- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Are you referring to the part describing how killing is supposed to be easier on the mind when looking through a scope?
Its been awhile, but IIRC the theory was that the significant differences between naked eye vision and vision through a combat optic (magnification and crosshairs) can help to mentally separate the act of killing someone from your day to day life after the fact. The idea is that when killing with the help of an optical sight, you get into a videogame mentality. Then when you stop shooting and lower your weapon to further scan your arcs, your naked eye views the body on the ground as a distant object and your mind would not associate it with the point where your vision and hands co-ordinated the act of pulling the trigger. In theory, this would help the soldier to spend less time dwelling on the horror of combat and maintain his psychological health for an extended campaign and into retirement.
But in regards to the above post, you cannot sacrifice short term effectiveness in a firefight for the long term mental health of your troops. I'm not saying that causes of PTSD should be neglected by our commanders, but there needs to be a priority of things. And priority goes to winning the firefight. As well, the trend these days is to issue small arms most effective at shorter to medium ranges. If a soldier has to kill someone only 50m away, it doesn't matter whether you are using an optic or not. Even if the magnification on your scope distorts your vision, at that close range the killing is still up close and personal as soon as you lower your weapon.
Like I said, its been awhile since I've read On Killing so let me know if I'm on the mark or out to lunch on this one.
