Pet Helmets

Pet Helmets

Maybe if every soldier (or every politician) had to kill his own pet first, then wars wouldn’t begin.

Share/Bookmark
↓ Transcript
the soldiers kept pet turtles— / until the war. / their shells (genetically modified) / made the best helmets.

└ Tags: ,

Discussion (15)¬

  1. caitlin says:

    perhaps you already know this, but members of either the gestapo or the ss (can’t remember which) in germany during the nazi regime raised and trained german shepherds – slept with them, ate with them, played with them – and then, as one f the last parts of their training, they were forced to kill their dogs with their bare hands. it was a mark of strength for them
    i only wish something like that could be a deterent to war . . .

  2. Sam says:

    Quite a poignant thought.

  3. Brandon says:

    soldiers rarely have a choice in whether the war starts

  4. James says:

    Soldiers do not rebel.

    A soldier is the most apolitical person you can ever find. They serve their country and the person who stands next to them so that others may sit at home and criticise those who are doing what they are unable to do them selves.

    I served, fought and bled for my country in the first gulf war and was called a murderer and baby killer. I am guilty of neither, but I am guilty of defending your right to say those things and call me those names even though you know not of what you speak.

    NO ONE wants peace more than a soldier for they are the ones who spend their life to buy it.

  5. Kaitlyn says:

    A number of psychological experiments have shown that humans still inherit many of the social mores more readily observed (or at least openly acknowledged) in pack animals, such as wolves. Humans will do things in a group they would not when alone. Humans will obey the alpha… even when it is something they would not normally do of their own conscience. If anything, the broader social structure we have further removes the individual from those doing the decision making, especially in military organizations, such that direct challenges are practically impossible, even in situations where they haven’t been conditioned to accept such leadership decisions unquestioningly with knowledge of swift and severe reprimand should they not (generally the case in military hierarchies). The inherent conflict in following orders which an individual finds against their nature is more often a way to strip away that side of their nature than a way to stop their following such commands, it seems.

    Better would it be if all the political leaders who chose to go to war had to make a definite and permanent sacrifice. Perhaps ritual suicide at the end of their terms would be going too far, but some form of monastic imprisonment might not be. Immediate costs on followers mostly only inure them–or drive them mad, if there is a difference. Let the weight fall where it should.

  6. MalikTous says:

    There’s a reason we call hard hats and helmets ‘turtles’…

    THere have been scifi tales of sending the leaders off to do wars somewhere away from the general population. Only those leaders would be subject to possible battle casualty, while the rest of the citizens watched from their TV screens and cheered their side. Maybe it would work?

    Probably not. If we can’t replace the Middle East war with the Superbowl, we probably can’t send Obama against bin-Laden as a spectator sport either.

  7. orinoco womble says:

    The violence and vandalism surrounding European football matches (and for all I know, in the US) is not perpetrated by the players but by the fans. This would seem to indicate that sport would not be an efficient replacement for warfare…it might even cause more.

Comment¬