Kids With Guns

What kind of person can kill?

More specifically, this is about children. First off, I don't have an actual problem with children being killers, Or more specifically, I see it as no different than adults killing provided that certain stipulations are met. First, that the child is aware of what they are doing. I'd cite columbine as an example of where they are not aware, yet still acting. Thus, they must be aware and able to use judgement as to its value and proper occurence.

This thought comes from the idea of training children to be anti-terrorist units. I'd say that this could potentially be good, insofar as they are trained properly. first, I don't think that soldiers should be emotionless about killing. If they have no reaction to it, they will kill without considering the reaction. This is bad, as those other than the targets might get killed. (If you want an emotionless reason for why that is bad, think of the expense. otherwise, use your own beliefs.) So, I think that children who are actually slightly disposed to killing would be best. They should not like killing per se, but they should see it as a bit of treat. Like, going to daddy's work. "Cool! we don't do this very often! I'm excited!" and then they do not think about it very much. They do not consider the pain, or what the person was like, however they do realize the seriousness of the act.

(The idea of an anti-terrorist child has been done before,

though I think their design needs more thought.)

Also, a parent or someone trained to be as parental as possible would need to be their boss and on-field commander. With kind, happy adults for leaders teaching and caring for them, they will acquire huge love for their parent, (extreme care should be taken to grow this love into near zealotrous obsession) and they will always listen to them. Training would really just consist of growing love for the parent and overriding the instinct to disobey, no matter how strenuous the situation. This is absolutely vital, for as we can see, children like to think for themselves too much, and they must be able to follow specific instructions in order to assure the success of the mission.

The rest of the training could be of several things. Perhaps you could teach them how to be cute and put people at their ease, to avoid suspicion. How to talk to adults in an affectionate or friendly manner, how to seem defenseless and threatless. They could be taught how to blend in, pretend to be tourists, or children on a field trip, or similar. perhaps, if they are old enough, they could be taught to look like summer-job table waiters or kids studying in a coffee shop after school even. If young enough they would play on playsets in parks, perhaps even using the height of some of these sets to set up a better line of sight to the target. Also, if caught could be trained to sound helpless and adorable, like a frightened kidnappped kid. All these psychological tricks should be strongly repeated and practiced.

Further training could be in actual lethal skills, and they should always be occupied with many hobbies (encouraged with love as well) to keep their minds off of their jobs. They must learn the basics of whatever guns they have. how to field strip them, clean them, fire and maintain them. they would also need to be taught one or more martial arts based on enemy momentum, (jujitsu, some kung fu, etc.) for being children they would not be effective using hardstyle martial arts. they should be taught how to recognize objects as weapons, and use many forms of knives or similar small non-projectile self defense tools. Lethal training would actually be a slightly lesser concern, because where they are most usefull is not in their killing ability but in their aspects as children.

Now, what age is too young? This varies from child to child in maturity level, and indeed these children would be one in a million already, but a physical child age limit of 11 or 12 would be good. At this age they are tough enough to do basic martial arts and strong enough to carry most firearms, and with practice handle the recoil as well. On a side note, children could also make interesting spies, however this is much more difficult, as children are barred from most things worth spying in other governments, however terrorist cells meeting in cafes or similar might be perfect.

Now, what about boys or girls? Both present a serious though different problem. Boys and girls psychological design is so different that it is difficult to predict which is better, for both have a distinct advantage and disadvantage over the other.

Boys would be easy to train to ignore the morality of killing, (this is a plus) however, they are naturally agressive and disobedient. (this is bad.) They would be likely to 'fly off the handle' occasionally and ignore the order to stop killing. The only way to fix this is with lots of training. And even with such training caution must be used.

Girls present sort of the exact opposite problem. Girls are naturally obedient and not particularly agressive, prefering to trick their way out of a situation. (good, they could lie and act cute to escape capture/danger) However, they have (according to what I've read on neurology) several times more emotions than males, as well as far less emotional control. (just watch any 'chick flick' for proof of that last) Also, once puberty sets in their emotions would be even more confusing, frustrating and uncontrolled. This could be cured with drugs, but that might make the girl useless in making her own decisions both on the field and off. But soon I will present another possible solution.

