I would have smeared him all over that pond
War is war.
He is a combatant. He will be in combat with you or your allies. He may suceed and kill you or your allies...or worse your civilains or country.
Eliminate the threat.
No i could not and you should not.Why because you could have been the enemy!Makes you think.
. He has no weapons and the idea is he is not a combatant.
The answer is no I would not have killed him and yes you did the right thing in the decision not to kill him as it could be a crime to shoot an un armed person at the least an investigation and a possible Court Martial if it was foun out you had.
I would have killed him. Seal team 10 2005, Afghanistan, high in the Hindu Kush. Operation Redwing, 4 Navy SEALs are in persuit of a high ranking taliban officer on a recon mission. Michael Murphy, Matthew Axelson, Danny Dietz and Marcus Luttrell, were looking for Ben Sharmak aka Ahmad Shah. While they are camped out a shepard stumbles across their position. They debated amongst themselves and made the choice to allow him to go. Not long after more than 120 Taliban fighters came looking for them. The shepard betrayed them. Murphy, Axelson, Dietz, 2 marine pilots and an entire 8 SEAL and 8 Nightstalker rescue team were killed. Luttrell was the only survivor. That was a so called innocent. You allow that hostile to go and it might be him who kills one of your brothers down the road. He would die where he stood without hesitation, without a second thought. Actually I would probably put an extra one in him just to be sure. The rules in war are not the rules of humanity. The rules change, compassion and hesitation get you killed. Chances are he would do the same to you.
Edit. I would not want to fight alongside a person like you, I'll take Truth Seeker in my squad though any day. Besides, it is your hell not mine and if you go to war with that thinking you'll end up there that's a fact.
If I felt strongly enough about something to go to war over it, I would take the shot.
If it's my pond and my family is at risk then I'll cap him. If I have to go somewhere to find an enemy to fight I will become the enemy at home. I hate warmongering imperialist fascists, like the ones I am country men with.
Aw! How sweet of you!
You're obviously not, nor ever have been, a professional soldier. That enemy target could have come back when you left and killed you and your mates, or worse, the innocent people you were there to protect, etc, etc.
I'd have you Court Martialed for dereliction of duty and putting friendly lives at risk. Not to mention apparent cowardice.
I wonder what the enemy soldier would have done if the positions were reversed? There just couldn't be two feeble minded soldiers in the same spot at the same time.
Stick to the girl guides and leave the horrors of war to the men.
there are rules of engagement. it would matter what the higher ups said.
First thought,
best thought.
You're right. You did the right thing. Taking the situation one step further, Will that life you spared at the pond, be the same enemy that takes your life the next day? Of course, there's no correct answer to that.
I spent years interviewing WW II Veterans in the 1980s and 90s, and the scenario you described was rather common. Not necessarily a pond situation, but an unarmed man, or a man running away was not a fighting situation in which to fire a weapon. And so no shots were fired.
An exceptional THEORY, but that is all it is. A THEORY, with no Relativity to Today's Society.
If you haven't heard this, and I'm sure there is plenty of readers who will reinforce what I am about to say.
'WAR IS HELL'.
and in hell, there are no theories-no speculation-no reason, apart from dimensional tactics-no love-no hate-no fear.
Only torture, for enternity-so it is speculated.
If you are SURE he is an enemy soldier, and you have sworn to "close with and destroy the enemy by fire and close combat, then your duty is clear. Like we used to say in the Corps, "kill them all and let God sort them out". He was probably poisoning the pond against you anyway.
If you dont kill him he may later kill you or a friend. He may press the button that starts a nuclear war
If you do kill him he may of been the one voice of reason that stopped the finger from pressing the button that started the nuclear holocaust that is about to fry your sorry ***
the only answer is really that you have to live with the consequences and your concience
you choose
me I would save the bullet if the scrap gets bad later it might be the difference between an empty gun and the one shot that saves your life
It depends on the culture you were raised in.
A surprise attack was not dishonourable to a samurai - it was thought of as being clever because the other side should always be prepared.
In our culture, snipers are valued in warfare and they perform the job that you're positing.
What if the man you let go later kills your best friend?
I don't think there's an easy answer here.