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

During World War II, the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden, Germany, were done from thousands of feet in the air. The bombers could not hear the screams of the women and children killed, nor could they see the carnage. They had an emotional distance that allowed for denial.

By contrast, the sack of Babylon in 689 BC involved the stabbings of women and children. In all these cases, innocent populations suffered horrible deaths. Yet there is a tremendous psychological difference. Bombers are “buffered by the all-important factor of distance” (106). They are not considered criminals but are simply engaged in impersonal acts of war.

When soldiers are unable to see the enemy without some form of mechanical assistance, such as binoculars or radar, they are killing at maximum range. Grossman has not found any examples of soldiers refusing to kill at this range, nor has he found any cases of psychological trauma. At long range, soldiers can see the enemy, but they need special weaponry, such as sniper fire, to kill. Grossman notes that there is some disturbance by the act of killing at this range, but the soldier is protected by group absolution and mechanical and physical distance (109). Some snipers justify their killings because high targets, or leaders, are taken out. There is, Grossman observes, nonetheless a revulsion at this type of killing (109). He also highlights the reluctance of aviators to shoot down enemy pilots at long range in World War II. Only 1% of aviators accounted for 40% of the downed planes.

At mid-range, a soldier can see the enemy but is unable to perceive the extent of wounds, hear cries, or see the facial expressions of those shot. As a result, soldiers can deny to themselves and others that they have killed.

When soldiers kill, they go through a set of emotional responses. The killing itself is automatic or reflexive and is followed by a period of euphoria and, later, guilt and remorse (112). The intensity and duration of these emotional responses are closely related to the distance from the victim. If the soldier goes to see the victim after a mid-range kill, the trauma will be worse. Hand-grenade range can be anywhere from a few yards to 35-40 yards, yet the thrower does not have to witness the victims’ deaths, and, therefore, the psychological trauma is lessened.

When a projectile weapon is fired from point-blank range, it is a close-range killing and there is undeniable responsibility for the soldier who killed. In these cases, there is only a brief feeling of elation followed quickly by overwhelming guilt. Grossman provides multiple examples of soldiers who vomited after such killings. In these cases, the screams of the victim are heard, and trauma is magnified. The decision not to kill, which is common at mid-range, becomes obvious and undeniable at close range. Still, many soldiers “cannot or will not do it” (119).

The closer the physical distance that a soldier is to an enemy, the more difficult it is psychologically to kill that enemy. Additionally, it is easier to slash or hack someone than it is to deliver a piercing blow that penetrates. For this reason, bayonet kills are intimately brutal. The vast majority of soldiers use the butt of the weapon to incapacitate the enemy versus skewering another human being. When a bayonet is used, there is potential for great psychological trauma. The resistance to killing with a bayonet is equal only to the horror of being bayoneted by the enemy (122). For this reason, actual piercings are extremely rare. Typically, one side flees.

It is with retreat, however, that much killing occurs. Per Grossman, two factors account for this phenomenon. First, the chase instinct takes over, and the winning side hunts down those fleeing. Secondly, the retreating soldiers have their backs to the enemy: It is easier for soldiers to kill someone if they do not have to look that person in the face or eyes. It is for this reason that those who are executed via firing squads are hooded.

Killing with a knife is resisted even more than the use of a bayonet. Those using a knife to kill feel the victim’s body and blood. It is psychologically traumatizing. The US Army trains its elite forces to “execute a knife kill from the rear by plunging the knife through the lower back and into the kidney” (129). Most soldiers, if forced to use a knife, would prefer to slit the throat, a slashing blow. Slitting the throat allows the victim to make noise and is more dangerous for the killer. In modern combat, the use of a knife to kill is “extremely rare” (130). Those who have had to kill with a knife typically “have nightmares long after the war [is] over” (130).

The greatest instinctive resistance to killing is at the hand-to-hand-combat range. The military attempts to overcome this resistance via rigorous training. For example, to train soldiers to kill via penetrating the eye and brain, they practice doing so with an orange taped over someone’s eye who squirms. Even this training exercise is troubling to soldiers. Grossman highlights the overwhelming resistance to killing someone with bare hands.

Grossman claims there is a link between the procreative and destructive act. Sex can be about power. Grossman compares the aggression, release, and orgasmic discharge in killing to sex. A stream of bullets replaces a stream of semen. Carrying a gun gives the holder an erection. There is a euphoric feeling, akin to masturbation, after a kill. When men rape women, they penetrate, which is like thrusting a knife. It is not uncommon for a rapist to murder the victim. In war, the “linkage between sex and killing becomes unpleasantly apparent” (135). Within each person, argues Grossman, the forces of destruction and love struggle.