When is it OK to shoot a child soldier?

https://www.economist.com/news/americas/21719821-canada-writes-rules-troops-who-face-armed-nine-year-olds-when-it-ok-shoot-child

by EduardoBautista • 9 years ago

14 13 9 years ago

economist.com

pinaceae2• 9 years ago

When he/she is about to murder your loved ones with a machete.

cortesoft• 9 years ago

That is easy to be trite and say that in the abstract, sitting at your computer. In in certain situations, it might be that obvious. Most situations, however, are not so clear cut. At what point does it shift to 'about' to murder your loved ones? As soon as you see the kid with the machete? What if he is 300 yards away? Do you shoot him? 200 yards? 50? 10? What if he has a gun, but isn't pointing it at you? What if the kid is 3 years old and holding a gun? 5? 2?

pinaceae2• 9 years ago

That is easy to be trite and say that in the abstract, sitting at your computer.

Right back at'ya.

And a 2 year old child soldier? the hell man, running out of strawman arguments?

M_Grey• 9 years ago

The tragic reality is that in modern conflict you often engage with people you can't readily identify as an adult or child until after the shooting is over. If someone is trying to kill you, often from a distance with an AK-47 or mortar, you're going to act to save yourself and the people around you.

Of course, many people will struggle in the aftermath regardless of how necessary their actions may have been. "Oh I had to kill that kid who could have been my nephew..." can be very cold comfort indeed. In the worst case when someone is trying to kill you with a blade you're going to shoot them, and it's probably going to be pretty traumatic.

NuSkooler• 9 years ago

I haven't read the article because apparently I've reached my "free limit" or something.

...but the short answer: It's never OK, but perhaps a necessary evil if you're in the me vs them situation. But that should go for adults as well in general.

rocky1138• 9 years ago

The article is mainly about Canada's armed forces' answer to the question and is in line with your opinion.

ptaipale• 9 years ago

The adopted doctrine is well-founded: if child soldiers shoot at you, you shoot them. It's not easy, but it's right.

Doing otherwise would not only put you and your own troops in danger; it would also encourage ruthless and immoral warlords to use more child soldiers, since they would have such an advantage.

michaelrhansen• 9 years ago

Sadly agreed. And I am a father. However for every child shot, I wish there was a dollar amount we could commit to spending to reach and educate them.

pdpi• 9 years ago

By acknowledging their right to defend themselves, Canada’s government may lessen the trauma of those forced to fight the youngest warriors.

I think the closing line sums it up nicely. Killing children is not, and will never be, OK. It's a truly terrible thing to do, and only a truly monstrous person would ever do it without remorse. But war does, sometimes, force you to do terrible things, and you have to live with that for the rest of your life.

This seems to me like a fine attempt at, at least, saying "we understand".

BrandoElFollito• 9 years ago

These kind of articles are written in the comfort of an office in London, Paris or New York. I am sure that if I was a soldier and another soldier (absolutely no matter the age) was threatening my life, I would shoot without hesitation. And yes ,I have small children who in an alternative reality could be soldiers and yes, I love them very much.

Overtonwindow• 9 years ago

Treat child soldiers as a threat until they prove they're not a threat. Letting your guard down just because it's a kid is how many soldiers got killed in Vietnam.

LyndsySimon• 9 years ago

From a moral standpoint, I see no reason the attacker's age matters. If you're morally justified in using lethal force, you're justified whether they are 8, 18, or 88.

nindalf• 9 years ago

As a society we hold people responsible for their actions beyond a certain age. That particular age might vary from country to country, but everyone will agree that a 21 year old can face any consequence of a decision they've made. That's why they are allowed to drink, vote, join the military etc. Everyone will also agree that a 12 year old does not understand the consequences of their actions. Such a child might not know anything other than murdering people but also might not be capable of evaluating their own actions with respect to right vs wrong. This is also why there is an alternate legal system for minors accused of crimes.

Now a peacekeeper who shoots an armed child has to live with the knowledge that they probably killed someone who didn't know any better. They've been the judge, jury and executioner in a trial that lasted a split-second, despite the fact that children get a lot of leeway when it comes to most crimes.

When is it OK to shoot a child soldier?

Related Stories