselves at will when they want to. He would rather have them die following his orders and killing the enemy; being useful . The second soldier is captured by the enemy and bites his own tongue off and bleeds to death at some point. We praise him. He had to sacrifice himself for the greater cause. He has prevented the enemy for gaining an advantage. He is not shamed with the stigma of suicide, nor as a hero but a justifiable tragic circumstance. The third is the solider who puts himself in harms way dies in battle because of his secret death wish. He is seen as a hero. His family honors him, his country honors him. Isn't suicide really just about perspectives of utility. If you commit suicide because you are mentally distraught or by your own hand without it being of value or benefit to others, i.e. not being useful, it is selfish. But if you commit suicide for the right reasons, and commit it in a way that is not obviously done by your own hand, it is a whole another story.

Per John’s thread, Rangers contemplating methods of suicide over capture. Well what about pilots. For all the stuff , I have heard and read pilots get capture a lot. Because so many are capture it makes me think that they don’t consider suicide. Why Rangers and alike, and not Pilots?

Jerry Johnson
26th September 2002, 17:45
Originally posted by John Lindsey
Should soldiers, Law Enforcement, and Government Agents be trained on how to take their own life? If the possibility exists in which they could be in a situation in which death and torture is imminent and unpreventable, would suicide training be considered appropriate?



IMO, as it is limited in knowledge and experience of the above fields.

From what I read here on soldiers, I must side the opinions of no, it really isn't necessary today.


Law, and Government Agents, I don't really see it necessary. Now if you mean Govt. spies who are capture, I don't have a clue. But concerning Officer Joe Common, I don't see the need or purpose. I don't see cops being capture and tortured by criminals.

DEA agents, hmmm....I don't the question applies. My experience with DEA and others is limited. All I can think of is a situation such as South America. Where a DEA is undercover and is caught in some drug lab in the jungle. How likely is that I don't know. I don't think that person would live long enough, once exposed, to kill him/her self. I don't think DEA and other Government Agents would have information that such criminals would want. They kill judges and own politicians.


Frankly, I think John's questions applies more to high-level politicians. Remember Watergate? Clearly a hypothetical situation where I would see people killing themselves if things went differently. That is if those caught were caught less "red handed" and thus as a greater need to protected Nixon from exposure. Sure I can see people in politics commiting suicide to protect sensivite information etc. for what they feel is the greater good, or the many. Gene Roddenberry may have agreed, that a whole other issue.

Just my half-witted thoughts.

Jerry Johnson
26th September 2002, 22:31
Originally posted by John Lindsey
In another forum, we have been discussing the falling woman statue. Does this not signify the acts of suicide performed by those who preferred to jump rather than be burned alive? My God, what a horrible situation to be in, facing flames or the fall...

I wish to point out again, it is sad, that people in emotional distress, depression etc. are thought to have a choice, but those in a burning building and jump rather then go by fire are exempt from being shamed for a choice. People jumping it can be said where hoping to survive, an yet how many feared death by flames? Now I am not criticizing or argue anyones opinion on suicide. Losing a friend or a family member irregardless ( I know some don't consider it a word but I am a rebel) is tragic. I am hoping to examine more closely our belief systems and perspectives on suicide and death, and where they come from. In this why we can better understand what we ask of those and their families( losing a loved one) in times of uncertain measures. As well as those who we don't ask or expect to, those who take their lives out of illness, depression, etc. Because I feel there is a link between the two. A state of mind that is shared, where one is supported by the belief suicide is of value to a greater good, and those who aren't supported. Those who are shamed because they find the act only a value to themselves. For me this is a frighting thought.

Sochin
27th September 2002, 23:57
How about thinking of suicide this way:

Would you put yourself in harms way to save 1. a family member 2. a neighbor 3. a stranger 4. a co-worker

Would you do the same for any of these if the result was certain serious maiming but you could save the person?

The next step is of course, who would you give your life to save? Is there a difference from putting yourself in harms way and giving up your life to save another and the act of suicide where your action, not just your decision, caused your death but saved their life?

Suicide becomes a hero's act in such a situation, not a cowards, and I do know the cowardice of the suicide, first hand.

Didn't Grossman decide (On Killing) that it was easier for most folks to die for their comrades than to kill the enemy?

John, if you think this hijacks the thread too far from the original premise, can it or start a new thread with it or whatever! :)

Jody Holeton
30th September 2002, 05:58
Dear all,


I was reading Jeremy Glick's bio the other day (Flight 93)and I consider him a hero. He (and the people who were with him) knew it was suicide. Flight 93 could have been flown into the White House or Congress. A few dying for the many. I regret that it happen but imagine if that plane hadn't been stopped.

I think it is up to the individual to make decisions about things like killing and suicide. It is not a choice if the powers that be keep information and resources from responsible people.