A thought would be to have a boy and girl work together. Anyone who looks at pubescent boys knows that if a cute girl tells him to do something he will do it without hesitation. Perhaps affection should be encouraged, and pairs made to work with eachother often. The girl would be the voice of reason and control amidst the turmoil of battle. And the boy would be the better warrior with his natural agression and instincts to protect women/lover/partner. Extrapolating this idea further, perhaps they could have different jobs if working as teams, the girl recon and the boy fighting. The best choice would only be found with experimentation. Should this relationship be allowed to flower into more than affectionate teamwork? That is hard to say. that is a true double edged sword. On the one hand, they could recieve lots of reassurance and security knowing they have someone to love, and they would work to the death to protect eachother, and the male in particular would (quite litterally now) kill for her. The other hand shows us the horrendous consequences of their falling out of love, and having fights, possibly resulting in ruin of missions or even killings of eachother. This could be reinforced, (possibly) with intensive psychological work, even if they begin to hate eachother. Everyone can be taught to like something, perhaps the same extends to liking people. Not knowing a much about teenage female reactions (as though anyone does...) I cannot state for certain the worst case or even ideal scenarios that would occur from more than affection. The problems of all teenagers would apply I suppose, and what with the incredible amount of mind abuse they have taken already they might be unstable. However, upon reflection, the training works specifically to make sure that they do not become emotionally unstable. It is an interesting question, and one that can only be answered by trial and error.

I would predict such a program would take a few generations to work out properly. Lots of issues would arise, but with any luck more solutions than problems would be created.

Going back to the amorous killers, should they be allowed to breed? This could be interesting. If they were allowed to breed, it could be a form of eugenics. trying to make an even better child soldier. however, they could not be proper parents, as they are not trained for it. And as can easily be seen it is exceedingly difficult to take babies from parents. However, I'm confident they could be convinced to hand over the children to their own 'parents' (the people who trained them) and thus a new generation of children would be ready, and already indoctrinated into the mindset that the organization is trying to create.

Children are handy however because they are easiest to train, and as said earlier with proper encouragement of joy and parental approval can be taught to adore their jobs. The strong ties to their parental unit would also make them extremely unlikely to defect or reveal information under duress. They may have some problems with weapons, (the recoil may be too much to handle at first, but as any shooter knows you get used to it and can overcome it.) and they would need to be occupied and cared for almost every waking minute when not on duty. Thus, choice of parents would have to be very careful, as they must not cave under the pressure of entertaining young boys and girls for hours a day, day after day.

Perhaps unity between the children (all of them) should be enforced as well. However, they should NOT compete. Why? imagine if they start to compete on how many kills they can get? Massacre occurs. Again, problem. But if they are taught something along the lines of bettering their team, like a sports team, and making unity, this would be good. they could be told that the terrorists are an enemy team, and it's all some sort of game. (Metaphorically speaking, that is, they should probably be aware that it is not a game. this would be part of the trust of the parent. and responsibility of killing understood in the begining.) Though it seems all humans have the desire to compete, perhaps they could be allowed the outlet of who is the better marksman or better piano player or other activities that are inoffensive. Video games are an idea, but that comes dangerously close to competition in the negative sense. It would be morbidly amusing to see them playing shooter games, and a worthy study to see how they react to them and how skilled they are. Something innocent and uncomplicated, like Wii games, would be ideal, for their casual nature and thus lack of anger over loosing.

If they children ever work together, they would need to love eachother like brothers and sisters and want to help eachother. Affection to parents and other children should be strongly encouraged (many hugs, outings, whatever it takes) but not much if any affection should be allowed for others, because they may consider the terrorists others to be loved. I'm not sure how you would be able to program the total lack of affection for strangers yet obsession over their own. Perhaps a form of xenophobia.

Children are also ideal soldiers, because nearly everyone, no matter how hardcore a terrorist or hired gun hesitates before popping a child's head open. Perhaps it's instinctual, perhaps societal who can say. Whatever it is, it's there, and should be taken advantage of. This will alow an extra second or two when the child is atacking. As any NRA instructor will tell you, that's all you need to use your gun, and then some. This will give a strong advantage to the child, make the child much safer, and make them able to make better shots and more careful of harming other people such as bystanders, hostages, civilians, or other teammates. Also, the simple confusion people feel when they see a child with a gun, automatically assuming it is a toy and thus ignoring its threat potential.

what if the child dies? the parental units may have become attatched to the child, and then they may become depressed or other negative psychological reactions that parents go through when they loose their child. they may have to be eliminated as a security threat, or if they are able, they can be transferred to a new child. But that may be very hard. However, if they are strong enough psychoogically to be parents to killer children in the first place, then they may be able to handle the transition. If not, they they would be moved to another department or removed.

All in all, children soldiers if done properly could be a good asset.