If you’re in the military (and I guess I’m thinking mostly of the army here) can you legally refuse an order that is effectively an instruction to commit suicide?
Obviously war is a risky business, and if you voluntarily joined up you presumably expected to be told to do things that are dangerous, and even damn dangerous. But is a line crossed when you’re ordered to do something where the chances of survival are virtually zero?
If you’re a conscript does it make any difference?
I’d be glad for any info as the only military man I know is an ex-nuclear submarine commander, and somehow it doesn’t sound like an issue he would have had to grapple with.
If the order is otherwise legal, the danger involved in carrying it out would not provide a valid basis for refusing.
Accurately judging the actual risk would be close to impossible, both before and often after the fact. And the existence of such a provision would be likely to badly undermine the ability to command troops in combat.
You cannot be ordered to commit suicide (“Sailor, I order you to slice open your wrists!”), but you can be ordered into mortal danger.
For example, let’s say a warship has been hit by some bomb/missile/torpedo, and is on fire. The fire is serious, and is threatening to set off the ammunition in the ship’s magazine.
A sailor can be ordered into the burning compartment, and activate the fire suppression system, and save the ship, even if that sailor may be seriously burned or killed by the fire or the suppression system.
In the movie K-19, which takes place on a nuclear powered submarine, the nuclear reactor springs a coolant leak. The captain orders the engineering crew into the reactor room to make repairs (and save the boat), even though the repair crew would be subjected to dangerous (in a few cases, lethal) dose of radiation. This movie is based on real events: K19 - Wikipedia
I actually like that movie–it does take place in the Soviet Union though, some years ago. There were definitely different standards of behavior in the Soviet military than in the U.S. military.
However, it is a pretty common military doctrine that you can be ordered into mortal danger. If that wasn’t the case, it’d be nigh-impossible to conduct war. (While it might be nice if it was impossible to conduct war, unfortunately not every country is going to agree never to put soldiers in mortal danger.)
Gross negligence on behalf of an officer can have consequences, but there is a great deal of leeway given, and it’s rarely going to be acceptable for someone to disobey a direct order to advance on/engage the enemy just because the individual soldier thinks it is too dangerous. It is not the job of enlisted men to decide whether or not they will attack when they are given a direct order by a superior to do so, they do it, period.
The naval example is pretty good, too–there are many instances in naval history in which a commander may have to issue orders which he knows will almost certainly kill some of his men, in order to insure the entire ship wasn’t loss (which would mean loss of almost the entire crew and of course the vessel.)
In the modern era it’s probably a bit more survivable to abandon ship if you can–life vests, life boats, rescue helicopters and et cetera. In the Age of Sail though abandoning ship in the wrong place was pretty much guaranteed death for all.
What if he had to order a man into a contaminated space to save the rest of the ship? Death sentance for the sailor so ordered.
Unfortunately, in the services, commanders are often required to send young men to die. As far as I understand it (no military service for me, and non-combatant service for my family members so far) one can only refuse orders that are specifically illegal… and even that might be tough to defend against.
Could a soldier be ordered to “Run over there” to take fire while the rest of the men run the other way to safety? The first soldier takes heavy fire and most likely dies while the rest run to safety.
Is this ever done or do they have to live and die as a unit?
That’s kind of what I was wondering. Say you’re unit is pinned down from enemy fire from one direction, and they vastly outnumber you, but you have an easy way out in the other direction that you can ALL take and probably not die. Can your commanding officer just say to you, for shits and giggles:
“I order you to drop your gun and run towards the enemy as fast as you can while screaming! We’re going to go sneak out this way.”
As far as I can tell, there’s nothing illegal about that order. Granted, I don’t see any CO actually giving that order, but the point is, he could, and it seems like you’d have to obey or risk whatever punishment they give (which I imagine is what any sane person would do.)
Pardon the hijack, but Martin’s post prompts me to ask a related question. How do the regs handle the formal (or informal) act of surrender? Is such a concept even allowed or provided for in the code? Is it only a problem if it is done “shamefully” (see bullet point #2, above)?
I’m not military in any way at all, but I’ve heard stories about how junior officers would be best advised not to give blatantly unfair and/or suicidal orders for the sake of their own self-preservation. At least in Vietnam, I understand that Bad Things Happened to lieutenants like that.
Without resulting to dreaming up a hypothetical scenario for you, the answer, as I understand it, is yes.
Assuming the junior officer and the NCO survive, the NCO will be Court Martialed.
It is in the Court Martial trial that the NCO will have to justify his actions to a panel of Judges (who will be made up of senior flag level officers with no sense of humor, and in a dour mood for missing their tee times ). The NCO will have to prove beyond doubt that the order was either illegal, or completely negligent.
No, but it’s routine during a retreat for some people to be ordered to stay behind as a rear guard while the bulk of the unit retreats to safety. You can certainly be ordered to stay behind and man the machine gun nest when the enemy is advancing, while the rest of your platoon bugs out.
No, so long as it is a lawful order. You cannot be ordered to commit suicide. You can be ordered to do an action that may well result in your death.
No.
No. Everyone takes the same oath.
Sure it is. I was a nuclear submarine officer, and I can think of lots of examples. Sailors may be ordered to enter spaces that are flooding or on fire in order to fight the casualty. There could be times when it is necessary to order someone into the reactor compartment when it is not safe to do so.
In practice, such as the last example, the officer in charge might ask for a volunteer. If none were forthcoming, someone would be ordered in regardless. Refusal would result in court-martial and possible prison time.
There’s an interesting scene in “The Thin Red Line” that goes over this dilemna, where a Lt. Colonel (played by Nick Nolte) orders a Captain to take his men and capture a hill defended by the Japanese. The Captain refuses to obey the order, thinking it suicide.
The dialogue between the two was one of the best parts of the movie.
Don’t know how true-to-life that scene was, however.
If you have any more details about this, it would make a fascinating thread. It was nearly 68 years ago now. Is he still alive?
The question is already well answered, but a serviceman is responsible to try an decide what orders are lawful. These usually do not include personal safety in an emergency, but if an officer had ordered me to work on live electrical equipment, during normal operation, I could not only refuse, but I should and if he forced the issue he would have been the one busted.
Similarly, it would not be lawful to order a soldier to take on a tank or enemy platoon by himself unless it was to save a platoon. An officer could not lawfully order a soldier to assault an insurgents safe house by himself if the troops are not currently endangered. So there are many difficult shades of gray to this question. In an active battle, nearly all bets would be off however.
). The NCO will have to prove beyond doubt that the order was either illegal, or completely negligent.